Unethical bloggers? The Calipari case

This will be a short diary based on an article by the NPR Ombudsman posted on the NPR site.
It is in reference to the Pentagon report on the killing of Nicola Calipari. Since the story was thoroughly blogged here at Kos, I thought the Ombudsman's article is of particular relevance to us.
More below the fold.

When Those Pesky Blogs Undermine NPR News
May 3, 2005 It seems there are no secrets any more... even when you try to keep them.
(snip)
Two Issues
First, it is essential to report on government documents.  But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives. There are times when editors have to make a difficult choice between the public's right to know and the risk of endangering lives.  But this was not one of those instances. NPR was right to remove the documents from its Web site once it became clear that the full version could be accessed.
Second, the blogosphere has proven once again to be an amoral place with few rules.  The consequences for misbehavior are still vague.  The possibility of civic responsibility remains remote.  It is a place where the philosophy of "who posts first, wins" predominates.

So, the government can cheat.  Steal.  Kill and lie about it.
Investigate itself and cook up a report.  Redact 20% of it - the most essential bits.  Such as the names of those involved. Imagine, now their stories can be double checked when they return (they're probably well prepped now, anyway).
Were the bloggers (we) unethical in perusing information that was intended to be hidden?  Are we amoral, as the Ombudsman suggests?
Read the article!   He has some interesting views on several issues.  Among them a quote from the Political Editor of NPR, showing that snark thrives outside the blogosphere as well:

Finally, congratulations to the dozens and dozens of free thinkers who wrote in, often using the exact same language, regarding a piece by NPR's David Welna on the oncoming collision in the Senate over the right of the minority to filibuster judicial nominations.

(BTW, were bloggers the first to break this - I thought it originated in Italian newspaper news rooms??)

Crossposted at Boomantribune

•  Tip jar

  Since the TANG/Rather-case last fall, it is common knowledge that anything posted on the internets will come under extreme scrutiny.  Post at your own risk!

  by ask on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:28:41 PM PDT

•  NPR Ombudsman

  The rightwing bloggers might have gotten it from NPR, but it was one Italian newspaper online that provided the scoop.

  Further proof that NPR has been gelded by the Bush administration.

  by TarheelDem on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:30:25 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    It was La Repubblica, the main newspaper in Rome, which first figured out about the redacted portions of the report being available. They posted several articles about it on their front page; Bloggers and other newspapers in Italy picked up on it from there.

    by silence on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:01:13 PM PDT

    •  to be accurate ...

      It was a reader from La Repubblica, as I recall a foreign med student in Bologna.

      Pax
      & greetings silence!

      Oui - Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité

      by Oui on Sat May 07, 2005 at 12:20:44 AM PDT

    •  Who discovered full report

      It seems there's a controversy on that.

      It seems that the winner is a Greek student from Bologna who unredacted the report by 1:25 AM, May 1st. He sent an email to Ansa and began calling up everybody he could, but no one paid any attention to him.

      At 8:00 AM Gianluca Neri, a journalist and blogger, caught on to the trick and, apparently thanks to his reputation and circuit savvy, managed to alert Ansa again. He also put the redacted version on line on his own blog after consulting a lawyer.

      La Repubblica and il Corriere immediately picked up the story and quickly put it on line. La Repubblica, however, provided a link to Neri's site, Macchianera, without citing him.

      There was a net-brawl afterwards in which many claimed to be the first to have discovered the trick. But as of this writing, it's the anonymous Greek student the documented winner.
      

      by rom wyo on Sat May 07, 2005 at 12:40:00 AM PDT

      •  Interesting

        I saw it on La Repubblica, and didn't see any indication that it was anywhere else first, so I assumed that they were the ones who figured it out.

        by silence on Sat May 07, 2005 at 01:13:34 AM PDT

      •  slight error

        It was il Corriere and not la Repubblica that first correctly cited and link Macchianera. It appears that la Repubblica turned a blind eye as if it were their scoop. The two national papers started putting the unredacted report on line around 1:30 PM, May 1st, 12 hours after the Greek student's email to Ansa.

        by rom wyo on Sat May 07, 2005 at 01:14:41 AM PDT

•  The initials will remain the same

  but the P will now stand for Propaganda.
  Welcome to W's world.

  by ctkeith on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:35:29 PM PDT

•  Just so I understand Dvorkin clearly

  Bloggers have proven themselves "amoral" yet again, because they made public classified information that may, hypothetically, put people's lives in danger.

  I can't wait to read his views on a print columnist making public the identity of a covert CIA agent for pure politics, very definitely putting that agent's life in danger.

  Oh, wait, in order for him to comment, NPR would have to do a story on it. Ah, well.

  by grimc on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:39:28 PM PDT

•  Dvorkin Doesn't Get It

  [comment cross-posted from Booman Tribune]

  Jeffery Dvorkin (the NPR Ombudsman) clearly doesn't understand the transformation that's underway in the media.  He seems to feel that information is to be properly filtered and disseminated by official arbiters, of which NPR would be considered one.  To him, the participatory element found in blogging has dangerously blurred the line between journalist and citizen.  Of course, our response to that would be, "Why not be both?!"  In his world, no journalist should ever interact with the readers, who ought to remain entirely passive as they receive their pre-digested information.  Critical thought should thus be banished.  George Orwell would be proud.

  Dvorkin states, "The possibility of civic responsibility remains remote. It is a place where the philosophy of 'who posts first, wins' predominates."  This willfully turns a blind eye to the "noble" journalistic tradition -- of at least 100 years standing -- of the scoop and the breaking edition.  Newspapers and television have long operated under the model that it is often better to report the story first, rather than to be sure of its complete accuracy.  They're generally in a for-profit business, and time is money.

  Dvorkin's claim that blogs "are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling" is belied by examples within his profession far too numerous to detail.  Given the frequently aggressive, adversarial back-and-forth flow in blogs (either through comments or between different sites), an outright falsehood is far more likely to be exposed as such -- and exposed quickly -- than would be the case within his hallowed halls of journalism.

  Another thing that I find astounding is that Dvorkin presumes -- without any evidence whatsoever in support -- that no member of the "traditional" media would ever deign to use information gleaned from an unredacted version of the Pentagon report.  Perish the thought!  Surely only nefarious bloggers would dare to reveal government secrets about which the administration has determined we are better off remaining ignorant.  I can hardly refrain from excessive eye-rolling at this naïveté.  Yes, now that I think about it, it was definitely bloggers who disclosed some 25+ years ago that one could learn to build a nuclear bomb from publicly available scientific papers.  Er, wait, no it wasn't.

  The only point on which I can agree with Dvorkin (and he doesn't even make this point clearly, or well), is that anyone who chooses to publish information should consider the potential consequences of doing so and, by extension, be held to account for that choice.  Just because he feels that someone else (whether or not a blogger) has reached a different judgment than his own does not, however, make the blogosphere "an amoral place."  It reeks of a holier-than-thou absolutism for Dvorkin to claim this with a straight face.

  Information Is Power.  There are two ways of approaching this statement.  One version (apparently endorsed by Dvorkin) holds that those who amass information and parcel it out only in small amounts will retain for themselves power, leaving all others at their mercy.  The other interpretation, in which I have always believed, holds that as more information is distributed to a greater number of people, the more powerful that entirety of people becomes.  Only under such circumstances can that citizenry be capable of truly informed decisions.

  by The Maven on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:00:22 PM PDT

  •  Dvorkin sounds foolish

    Does anyone really read blogs without a grain of salt added?  They would be as silly as the Army PR person would put out the comnplete file in PDF format without considering how the redacted portions had been edited.

    As if the Networks don't fall all over themselves to be the first to release voting results or the color of smoke emerging from the Sistine Chapel.  They may be more bureaucratic and have fact checkers in their employ, but that system hasn't looked perfect lately either.

    Most of the classified stuff was secret/no foreign release, which is very often inferior to open source information (despite the implied quality of sources).  I doubt that the revealed info really put any additional soldiers at risk; besides, if the report is accurate and they didn't have standards set for conducting the mission, how can you compromise tactical information that doesn't exist?

    by RMeister on Fri May 06, 2005 at 06:15:42 PM PDT