Freedom of Press

[P@triot]

An interesting issue. On the one hand, freedom of the press is critical and the New York Times is in the business of press - not National Security. On the other hand, the NY Times just revealed the identity of an operative - essentially providing a national security secret to our enemies. At best, it is unpatriotic. At worst, it could be construed as "treason".

What say you, USMB community? Should the press reveal anything that it learns or do they have some sort of responsibility to protect certain information?

NY Times explains why they published name of undercover CIA agent — it does not go over well

 

[task0778]

From the link, this is the explanation the Times gave. It is bullshit, whether the person is in the field somewhere or the agency's HQ makes no difference. The American public doesn't need to know who pushes the button, they need to know why we did it and who got killed. Beyond that, they already know who is ultimately responsible for any drone strike: the President. Treason is I think a little too strong, but I do think when a person's life has been endangered the publisher ought to face criminal consequences for that.


In this case, editors decided to publish the name because [the agent] is a senior official who runs operations from the agency’s headquarters outside Washington, not in the field. He is also the architect of the C.I.A.’s program to use drones to kill high-ranking militants, one of the government’s most significant paramilitary programs. We believe that the American public has a right to know who is making life-or-death decisions in its name.


Re the poll I think it's irresponsible to reveal everything but it is responsible to reveal some of the W questions, like where, when, why, and who was targeted and who got killed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Leaking information of agents from leaks from the WH can get people killed.

Reporting information on our military strategy or troop numbers in combat areas can aid the enemy in information they may not have already known.

The Press should NOT report everything especially when it pertains to National Security.

 

[Coyote]

Valerie Plame...

 

[BULLDOG]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

 

[JGalt]

The press should have to reveal their sources, instead of referring to them as "anonymous sources".

If the "anonymous source" has a problem with being known, then they shouldn't talk to the press in the first place.

 

[P@triot]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

 

[BULLDOG]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

 

[Fenton Lum]

An interesting issue. On the one hand, freedom of the press is critical and the New York Times is in the business of press - not National Security. On the other hand, the NY Times just revealed the identity of an operative - essentially providing a national security secret to our enemies. At best, it is unpatriotic. At worst, it could be construed as "treason".

What say you, USMB community? Should the press reveal anything that it learns or do they have some sort of responsibility to protect certain information?

NY Times explains why they published name of undercover CIA agent — it does not go over well

"free press" got bought up by the arostocracy

An interesting issue. On the one hand, freedom of the press is critical and the New York Times is in the business of press - not National Security. On the other hand, the NY Times just revealed the identity of an operative - essentially providing a national security secret to our enemies. At best, it is unpatriotic. At worst, it could be construed as "treason".

What say you, USMB community? Should the press reveal anything that it learns or do they have some sort of responsibility to protect certain information?

NY Times explains why they published name of undercover CIA agent — it does not go over well

"Free press" was bought up by the aristocracy, just like "democracy". The "old world" came to the "new world" for a fresh start, cleansed the land of the new world, and re-established the old world on another land mass.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's not the nature of the press' industry that requires them to report what they've learned. It's a free press' role as a key element of democracy that requires them to do so.

• Freedom of the Press and Free Speech
• The role of the free press in promoting democratization, good governance, and human development
  
• The Fourth Branch of the Government: Evaluating the Media 's Role in Overseeing the Independent Judiciary
  
• Right to know: the ‘nation’, the ‘people’ and the Fourth Estate
  
• The Media as Fourth Estate of the Realm

The fact that the nature of information the press communicates these days is very different from that of days long gone. Clearly the change is that vastly more news commentary and analysis comes from our press organizations.

IMO, the change is an outgrowth of media organizations' need to be profitable and the Internet. Quite simply, basic and esoteric facts are, via the Internet, readily available to all. Accordingly, there's little reason for radio and television news networks, news magazines and newspapers to focus on merely relaying dry facts. The abundance and ease of access to factual information presents a challenge, that of identifying and delivering information that isn't readily available, prior to a news organization publishing it, on the Internet.

By the same token, there is now so much available very high quality factual information that some people feel so overwhelmed that they won't bother to "make heads or tails" of it, others aren't able to do so, some may not be aware of the abundance of unbiased (politically speaking) information available at their fingertips, and others simply acquiesce to abdicating to the press their responsibility for reviewing rigorously determined factual information. Anyone who's spent much time observing the content referenced on USMB can see those things manifested.

• How people learn about their local community (See in particular page 3 of the report)
  
• The Information Age and the Printing Press Looking Backward to See Ahead
  
• What effect has the internet had on journalism?

Quite simply, one can count on one hand the quantity of members who reference original researc,h or who reference presentations of proven principles/theories, and in turn offer their own conclusions that are soundly drawn from that content. In contrast, one can find countless instances of members citing editorial content, all of which is someone else's, a person who's already arrived at their conclusions, assemblage and analysis of original references the author chose to support their own point of view they've chosen to argue. Moreover, quite often editorialists and commentators present references and sources, or "cherry picked" excerpts from them, that fit the narrative they want to advance.

Now, I don't think it's problematic that people consume editorial content. I think it problematic that they do so and in turn allow themselves to fall victim to confirmation bias. Since the very early days of the printing press, leaders and the ld have depended upon the publishing industry to disseminate knowledge. When the House of Elsevier in 1638 published Galileo’s Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intorno a due nuove scienze (The Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences), it and the author challenged the widely held beliefs of that time about the origins of the universe. Religious institutions of the day held such thinking as heretical, but the availability of the written word that could be easily transported and made Galileo's discoveries available for others to study, and their doing so and building upon his findings propelled enlightenment and knowledge.

Today, there are hundreds, perhaps more, of information publishers who perform the same role Elsevier did -- publishing very high quality original research -- yet the content the content they produce is not what most people consume. The problem is not the press and what it publishes. Rather, the problem is that people patronize the press that offers middling to poorly developed information, information that is often most notable for its provocativeness.

 

[BlackFlag]

It's scary how Trump sheep like the OP want to do away with the 1st amendment

 

[Mac1958]

An interesting issue. On the one hand, freedom of the press is critical and the New York Times is in the business of press - not National Security. On the other hand, the NY Times just revealed the identity of an operative - essentially providing a national security secret to our enemies. At best, it is unpatriotic. At worst, it could be construed as "treason".

What say you, USMB community? Should the press reveal anything that it learns or do they have some sort of responsibility to protect certain information?

NY Times explains why they published name of undercover CIA agent — it does not go over well

Freedom of the Press is clearly critical to the proper functioning of a democracy, perhaps more than anything else, but there is a glaring potential weak link - it assumes the press is going to act responsibly and in an unbiased way.

With the advent of the internet, intense competition has clearly brought standards down. We're now at a point at which "the press" itself is nearly impossible to identify, and at which it is no longer putting a great deal of effort into being unbiased (in either direction). Plus, the press is now more likely to run with a story that it may have held back on in the past, such as this one.

Doesn't bode well for a democracy.
.

 

[fncceo]

An interesting issue. On the one hand, freedom of the press is critical and the New York Times is in the business of press - not National Security. On the other hand, the NY Times just revealed the identity of an operative - essentially providing a national security secret to our enemies. At best, it is unpatriotic. At worst, it could be construed as "treason".

What say you, USMB community? Should the press reveal anything that it learns or do they have some sort of responsibility to protect certain information?

NY Times explains why they published name of undercover CIA agent — it does not go over well

If the press does release classified information, it can only do so because of failures in the system to keep classified information out of the hands of those who are not eligible to receive it.

Leakers are the traitors, not the press.

However, if the press prints rumour and innuendo as fact with the intent to damage the government, they can be said to be traitorous.

 

[Fenton Lum]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

If the press felt like it had any responsibility it would not lead us into bogus colonial wars of aggression, but it was bought up by corporate interests. Bezos bought up the Wall Street Journal but has a deal with the CIA worth more than 3 times what he paid for the paper. Our "free press" is a tool of control.

 

[BULLDOG]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

If the press felt like it had any responsibility it would not lead us into bogus colonial wars of aggression, but it was bought up by corporate interests. Bezos bought up the Wall Street Journal but has a deal with the CIA worth more than 3 times what he paid for the paper. Our "free press" is a tool of control.

I'm unaware of that but I would be interested in learning more about it. You got a link or two to help me get started?

 

[Fenton Lum]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

If the press felt like it had any responsibility it would not lead us into bogus colonial wars of aggression, but it was bought up by corporate interests. Bezos bought up the Wall Street Journal but has a deal with the CIA worth more than 3 times what he paid for the paper. Our "free press" is a tool of control.

I'm unaware of that but I would be interested in learning more about it. You got a link or two to help me get started?

Anyone really interested in confronting the illusion of america can find links by performing searches. That is what the internet is for, even though it is repeatedly scrubbed by the corporate authoritarians of uncomfortable information the masses may learn of. May not be your intent here, but typically all anyone really is after when they ask for a link is to hurl partisanshithead accusations of "fake" or "false" based upon the source of the link ---- which should always be triangulated by the coherent observer anyway. No link is ever anything more than a place to start for those genuinely interested in objective critical reality.

WashPost Owner Secretly Doing Business With the CIA

Trump Leak Now Points To Bezos' Hidden $600M Deal With Obama CIA To Feed Washington Post - Conservative Daily Post

 

[whitehall]

Reveal anything? The NYT knew about Wilson's stroke and kept it secret, that FDR would not live out his 4th term (he made it 4 months) and kept it a secret, JFK's womanizing and relationship with film babes and his addiction to prescription drugs because of a congenital back problem but they kept it a secret. .The NYT knew about Bill Clinton's sexual abuse and they joked about Hillary's "bimbo eruption squad". The point is that the dying mulch media is whining because it is criticized for targeting only republicans. Boo-hoo.

 

[BULLDOG]

There have always been security issues that the press has been asked not to reveal. That should be reserved for legitimate reasons concerning the security of our country, and not just to protect any particular politician or private individual.

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

If the press felt like it had any responsibility it would not lead us into bogus colonial wars of aggression, but it was bought up by corporate interests. Bezos bought up the Wall Street Journal but has a deal with the CIA worth more than 3 times what he paid for the paper. Our "free press" is a tool of control.

I'm unaware of that but I would be interested in learning more about it. You got a link or two to help me get started?

Anyone really interested in confronting the illusion of america can find links by performing searches. That is what the internet is for, even though it is repeatedly scrubbed by the corporate authoritarians of uncomfortable information the masses may learn of. May not be your intent here, but typically all anyone really is after when they ask for a link is to hurl partisanshithead accusations of "fake" or "false" based upon the source of the link ---- which should always be triangulated by the coherent observer anyway. No link is ever anything more than a place to start for those genuinely interested in objective critical reality.

WashPost Owner Secretly Doing Business With the CIA

Trump Leak Now Points To Bezos' Hidden $600M Deal With Obama CIA To Feed Washington Post - Conservative Daily Post

You can't really call alt Right sites that are well known for lies a valid place to start.

 

[P@triot]

It's scary how Trump sheep like the OP want to do away with the 1st amendment

WTF are you talking about? I asked a clear question and you decide to turn that into a statement? Desperate, much?

 

[Tehon]

Just playing "Devils Advocate" here: isn't the government's responsibility to keep their people/information secret? If the press is able to learn of that classified information, shouldn't they report it?

As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. Should the media report the names and locations of our spies? The press has a responsibility to the public, but it also has a responsibility to the country. Note that I said the country, and not any particular party or person.

If the press felt like it had any responsibility it would not lead us into bogus colonial wars of aggression, but it was bought up by corporate interests. Bezos bought up the Wall Street Journal but has a deal with the CIA worth more than 3 times what he paid for the paper. Our "free press" is a tool of control.

I'm unaware of that but I would be interested in learning more about it. You got a link or two to help me get started?

Anyone really interested in confronting the illusion of america can find links by performing searches. That is what the internet is for, even though it is repeatedly scrubbed by the corporate authoritarians of uncomfortable information the masses may learn of. May not be your intent here, but typically all anyone really is after when they ask for a link is to hurl partisanshithead accusations of "fake" or "false" based upon the source of the link ---- which should always be triangulated by the coherent observer anyway. No link is ever anything more than a place to start for those genuinely interested in objective critical reality.

WashPost Owner Secretly Doing Business With the CIA

Trump Leak Now Points To Bezos' Hidden $600M Deal With Obama CIA To Feed Washington Post - Conservative Daily Post

You can't really call alt Right sites that are well known for lies a valid place to start.

And you can't really call your response an interest in learning. A simple search will give multiple sources that help establish the validity of the story.
amazon web services cia - Google Search