The Media, Discretion Standards, & National Security – Should There Be a Connection?
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, Media, The War On TerrorismFrom a current O’Reilly “Talking Points” topic certain to stir up some compelling conclusions and discussions …
Today, The New York Times ran a story pinpointing countries in Europe that have allowed CIA planes to land on their soil in ongoing operations after 9/11. The story does two things â€â€? gives America’s enemies information, and it could encourage al Qaeda to attack the countries that have helped the USA. That’s speculative, but there’s no question European countries are under pressure not to help the CIA.
So here’s my question. Does that help you and your family? If the world will not cooperate with the Central Intelligence Agency, doesn’t that make it easier for terrorists to operate? Of course it does.
This never would have happened during World War II. Franklin Roosevelt created an Office of Censorship in 1941 and pressure was put upon American news organizations not to publish information “that the enemy might be interested in.”
Now before you started crying “censorship?!?! This is America!”
Let’s look at motivation and purpose when it comes to determining what information is shared with the general public …
Now this is very difficult territory. The American public has a right to know how the Bush administration is waging the war on terror. We have a right to know what’s going on.
There comes a point when the media has to decide if the information they’re disseminating is going to damage the war effort. You know, I don’t have to know where the CIA planes are landing in Europe. Do you? That information is not vital to me. And again, the information hurts the USA and the war on terror.
So we’re appealing to the American press to help fight the terrorists, rather than to use the conflict to promote a political point of view. Let’s do what’s good for the country. Is that is too much to ask? And that’s “The Memo.”
What obligation do you feel the press has in using discretion, especially in the interests of national security, when determining what to and not to publish?
This entry was posted on Friday, December 2nd, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, Media, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:01 pm
I think that the press shouldn’t print stuff that helps the enemy in any way…
I understand that they feel very strongly about the public’s right to know. I also feel very strongly about it in normal circumstances, when we are at war and ‘telling’ the public about something during that war helps the enemy during the war is a different matter. It’s not that I have a problem with telling us about it, it is ‘when’ they tell us about it. If you want to have investigations into conduct, do it after the war. If you want to point out something that you think was done wrong, do it after the war. We can debate about it then… not when something you say can cause the death of a soldier.
It is truly sad that there are so many people that put their political party before their country.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
What reason could the NYT have for printing that info? Why do they
even feel the need to print it? I honestly can’t come up with a need for
the American public (or the world) to know that kind of info.
I wonder how they obtained the info. If it was thru freedom of information, there still was no good reason to. However, this seems
like it should be classified info. If that’s the case, who leaked it? That could be much more dangerous than leaking the name of a CIA operative. Back in WWII, that type of leak could lead to an execution. aaahhhh…. the good old days.
December 2nd, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Hmm, interesting question… I need to think very carefully…
How is about the converse -
To what extent should the media (a newspaper) publish, without question, only the “news” that an administration wants heard?