New abuses or business as usual


Going after leakers isn't new
Seems like the White House is getting serious about shutting leaks down. That isn't surprising.

In a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper.

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

"There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors," said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. "I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad."

One irritating thing is that people have short memories. The Clinton Administration did some very strange things. The other irritating thing is that some in the media think they should have special privileges. Roger L. Simon gets that part right.

It's no surprise the Fourth Estate elevates itself to a higher moral plane. We all do - or want to. And the government always makes a particularly good target. Power corrupts, etc., etc. Except that both the media and the government have the power in our society - and sometimes the media has more of it. Some of this has to do with platform, some to do with longevity. The satraps of the Fourth Estate linger on for decades while pols often disappear as quickly as you can say Tom DeLay. Which side deserves more protection? Well, neither do. Both should be subject to inspection, always mindful that the protection of society involves the existence of some kind of functioning intelligence service and that whistle-blowers have agendas of their own. The idea that the press should always be able to protect these sources depends on the mind-boggling premise that reporters will always be objective (who is?), not to mention the assumption that these same reporters and editors would always be able to evaluate accurately the motives of others (who can?). No, the views of mainstream media have become antediluvian on this one. Open up! Open up!

Yes, I think the Bush Administration overstepped it's bounds. I also think the Clinton Administration overstepped it's bounds. I don't think either was justified, I think it was always more about political objectives and abuse of power.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - March 6, 2006 at 04:58 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved