We are in the era of what we could call the “non-leak leak”. It is a new form of a propaganda in which the obvious is repackaged as a leak in order to influence opinion or bash the opposition. Our major newspapers practice this form with such regularity it is difficult to know whether they are conscious of what they are doing, although that doesn’t matter – the effect is the same.
A recent example of this form is the New York Times “revelation” that the US has been monitoring SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication). Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I assumed that such things were monitored in the post 9-11 era. How else could the financing of terrorism be interdicted? Indeed, it’s quite obvious that Al Qaeda has, literally for years, been making the same assumptions (that we were scrutinizing these transactions) and made adjustments in order to avoid detection. And even given that, now the Counterrorism Blog details the specifics of this same SWIFT monitoring, telling us they have been public since 2002!
So what’s the story here? Exactly none…. Well, not none. The real story is that the NYT has published yet another anonymous leaker to support its narrative. Of course this is not surprising. This contemptible form of journalism has been with us for some time now. All we can do is continue fighting back and do our best not to ape their insidious, reactionary methods.
UPDATE: Patterico has canceled his LAT subsrciption over this brouhaha. [He'll be saving himself a dollar a week?-ed. Is that what you pay for you LAT subscription? Pretty soon they'll be giving them away with with LA Weekly.]
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.
13 Comments
1. Tim:It is, as others have commented elsewhere, all about the NY Time’s war against the war and arming our enemies with information they need to survive to kill Americans.
But we dare not call it treason, nor do we dare question the patriotism.
Should the West survive the war against Islamic fascism, let alone defeat it, it will be by completely overcoming our domestic enemies at the NY Times and elsewhere.
Jun 24, 2006 - 11:49 am 2. Tim:Oops – excuse the poor punctuation/grammar: and patriotism.
Jun 24, 2006 - 11:57 am 3. David Thomson:Roger Simon should cancel his LA Times subscription. He can always go to the store and purchase the Wednesday edition cooking section. Itís admittedly near impossible to never buy a copy of the major daily in oneís hometown. I have been known to also make compromises with the devil. Nonetheless, letís do what we can to drive them out of business.
Jun 24, 2006 - 12:13 pm 4. Cap'n Billy:But we dare not call it treason
Jun 24, 2006 - 1:54 pm 5. kcom:And that is what the treasonous media count on, that the public is too intimidated to call this by its rightful name. I’m damn fed up with them. I don’t know how many young Americans may lose their lives directly or indirectly because of this, but one is too many, and I for one will not hesitate to call what they’re doing treason. And I will never spend another dime on that newspaper, and will check very carefully for links to their web pages on various sites and avoid them so that I will not drive their page views up.
I am reminded of the immortal words of Nathan Hale (which I hearby insert into Patterico’s mouth), “My only regret is that I have but one LA Times subscription to cancel for my country.”
Jun 24, 2006 - 3:22 pm 6. Sandy P:I had declined to resubscribe to the WSJ because it leans left, but they offered me $100/yr.
I’m calling Monday to cancel and I will use the word “treason.” Haven’t gotten any more letters from the NYT or Newsweek using that term written in red.
—————————-
OT: Must Read, via Lucianne:
Muslims address silence on Europe attacks
** In short, not my problem.**
-
Jun 24, 2006 - 3:28 pm 7. crosspatch:He can always go to the store and purchase the Wednesday edition cooking section.
And when you do that, I might suggest that you either take the copy in the window of the box, or take the window copy and turn it around so the “below the fold” portion of the front page is displayed upside down. This could result in the loss of some “impulse” sales from the box without actually stealing or damaging anything.
Jun 24, 2006 - 3:37 pm 8. Vulgorilla:“Patterico has canceled his LAT subsrciption over this brouhaha.”
I cancelled my subscriptions a couple of years ago in disgust over their (NYT) “red, anti-american” journalism. I’ve been watching with great glee over their lay offs and such, hoping that I will eventually see their name on the docket for bankruptcy court. If things keep going as they are, I shouldn’t have too long to wait.
Jun 24, 2006 - 5:18 pm 9. mikem:“So what’s the story here? Exactly none….”
I think the story here is that there is a difference between the enemy knowing that we are trying to examine international financial transactions and them being told precisely which financial institutions/instruments/crossroads we are examining and the fact that they are cooperating with us.
Jun 24, 2006 - 8:16 pm 10. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Or is there no difference between a child molester knowing that child protection agencies try to monitor chatrooms for their activities and publishing a list of which chatrooms are actually monitored with the cooperation of website owners?
I agree with mikem.
Just like one should never assume stupidity on the part of one’s enemy, it is equally foolish to assume that they know as much as you think they do. This is especially true in this age where Al Qaeda’s viral ideology is creating independent groups (such as the bozos just arrested) who are not as sophisticated as “the center” but still may be capable of inflicting a lot of damage (can you say Tim Al-McVeigh?).
Maybe this action by the NYT is harmless, but maybe it is very harmful. For example, the enemy may not know what mechanisms are available for us to monitor financial transactions. They may not know whether we can monitor transactions between Afghanistan and Switzerland, for example.
Now they know more.
In any case, it is simply not up to the MSM to decide which classified information should be released. That is an undemocratic arrogation of power, and a clear violation of our democratically passed laws. They should be prosecuted for these serious federal crimes.
The New York Times, especially, seems to believe that it is wiser than our president (well, they are sure he is a dunce), our congress, and most of our citizens. They are willing to collaborate with unelected bureaucrats who are have similar arrogance, and together they happily give all of our secrets to the enemy.
I, for one, are damned tired of this. Whether it is leaking “obvious” information, really critical stuff (such as oversease CIA detentiona facilities), or simply badly damaging our psy-war efforts (Abu Ghraib-fest), the New York Times and its ilk have gone way past the line. They are behaving as an enemy of the people of the United States. I don’t know what we can do about this, but damn it, we need to something about these arrogant, unpatriotic Bushater bastards who have so much power.
I don’t want to hear from these toads about the First Amendment, because it does not (according to the Supreme Court) protect them in these cases. Beyond that, the First Amendment defines what the government may and may not duue, but it doesn’t define what is in good taste, poor taste, or darn right treasonous.
Jun 24, 2006 - 11:30 pm 11. Richard Nieporent:The reason they do this is because they can. They will continue to do so until they start going to jail for their treasonous actions. Make no mistake about it, the NYT is effectively on the side of our enemies. They don’t care what damage they do to our country as long as they can do something to hurt or embarrass the Bush administration.
Jun 25, 2006 - 10:48 am 12. Sissy Willis:It’s easy to cancel your subscription. My sister has bitten the bullet and given up her biweekly Acrostic:
“I shall never buy the New York Times again“
Jun 25, 2006 - 4:33 pm 13. CapitalistKerry:Roger,
There are two big differences you should keep in mind.
Knowing that the Police are going to crack down on drunk drivers over a holiday weekend and knowing exactly which intersections will have check points.
There is a big difference in the public ìfootprintî between the New York Times and the Counterrorism Blog.
This revelation hurt. It is unpatriotic if not treason.
HOW MANY AMERICANS MUST DIE before the LAT and NYT believes we are at war??
Jun 26, 2006 - 5:20 pm