Thursday, May 30, 2013

Freedom of the press

In a column published in USA Today, Jonathan Turley is feeling a little cranky about the Justice Department investigating reporters; he even calls, in the headline, for the firing of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Turley is a very smart, highly educated man. This doesn't stop him from being wrong. Not completely wrong, I'll admit; but he is arguably incorrect in the larger sense here.

Turley's point, at its center, is that Holder approved the search of email and phone records for Fox "News" reporter James Rosen and (Turley mentions in passing) the Associated Press. Turley holds to the idea that a "free press," as delineated in the Constitution, is vital.

And he does make a point. It was a free press that showed Nixon as the abusive, power-hungry paranoid that he was. It is a free press that turns up scandals and crimes that are otherwise hidden from sight.

But what Turley is missing is that, just like free speech, a free press has limits. Or, to be more accurate, it has consequences: Turley and the AP both have the right to report on whatever they find, but they both have to take responsibility for any repercussions that might occur due to their reporting.

See, with Fox, the Justice Department got a search warrant from a federal judge, which gave them the opportunity to thumb through Rosen's phone records and email. And all because Rosen had reported on missile tests in North Korea; these tests were conducted as a response to the UN Security Council's condemnation of North Korea's bat-shit insane leader's nuclear aspirations. And Rosen learned all this from leaks of classified information which came from Stephen Kim, who has since been fired from the State Department.

North Korea is a notoriously paranoid and insular country, and the classified leaks allowed the North Koreans to cut off one of our few sources of intelligence from inside their borders.

The Associated Press story is a little more complicated, mostly because of the overblown hyperbole used by the AP in defense of their people. The AP published a story about a foiled bomb plot, and their story revealed the identity of a Saudi spy who'd been inserted into notoriously terrorist-friendly Yemen.

The Justice Department once again got a search warrant, as they should, and they used it to subpoena phone records from an editor and six reporters (including the Washington bureau chief, Sally Buzbee). Those seven people, though, used phones out in the common area of the AP news room which were used by every reporter who passed through the bureau; this allowed AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll to claim that the news service is "shocked" by what happened, and that the Justice Department cast a "very broad net" which pulled in AP operations "that have, as far as I know, no particular connection to the story that they seem to be investigating."

Sorry, lady, that's the way investigation works. To pull out the gold nuggets, sometimes you have to pan through a lot of pebbles. You'd probably know this if the AP did any actual investigation these days, instead of just stenography of other people's talking points.

Thanks to these two stories, we've lost access to one of the few available sources of information on the nuclear aspirations of a raving madman, and to a spy embedded in a terrorist cell.

And that's the real scandal.

6 comments:

  1. Good research Nameless. Another proof that a good B-lister need never watch TV again!

    ReplyDelete
  2. A free press is by definition free. Limiting a free press makes it by definition less free. Therein lies the danger.

    Your point is indeed valod and well stated. With a free press, as in all things free there is the need for RESPONSIBLE freedom.

    Given the choice of a totally free press or one even slightly regulated by government I will take the first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was trying to explain the 3 big non-scandals of 2 weeks ago to my wife, and suddenly realized that I really didn't have a grasp on what the AP/Fox story was really about, other than "Obama is attacking freedom of the press!"

    I had to do more research than I really should have needed to do, just to figure out the details. When I finally dug them out, it seemed pretty obvious. But it's the one thing that Fox and the AP isn't telling us.

    Funny, that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nameless,
      Not just AP and Fox, but most MSMs boycotted Holder’s off-the-record meeting, including HuffPo, CBS, CNN, and the New York Times. You can count on one hand those publications that attended: WaPo, and WallPaper. Oh yes, one more: The BBC reported the meeting as “contructive.”

      Constructive or not, the ONE QUESTION lost beneath this bogus scandal should be: Do reporters have the right to compromise intelligence and national security under the guise of freedom of the press? And perhaps this: Which should take precedence, commercial self-interest or citizenship? My attitude on these matters may be atypical: My oldest offspring works in a polygon capacity, and I resent it when blockheads put our intelligence community at risk.

      During the Benghazi investigation, the House Oversight Committee compromised Libyan nationals working for the CIA. Darth Cheney compromised Valerie Plame. These days, politics takes precedence over intelligence (and you can read this any way you want).

      Delete
  4. Complicated question. "Do reporters have the right?" depends entirely on the story. It's a resounding yes, when Republicans break the law or commit treason and it's always impeachable when it's Democrats, even if it's a parking ticket.

    Cynicism aside, it seems to be true as far as the Media is concerned.

    While I might admire someone who exposes real wrongdoing, if the law is going to be law, that person has to face consequences commensurate with the damage done -- consequences done through the courts, of course. I do believe that any freedom needs to have limits -- Shouting fire in the theater, libel and all that.

    And of course Cheney needs a prison term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt, we need a free press to expose chicanery and corruption and wrongdoing if there is any hope in keeping what little remains of Democracy.

      Yet, I question whether or not THIS media truly represents the guardians of our freedom. THIS media is CORPORATE media, and they do a lousy self-serving job. In delivering audience share to their advertisers, they pander to sensationalism - talking heads theater with little or no investigative reports, no attempt to determine the veracity of competing claims, utterly immune to accountability, and lacking in journalistic integrity. This non-scandal is a chicken pluck orchestrated by Republicans to score political points without regard to the impact on national security.

      How can this country recruit foreign nationals for intelligence gathering when Republicans in Congress leak their names to the press and expose them? How can there be freedom without responsibility? And why can’t Attorney General Holder state the problem as clearly and succinctly as this? Thus far, we have witnessed a chicken-pluck followed by a chicken-shit response.

      Who monitors the monitors? I don’t trust corporate media. Every time Republicans conspire with their corporate clients, pieces of America float away.

      Delete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.