Journalism Dead, News At 11
If the Constitution falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Yesterday I posted about a story I read which I believed was a major revelation in relation to the President's increasingly widespread domestic spying efforts... news from ABC News online that "A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources." Translation: The government is spying on reporters' private phone conservations in order to find whistleblowers who have leaked information to them. This is a major abuse of power, proof that the spying activities are not just focused on terrorists, and is an unconstitutional assault of the freedom of an independent press.
Seems like a major story, no? Headline news in most of the major papers?
Apparently not.
Aside from the original reporting at ABC News online, I have only come across two mentions of this huge story- a critical report from conservative commentator Joe Scarborough on MSNBC on Monday and a story on last night's 'Colbert Report'. Yes, you read that right. Comedy Central covered the story; CNN did not. Atrios is also shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of the media, noting the silence thus far from the editorial pages of the NY Times and Washington Post.
Yesterday, I also noted the original ABC News item was swarmed with right-wing comments calling the press "seditionist creeps" and repeating the far-right meme that the media are traitors and trying to sabotage the government's actions to keep us all safe from terrorism (® Bush/Cheney Co., 2001). This talking point is frightening in what it implies this group thinks of the First Amendment. They hear the word "leak", they think
Considering what lapdogs the press has been in general in recent years, perhaps it is no wonder that it seems extreme to some on the rare occasions when they actually do what they're supposed to... dig for the truth. I firmly believe if these far-righters had their way in 1972, Mark Felt would've been uncovered and imprisoned (along with Woodward and Bernstein) and President Nixon would've served out his second term in full.
We'll see if their standards remain the same under a Democratic president.
The comments under the newest ABC News online update- which states, among other things, "The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases"- seem to get the point of all this a lot better. One commenter notes "The government is trying to classify anyone who exposes those government programs that are illegal and unconstitutional as a terrorist or somehow aiding and abetting." Another rightfully asks, "Why has this story not been picked up on other services? This seems like a huge story."
They get it. The press at large- the targets here- seem not to.
It must be that liberal media bias I hear so much about. They just won't shut up about this story! Why I couldn't turn on a news program today without hearing about.... umm, Britney's pregnancy. I realized at this point that if learning that the government is spying on them won't wake the media up from their self-induced beltway slumber, nothing will. I fear that Carl Bernstein may kill himself just so he can roll over in his grave.
Bottom line- If we keep accepting each new revelation, where does it end and who makes that decision? The Decider? The NSA? It's a very dangerous path to head down and a particularly wrong one for a nation which verbally worries about losing its "freedoms" to our enemies.
2 Comments:
Didn't the New York Times beatify Judith Miller for going to jail in allegedly fighting for her right to protect her sources?
Yes they did, and normally I might agree with a journalist protecting sources at all costs, but Miller was no First Amendment martyr... she was protecting a close friend- Scooter Libby- an advisor to the President who aided in outing a CIA agent. And, of course, in that case, how did they find out who the sources were? Did they wiretap and spy on the records of reporters like Miller or Matt Cooper? No they (GASP!) opened a formal investigation, issued subpoenas, took testimony, etc. They followed the law, they did everything in the open. Fitzgerald's investigation is a textbook case in professionalism.
What President Bush and the NSA are doing are textbook cases in trampling on the Constitution.
But I may be preaching to choir here, I don't know.
Post a Comment
<< Home