Glenn Reynolds gets a “Best of the Blogs” on PJM this morning for an important and lengthy (for him) post on the growing conflict between the administration and the press over security leaks. I couldn’t be more with Glenn on this one when he writes: The tendency of the press to conflate its own desire for guild-like special privileges with the protections of the First Amendment is one of the reasons for its decline in trust and popularity.
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!
UPDATE: Byron York at the Corner, regarding leaks:
Too late, the Times and its allies realized that a terrible precedent had been set. Now some of them try to argue that the Wilson leak was an act of retribution, while the NSA and secret prisons leaks were the work of good-government whistleblowers, so one should be vigorously prosecuted while the others are ignored. It won’t work. Leaks are leaks, and the NSA and secret prisons leaks were, by any estimation, far more damaging to national security than the Wilson leak. (In that case, the special prosecutor said in court recently that he did not intend to show that any damage occurred from the leak.)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
34 Comments
1. Jamie Irons:Roger,
The tendency of the press to conflate its own desire for guild-like special privileges with the protections of the First Amendment…
This is a key point, and I am surprised no one has made it this clearly and succinctly before.
I also like your suggestion that Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? be applied liberally and to all factions.
Jamie Irons
Mar 5, 2006 - 9:02 am 2. michael ledeen:plenty of people have said it. Many many years ago I wrote that the press had become the fourth branch of government, with special privileges. The executive branch used to claim an absolute right to conceal its sources and methods, but the press broke that–through its canny, selective application of the First Amendment–and then claimed it as its own unique right. And the press functions exactly like a branch of government, fighting for preferred policies, etc. And its classic method is precisely the same as the bourgeoisie used in its fight against the aristocracy and the monarchy: the guillotine. In order to demonstrate its power, the press must kill a few politicians every now and then.
Mar 5, 2006 - 9:08 am 3. Jamie Irons:Mr. Ledeen,
It is truly an honor to be refuted by you!
Where I said “nobody has” I would have been wiser to say “to my knowledge (limited as it obviously is!), nobody has…”
If you are still around, have you seen Mark Steyn’s most recent piece in The Chicago Sun Times, and what do you think of his point that “The Long War” Is Breaking Down Into Tedium?
Jamie Irons
Mar 5, 2006 - 11:09 am 4. heather:What I enjoy is watching the members of the MSM claim to represent a cosmic view of ‘issues’ than do – say – blogs. Oh, the solemnity, the eyebrow wrinkling, as they note that they – and they alone – with their journalism degrees and their paid jobs with some paper outlet – THEY ALONE are qualified to handle the “news”. Otherwise, they “know”, the hoi polloi will wander in a dark wood of ignorance and superstition, prey to the sort of downmarket conmen who sell patent medicine at carnivals.
Thus, their outrage when that “unqualified” fella turned up in the White House Press Room… why, why, he was NOT ONE OF US (and, whisper hissss… he was gay…..porn industry…. ooooo…. ickkk).
The MSM thinks of itself as the group that sits at the Popular Kids Cafeteria Table. Too bad. High School is over. (Thank gracious).
Mar 5, 2006 - 11:14 am 5. Insufficiently Sensitive:“the mind-boggling premise that reporters will always be objective”
Roger has shot that one down properly. But even more mind-boggling is the premise that the reporter will always be honest. Who shot that one down? Oh, Walter Duranty, Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
If the reporter has a nice stout legal shield against inspection of his sources, what’s to prevent him from manufacturing enough ‘facts’ to commit another of the political murders which Michael Ledeen points out above?
Mar 5, 2006 - 1:47 pm 6. Kevin Peters:Roger:
The government can’t protect secrets because they need to be monitered and can’t be trusted. The press can protect all sources and have adopted the “I can do it, you have to trust me.” As they shine the light of truth on the government they raise the blinds of secrecy over their own actions. Thus , any beureaucrat can selectivly reveal souurces and methods, not only to expose potential corruption, but it also allows them to kneecap any operation that they don’t agree with. This is a tough subject and there are no easy actions but just as complete secrecy may tempt the government to commit crimes why does the press think that giving them carte blanche to expose anything they consider proper won’t corrupt their proffesion and lead to the destruction of our spy agencies. Their answer seems to be “trust me.” I don’t.
Mar 5, 2006 - 2:32 pm 7. MarkD:KP,
I have a vote against the excesses of the government, against the excesses of the NYT I have nothing. I will shed no tears when the Feds throw these treasonous vipers in prison until they yield their sources. Judging by Judith Miller, we should have names by Christmas.
Best guess: Sen. Rockefeller is looking for a job…
Mar 5, 2006 - 3:17 pm 8. Rick Ballard:“The MSM thinks of itself as the group that sits at the Popular Kids Cafeteria Table.”
There’s the nub. Who shall determine who gets to sit at the Kool Kid’s table?
Michael Ledden gets to sit there, yet deigns to drop amongst us and (I have on extremely good source) will even engage in brief conversation from time to time. Interesting. Jay Rosen professes to profess the craft of journalism (such as it is) but also deigns to reply, rather more adroitly than does his friend Steve Lovelady. The good pros, those being paid to produce, know that things they are a’changin’ and that they must perforce change with them.
The presse ancien (thanks Knuck) is not of that opinion and seeks to manage that which has already escaped – close the door fellas, there ain’t no horses left but it’s drafty in here.
In the end (and yes, presse ancien, this is the end) the public shall determine who stands and who falls – unless the benighted nitwits whom we hire to conduct governance are drawn into the fray. For it is only by government interference that the presse ancien may escape the market’s guillotine blade.
Mar 5, 2006 - 3:32 pm 9. David R. Block:The media has always (in my lifetime, anyway) behaved as spoiled brats. The public’s right to know seems to increase with every Republican Administration, but FBI files in the White House under a Democratic Administration just doesn’t seem to generate the volume of coverage, headlines, or indignation as ANY perceived scandal in a Democratic Administration. The “objective” media has clearly chosen sides, and only the willfully ignorant or the lefty Kool-Aid drinkers disagree.
Mar 5, 2006 - 3:57 pm 10. Terrye:As has been noted when dealing with politicaisn we can always kick the bums out.
The press however, is like some European aristocracy in the good ol’ days of kings and barons.
When they don’t like someone, it is off with their heads and truth or justice or even accountability take a back seat to showing us all who boss is.
Right now the Democrats think they can control these people. Fat chance.
Mar 5, 2006 - 4:00 pm 11. rocketsbrain:WSJ IRAN – Workers take on the mullahs. . .
Roger,
RBT has a thread that starts off with a great WSJ piece on the Iranian situation with other links to comments in the Blogos today re the LL and the MSM are just too blind to see the train coming down the tracks.
It’s a case just like why a frog won’t jump out of the pot when the water is brought to a slow boil.
RBT
*****
BATTLE OF IDEAS
Iranian Solidarity?
Workers take on the mullahs. Is the world listening?
BY ROYA HAKAKIAN
Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
The bomb that Tehran’s mullahs are allegedly building has already done its damage. For two years now, it has decimated the headlines. In the mushroom cloud of its anticipation, some of the most critical stories in Iran have vanished. “The bomb” is an ingenious design by which to divert any global interest in the country’s domestic matters, giving the ruling clerics free rein to devastate opposition with all the brutality they can muster. Among the ruins is an event unprecedented in 27 years: a major strike by the workers of Sherkat-e Vahed, the Union of Workers of the United Bus Company of Tehran.
[...]
The war against terror is, above all, a war of ideas. But if the terrorists’ ideas, be they in the form of the 1979 hostage crisis, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the nuclear issue, or the fury over the depiction of Muhammad, so intensely occupy us–our headlines and our airwaves–doesn’t geographical territory become irrelevant? Can we still say that the terrorists have not conquered us? Historians agree that the most significant blow to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was delivered by the 1978 strike of the oil workers, which sparked other unions to join, and ultimately brought Iran’s economy to a halt. But when the current regime systematically suppresses information, and the free press of the free world cannot be cured of its chronic fetish for uranium, will Iran’s movement for democracy have any hope of gathering momentum?
[...]
Read More
Mar 5, 2006 - 4:15 pm 12. Johan Amedeus Metesky:Prof. Reynolds sums it up adroitly:
This has involved, I believe a three step process. The first was promoting the idea that freedom of the press applied to those who owned presses, not that the free press was an example of rights held by all Americans. The second step, was the media cheerleading as the courts made the hairbrained distinction betweeen “commercial” speech, i.e. advertising, and traditional publishers who somehow aren’t engaged in commercial speech by selling their words. The final step was lobbying for shield laws and refusing to cooperate with criminal investigations, hoping to give legal imprimateur to their privileged status.
The press has long wanted privilege to determine for itself the extent to which it will conceal or reveal its sources. That is the right of any business, until it becomes a matter of criminal investigation. It seems to me that the very limited number of cases of privileged communication are quite different than that of a whistleblowing journalist. The fact is that privilege is now only granted to those relationships and conversations that are so personal as to be equivalent to self incrimination: spouses, clergy, medical practitioners and lawyers.
Prof. Reynolds’ succinct comment represents how the MSM has tried to appropriate a right from the American people to itself.
Mar 5, 2006 - 4:20 pm 13. Bill Faith:Excellent post, Roger. I’ve linked from Crackdown On Leakers Has MSM Panties In A Wad, where I wrote:
Having handled classified information for several years I have no sympathy
Mar 5, 2006 - 6:08 pm 14. vnjagvet:whatsoever for anyone who deliberately leaks it or anyone who passes it on.
Over the last hundred years or so, the “media” has acquired a plethora of tools which had not even been dreamed of by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln or even Theodore Roosevelt.
But all of this, up ’til now, has led to concentration.
With the internet, guess what? Diversification and autonomy and General Electric’s management secret, decentralization.
And because there now are no artificial barriers to entry, the “media” may be forced to watch freedom of the press as it existed in the US from its inception until the late ninteenth century. A robust, messy cauldron of opinion which has had an apt description in the aphorism “you pays your money and you takes your choice”.
I really think that is what our founders had in mind. Not the “fourth estate”.
Mar 5, 2006 - 7:12 pm 15. ras:Any special exemption for the press can only be special, and therefore of value to the fourth estate, if it’s a limited franchise, which means what they’re really asking for is govt licensing of journalism to keep competition down, a guild system indeed.
Mar 5, 2006 - 8:34 pm 16. Tim:Special Exemptions Claimed + Obvious Left Bias + Craven Disregard for National Security + Cultural Elitism + Adherence to Double Standards = Failing Mainstream Media Death Spiral.
To quote Michael Ledeen, “faster please.”
Mar 5, 2006 - 8:47 pm 17. gumshoe:“The press has long wanted privilege to determine for itself the extent to which it will conceal or reveal its sources”.
-Johan Amedeus Metesky
i read and re-read(and re-read)Johan’s
comment,trying to distill it down
to a shorter phrase.
what i arrived at sounds
a lot like a certain unelected,
fifth column’s regular behavior:
“protect some,attack others.”
Mar 6, 2006 - 12:30 am 18. john:The highlighted issue that you’ve taken into limelight is quite inquisitive….there’s a need to study it more closely before saying anything….I’ll get back later with a well-thought-out-idea.
Mar 6, 2006 - 6:15 am 19. DaveK:Ah, yes…
The press wants the privileges of Clergy and Lawyers.
Unfortunately, those privileges are meant to enable the recipient of the disclosure to protect, defend, and advise the discloser with regard to their personal situation. The information is not in any sense meant for any kind of public disclosure. Any disclosure of that information is to be both with that person’s consent, and for the purpose of protecting that person.
But the media what to have carte blanche… they want to take information from unnamed sources, use it for whatever purpose they might have in mind, and then be immune from any consequences of the disclosure.
Sorry, but that’s just a license to lie.
Just my $.02
Mar 6, 2006 - 7:56 am 20. markus:DRK
I hear over and over again that “the NSA and secret prison leaks hurt national security”…any links to an article that specifically explains why or how this is the case? Or would an explanation itself reveal more secrets?
I think that accusing the Times of espionage would have been a good political tactic in 2004. Say, if Kerry had responded to the Swift Boat ads forthrightly in August 04, and Bush campaign needed SOMETHING, ANYTHING after that first debate. Now, a year and a half later, I doubt this will be taken seriously by anyone who isn’t still a diehard Bush supporter. The Administration has too much of a reputation for secrecy, incompetence, and pushing the envelope and then some on executive branch power. And unless one is a strong supporter of the President, the press is perceived as a check on the Administration’s otherwise unbridled power. And regardless of whether Bush’s current approval rating is at 34% or 40%, it’s still in Jimmy Carter, rather than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton territory.
Also, won’t seeking to prosecute journalists and writers WORSEN the Administration’s already adversarial relationship with the media?
Mar 6, 2006 - 8:14 am 21. RogerA:Markus–with respect to your first question, mere disclosure of covert programs may have an impact on their effectiveness if it changes the target’s methods of operating or communicating–I don’t think the argument is much more than that–basic operations security; clearly, if methods and particulars are exposed, then the prospect for damage starts to increase.
As to your last question, the cynic in my suggests that the Bush administration reads the polls with respect to public disapproval of the media and figures the MSM isnt going to treat them well whatever the administration does–
Mar 6, 2006 - 9:35 am 22. flenser:Thus, there is probably some political point scoring going on. In an earlier era, before Fox and Cable news, probably would have been a bad political strategy; there are now alternative sources of news.
markus
And regardless of whether Bush’s current approval rating is at 34% or 40%, it’s still in Jimmy Carter, rather than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton territory.
Clintons lowest numbers were in the mid-thirty percent range.
Mar 6, 2006 - 11:22 am 23. TomTom:Markus:
Mar 6, 2006 - 11:26 am 24. markus:There’s probably no reasoning with you, but I can’t let your “Press as check on Bush’s unbridled power” stand.
The checks and balances on the Executive are the responsibility of The Legislative and Judicial branches. The media have no such duty. Most media are the propaganda arm of the Left, and as others above have noted, deem themselves uniquely privileged.
flenser — “Clintons lowest numbers were in the mid-thirty percent range.”
That’s right, it looks like he was in the upper thirties for about five or six weeks in the early summer of 1993, and for three or four weeks in the late summer of 1994. In the second term, he was in Reagan territory almost the whole way through:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton
TomTom: “There’s probably no reasoning with you…”
What you really mean to say is “I don’t know why I’m taking the time to have a dialoge with someone who doesn’t already agree with me 100%.”
“checks and balances…media have no such duty…”
The Press, and the people, are checks on the power of ALL of the branches. That is why the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of press and of peaceable assembly, and the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Mar 6, 2006 - 2:21 pm 25. Bostonian:Markus:
Is it really that hard to understand the difference between “statutory duty” and “self-assigned duty”?
Mar 6, 2006 - 4:35 pm 26. markus:Bostonian — “Is it really that hard…”
I wouldn’t understand your question as written if my life depended on it. Please explain.
Mar 6, 2006 - 4:51 pm 27. Bostonian:Markus,
I’m not surprised you didn’t understand me.
You seem to believe that the press has a statutory duty to maintain the balance of power, or a special place in the US Constitution. It doesn’t.
Mar 6, 2006 - 8:43 pm 28. markus:Bostonian, I am able to understand you when you write clearly, as you did in your last post, but not in the one immediately beforehand.
The Constitution defined the role of the press implicitly, not explicitly. What it did explicitly was protect the press from government interference. Unfortunately, the Sedition Act expired before the Supreme Court could affirm its unconstitutionality. However, according to Wikipedia, in the seminal Free Speech case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court declared, “Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).
Mar 7, 2006 - 7:18 am 29. dclydew:I don’t think that there is a Constitutional right to protect sources.
I don’t think the press has a right to play checks and balances with the government.
I do think that the Press should publish information that appears to indicate inappropriate behavior in the government.
I think that people inside the government should be able to provide information to the press about inappropriate government behavior.
I think that they should either have balls enough to stand up and defend their actions, or they should remain completely anonymous (even to the reporter).
Here’s the problem I have with large chunks of the current administrations argument.
1. No one has provided a reasonable explaination as to why the publication of the existence of wiretaps (with or without FISA approval) hurts national security. The terrorists already knew they could be wiretapped without a public warrant, all this information did was tell the American people that FISA wasn’t being used as a check. Agree or disagree, this isn’t gonna help some terrorist in Afganistan.
2. If a reporter gets a ’scoop’ on some Top Secret information… it seems quite likely that other people who are looking for secrets will have already found this information. A smart spy tends to find information at least as well as, if not better than a reporter.
These arguments appear about as intelligent as the ones by some IT companies. For example, Mac OS X was recently hacked in a contest. It was accomplished in less than thirty minutes because of undisclosed vulnerabilities. The attacker knew of the vulnerabilities, because he and people he knew had found them. Apple knew about the vulnerabilities, but didn’t disclose them, in an attempt to maintain ’security by obscurity’. If they had disclosed, the admin of that server could have implemented some additional security… as it was, the attacker was more informed than the admin.
3. Either leaking is ok or its not. We must hold as equal the leaker for Ms. Plame and the leaker for the NSA. Either they all go down, or they all get a pass.
Mar 7, 2006 - 7:37 am 30. flenser:dclydev
We must hold as equal the leaker for Ms. Plame and the leaker for the NSA.
That supposes an equivalence in the two cases which does not appear to exist. The NSA program was definitely classified and unquestionably served a useful purpose. Even Fitzgerald is not claiming that Plame was classified, or that her name becoming public harmed anything.
Mar 7, 2006 - 8:13 am 31. Bostonian:Markus:
You fail to convince me that the press has greater rights than ordinary citizens.
Is that easy enough to understand?
Mar 7, 2006 - 9:46 am 32. dclydew:flenser,
Either leaking is wrong or not wrong. Either the press has a right to publish information picked up from “classified sources” or it does not. To hold up a multitude of standards seems likely to cloud the issue. I have yet to see any reasonable explaination as to how the publication of the NSA’s secret wiretaps harmed national security. I have yet to see any reasonable explaination of why the publication of “secret prisons” harmed national securty. The same goes for Ms. Plame.
I feel that people should either be ready to stand and say “I believe that *insert issue* is wrong and thus I told the press”… or they should keep their mouth shut. I’m not comfortable with the NSA program, I am not comfortable with the CIA having secret prisons (but I imagine that’s SOP). As for Ms. Plame, I’m still waiting for anyone to provide a good reason for her “outing”.
Mar 7, 2006 - 11:58 am 33. Bostonian:ddclydew,
Again you seem to be arguing from first principles, which is interesting from a philosophical point of view, but which does not apply to reality.
There are laws about these things, which apply whether or not you personally can be convinced that national security was harmed by any of these actions.
Either these laws were broken or they were not. And that does depend on the precise circumstances of each case.
Mar 7, 2006 - 1:16 pm 34. dclydew:Bostonian,
“Either these laws were broken or they were not.”
Well, that was my point. Saying that no one was hurt by the Plame affair doesn’t change the fact that someone leaked information (just as with the others).
I, for one, am glad that we have some people in the government willing to blow a whistle if they see something that they truly believe is wrong (perhaps many dangerous empires would have failed had people in the government taken personal responsibility). However, I think that hiding behind anonymous statements and hoping a reporter will protect their sources seems much less useful. If a person believed that the NSA tapping was wrong, then they should come out and say so. In public. With all the evidence. Or, they should keep their mouths shut and their yellow back covered.
When a person blows a whistle, attention is drawn to THEM first, then to what they are trying to present. Anonymous sources seem to soften this situation, so anyone who wants to leak something for political gain (instead of actually protecting the nation) can hide.
Mar 7, 2006 - 1:50 pm