It must be difficult days indeed at the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times if their editors have gone so far as to team up to justify their papers’ publication of the government’s secret SWIFT financial surveillance program. The two media outlets’ focus groups or private polling must have come back with some pretty negative numbers. Or maybe it was just the general feedback or the “evil” administration that made them resort to this, to my knowledge, unprecedented defensive and self-righteous measure, pitching the adage “Never complain; never explain” as far out the window as possible.
I will leave aside the specifics of the controversy – although it is obvious to me the editors did not, despite their protestations, think through what they were doing. Their analysis stops dead at water’s edge, making you wonder if they ever considered how these revelations might affect our partnership with the people who run SWIFT themselves. No matter. (This incident also detonates whatever small moral credit the same media gained via the Valerie Plame affair. But again, no matter.)
What fascinates me in all this is what a tin ear some of the major players in our media have to one of the most basic of all themes in American life – You don’t truck with stoolies! You would think anyone who had a seen even a couple of movies from the glory days of Hollywood – the thirties and forties when the movie industry practically invented our national character – would know better. There’s nothing more loathsome than a stoolie.
Now these stoolies are dressed in Brooks Brothers and even Armani suits and are employed by the CIA, the State Department, banks and the like, yet they are still stoolies. Worse – they are anonymous stoolies. We have almost no way of knowing the veracity of what they are saying and even less the motives for why they are saying it. But the Times and the Times insist that they have checked these people out, that they are not stoolies, but patriotic “whistle blowers.”
Say what?
They are stoolies.
A man or woman of genuine courage would stand up and be identified if what they were leaking were truly in the national interest, no matter what the consequences to them. They would be heroes. Not here. These people are snitches, maneuvering behind the scenes for their own personal or political advantage. Our media manipulate these folks who in turn manipulate our media. It is as far from heroic as one could imagine. These are the very people you wouldn’t want with you in a foxhole. In fact, you wouldn’t even want to turn your back on them at a cocktail party
Indeed the SWIFT financial surveillance revelations were particularly cowardly and duplicitous in their motivation – not even the NYT makes a case that a crime was committed. The paper only trumpets vague warnings of civil liberties in jeopardy with, of course, no evidence whatsoever to show that has happened.
So what we have are newspapers that like to consort with stoolies for their own ideological advantage. But just as in the old saw that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas, if you lie down with stoolies you turn as corrupt as they are. It may only be the leakers who will ultimately be prosecuted in this affair, but it is the media that publicize them whose already tarnished reputations will never recover.
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.
27 Comments
1. David Thomson:ìI will leave aside the specifics of the controversy – although it is obvious to me the editors did not, despite their protestations, think through what they were doing.î
These left-wing editors are acting instinctively. They are not consciously aware of their motivations—and can easily pass a lie detector test. It boils down to this: a Republican administration is in power. The MSM is tacitly committed to partnership with the Democratic Party. Only a Democrat should reside in the White House. Am I perhaps being overly simplistic? Nope, thatís all there really is to it.
Jul 2, 2006 - 11:44 am 2. mezzrow:I think we can look forward to hearing this question in 2007:
HEWITT: We’re talking about a specific story in which, for the first time in American history, following on the December story as well, major media has turned down explicit requests from the government not to reveal material illegally leaked to them by, in this instance, 20 people who broke their oaths of office, who ought to be discovered, who ought to be, at least, thrown out of the government and possibly prosecuted. And I hope Eric is in front of a grand jury and asked their names. It’s a specific case. It’s not a general shut-down; it’s not a repeal of the First Amendment. It’s a specific…
KURTZ: Hold on. So you’re saying — you’re saying you hope that Eric Lichtblau, who’s sitting right here, has to testify before a grand jury, and if he won’t reveal his sources, then you are perfectly comfortable with a judge sending him off to jail?
HEWITT: I don’t know the circumstances of how he would not be answering or who would make him, so I won’t answer that. I hope he is called before a grand jury and asked who broke the law, who broke their oath and told him secrets…
Credit the Power Line guys for the transcript of today’s “Reliable Sources”. Lichtblau was on the same show.
I know Hugh Hewitt’s a company guy for the GOP, but if anything, that points even more toward where the long-range political strategy in the post-2006 scene interfaces with the junction of national security and public opinion concerning the actions of the MSM. All we need is a single terrorist incident that can be credibly walked back to this article’s release. It’ll be interesting to see if the Clinton/DLC wing uses this as a wedge to drain cred from the moonbats on their left. If Lichtblau listens hard, he might hear a clock ticking…
Jul 2, 2006 - 12:09 pm 3. David Thomson:ìIt’ll be interesting to see if the Clinton/DLC wing uses this as a wedge to drain cred from the moonbats on their left.î
The answer is a resounding no. The Clinton/DLC wing, in its heart of hearts, is pacifist to the core. Most of these folks are the children of the 1960s and well remember Viet Nam. They instinctively believe that the use of American power will only worsen the situation. A number of them might vehemently disagree with me. Thatís only because they lie to themselves. Nonetheless, actions speak louder than words. When push comes to shove, they will almost find some sort of excuse to avoid employing military violence.
Jul 2, 2006 - 12:34 pm 4. mezzrow:“A number of them might vehemently disagree with me. ”
Exactly. Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.
One can only despair as an American while surveying the ineptitude and tone-deafness of the Democratic party these days. No matter what your party, it’s just isn’t good for the health of the nation. Have they hit bottom yet? Only time will tell.
Jul 2, 2006 - 12:56 pm 5. Old Dad:mezzrow,
Great point. Now would be the perfect time for a centrist Dem, perhaps, running for Congress in a red or purplish state, to denounce the Times.
The talking points might go something like this: “While I disagree with this administration’s tactics in the GWOT–blah, blah, we must stay the course, blah, blah. Moreover, I agree with the President that the NYT has made a serious mistake in publishing, blah, blah. I will recommend legislation that clarifies the legal status of those who publish classified info, and I strogly urge the DOJ to pursue the leakers to the full exgent of the law.
On a related national security front, I strongly disagree with the President’s stand om immigration. We must secure our borders, no amnesty, blah, blah.
Tack on a couple feints to the left (minimum wage, what ever), and you’ve got a problem for the Republicans.
Jul 2, 2006 - 1:40 pm 6. Terrye:It is just such a sneaky underhanded thing to do. the Times x 2 really screwed up this time.
Jul 2, 2006 - 1:55 pm 7. Kevin Peters:Roger:
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:01 pm 8. David Thomson:As much as the press wants to tilt the spin towards the chilling effect, the campaign against the free press they can’t hide from the fact that they exposed a working program, in specific detail, that was, according to them, harming no one and had worked to catch terrorists. Thats the reason for the outrage, not some brilliant Rovian PR campaign. Their own article points out how many in our own government, including the C.I.A. did not know all the details, that many of the facts that they printed no one, especially the terrorists, knew about. If everyone knew about it, why was it a front page scoop? If everything was public knowledge, their lame defense tactic, why was there any delay in publishing? Their own article damns the logic of their defense.
There was general knowledge of the fact that there was financial tracking but the NYT, LAT gave specific details, specific institutions. If everyone knew why has there been rumblings from Canada and Belgium that since the publication by the NYT that they are considering dropping from the program? Why? Because the press exposed them and now they have to worry about becoming targets. The program worked, it caught terrorists and saved lives, and the press exposed the program and it can never work again. It can’t save the lives that it no doubt did before the press wrecked it. And for what. The press itself admits that no harm had been done. They only offer vague worries and doubts. Human life has been traded for vague worries. The Press, someday, will have blood on their hands. I hope their Pulitzer’s keep them warm during the funerals.
ìGreat point. Now would be the perfect time for a centrist Dem, perhaps, running for Congress in a red or purplish state, to denounce the Times.î
Ainít gonna happen. Such a stance will doom these candidates with their left wing voters. This is why I confidently predict the reelection of George Allen over war hero James Webb. These red state Democrats are placed in a no win predicament. Damned if they do, and damned if they donít. They must stay away from national security issues as much as possible. It therefore behooves their Republican opponents to make sure this doesnít occur.
I recently finished the unbelievably mediocre book by Peter Beinart entitled The Good Fight. It is interesting that the author limits his comments regarding the dissension within the Democratic Party to the bottom half of page 188! He essentially refuses to acknowledge the harsh fact that a very high number of Democrats are disingenuous pacifists. Beinart obviously resides in the land of make believe.
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:08 pm 9. WK:Thanks, Roger. Extremely well said.
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:20 pm 10. MarkD:Let’s just hope it’s not as many lives as Duranty’s Pulitzer cost. Everyone who Stalin starved would doubless have died anyway, regardless of what he wrote. But his words prolonged the existence of Communism in Russia by encouraging fools in other countries to support it.
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:20 pm 11. Bourbeau:Stoolies? I couldn’t agree more in Mr. Simon’s assessment. I further believe, that a more in depth investigation to determine who these people are, would also uncover a practice where many of these stoolies, probably not all, receive some kind of consideration from their msm contacts. For anyone to think that the only reasons for doing this stuff is the leaker’s love for country, is absolute nonsense. We live in a time where one’s oath to his country is held in such low esteem by the msm, that they routinely seek opportunities to compromise it. It speaks volumes of the character of some who work in our government, not to mention the msm.
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:24 pm 12. Bill Faith:Excellent post, Roger. Old War Dogs linked from
Jul 2, 2006 - 2:51 pm 13. herdgadfly:“Stoolies,” Roger? Need we be so polite?
Those who snitch on the Angry Left are never “whistleblowers”.
The most famous example, of course, is Monica’s “friend”, Linda Tripp. Defense Department officials leaked confidential information about her (no doubt at White House request)to the New Yorker Magazine in order to discredit her. Later the DD told the press that Linda unsuccessfully applied for a lower GS pay scale job when she was not rehired at the end of the Clinton Administration. Her $600,000 judgement probably was enough to pay the lawyers.
Unfortunately, Conservatives will not go after Pinch and his fifth column organization …so the Bush-hater dimentia will continue ad infinitum.
Jul 2, 2006 - 3:12 pm 14. TomTom:A Stoolie case in point: Deep Throat. Motivation for stooling (pun intended): He didn’t get the top job at FBI.
Jul 2, 2006 - 3:13 pm 15. Len:You’ve had this hidden in your desk drawer since 1974, right?
Jul 2, 2006 - 3:34 pm 16. Tim:They’ve effectively chosen to side with America’s enemies in the GWOT; why should we think they’d think half-a-heartbeat longer about making common cause with stoolies?
Are we that naive?
Jul 2, 2006 - 4:04 pm 17. Peg C.:Kevin makes an excellent point about the internal contradictions in the 2 arguments used as justification by the papers. As Patterico put it, 1) everyone already knew about the program so the recent stories didn’t reveal anything new, and 2) Congress didn’t know about the SWIFT program and that was a problem. These two are mutually exclusive, but so are almost all arguments posed by the Left. They truly talk out of both sides of their mouths, because they do not believe in anything but themselves and their triumphant power.
The other thing that leaves me gasping is that the same people who had conniptions over Plamegate bad enough to be committed think nothing of revealing the means and methods of a working anti-terrorism program intended to save lives.
And these people want anyone to take them seriously??
Jul 2, 2006 - 4:36 pm 18. Charlie (Colorado):I will leave aside the specifics of the controversy – although it is obvious to me the editors did not, despite their protestations, think through what they were doing.
God, I’d like to believe this.
Jul 2, 2006 - 4:49 pm 19. ShoreMark:Mezzrow asks, “Have they hit bottom yet? Only time will tell.”
If they win in November they’ll drive themselves to their rock-bottom in the ensuing two years with a plethora of nonsensical hearings and attempts at impeachment, then they’ll be gone.
It’s tempting to wish for that, as it’ll be a quicker end than is otherwise inevitable over a slightly longer term, but it’s way too dangerous for our national security in the short-term to hope for it.
Jul 2, 2006 - 5:23 pm 20. Skookumchuk:Wonderful post, Roger.
Jul 2, 2006 - 8:01 pm 21. Insufficiently Sensitive:Bravo Roger. Best analysis in town.
We watched the NYT righteously belaboring the bushes for months looking for the stoolies who supposedly outed Valerie Plame. Now that their nasty little trick against the national security has blown up in their faces, we should get some signs of the press stoolies scuttling for cover, and some serious second thoughts by the media moguls on their usurpation of decisions that rightfully belong to elected reps and the Administration.
Let them wallow in their oh-so-caring guilt. Their shrinks need new Cadillacs.
Jul 2, 2006 - 8:11 pm 22. Neo:I don’t think the Times’ are treasonous, as some do, but I do believe that they are worse. They are stupid fools.
The LAT has the me too excuse, but the New York Times has it’s ass hanging out there as far as anyone can. Their protestations won’t help them if, in fact, there were a terrorist attack and the civil lawsuits come rolling in. The federal court system will have so many suits with “v Keller et al” that they will have to assign them numbers. The Times’ insurer must be quaking at the possibility.
Jul 2, 2006 - 8:21 pm 23. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Nice angle, ROger!
The NYT and its ilk have painted themselves into a corner: one must conclude they’re either psychotic, idiots, liars or traitors.
It’s probably the last two, although the first are possible.
As mentioned, their selective indignation over the Plame affair, compared to their positive reverence for the leakers of SWIFT,and NSA taps, and CIA prisons, etc whows their rank hypocrisy.
So which is it?
Are the hypocritical because they are so nuts that they cannot see it?
Are they idiots who believe we can’t see it?
Are they liars about their motiviations ? [Absolutely]
Are they traitors? [yes - at least in effect]
You comment:
Perhaps they just don’t care. Certainly their actions over the last 3 years are of people who could care less what harm their actions have in the GWOT (which only exists in the minds of conservatives and red state straw suckers), or on US image or diplomacy. They just don’t care. They have more important fish to fry, Bushfish, so future mass murders of our civilians as irrelevant.
Besides, they know they can get away with it. They are the MAIN STREAM MEDIA. If the terrorists strike, we’ll hear only how Bush screwed up. We’ll see endless stories where cabbage-faced CBS fossils explore the details of how Bush screw up. Democrats will own the airwaves, treated as oracles and fonts of wisdom. People will die, and they’ll use that too against Bush.
As we used to say in the Navy, these people are lower than whalesh*t at the bottom of the ocean.
Jul 2, 2006 - 8:25 pm 24. Mike G in Corvallis:The hell of it is, I strongly suspect that Pinch and Keller actually think of themselves as true patriots. It’s just that they think the threat to America from Osama bin Ladin or any other Islamic supremacist is insignificant compared to the clear and present danger from Chimpy McHitler Bush, Warmonger-in-Chief, Destroyer of Civil Liberties, Shredder of the Constitution, Despoiler of the Environment, and Oppressor of Third-World Peoples. So even if this story — or the next, or the one after that — damages the “so-called War on Terror,” to them it will be worth it if they can erode Bush’s support.
Years ago I read a cartoon by Alexis A Gilliland in which an American is explaining our politics to a man from Eastern Europe. “Sure, the government lies,” he says, “and the newspapers lie. But in a democracy they aren’t the same lies.
And that’s why I don’t want the Democratic Party to control the government. They would be the same lies.
Jul 2, 2006 - 10:31 pm 25. Lem:The NYT is operating in a post Watergate mode, not post 9/11. Talk about arrested development, reading that platitude padded letter on Saturday, I looked for a pittance of argument to satisfy the harm done by the publication. As we all know, there was none. Even Murtha asked them not to do it.
Ironically, the letter amounted to something the Times has castigated the Bush WH for; the Times said in effect – Trust us. “How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?” By reducing the role of the president to a mere beastly “instinct” you can (at least in your mind) enhance your own. But then of course there is a tricky caveat; in order to be informed one must remain alive first.
The editors at the NYT have convinced themselves that the Bush WH is a replay of Nixon’s “imperial presidency”. Watergate informs them so strongly not even 9/11 seems to persuade them of a justification for untested executive power. Given the downturn in circulation and prestige, I don’t blame them for wanting the Nixon glory days to return. Forget Pulitzer, a presidential resignation is the mother lode of journalistic cues.
I say untested to describe some of the WH actions because obviously having not faced the kind of enemy that is Al Qaeda before, in the course of the fight the WH is going to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. The Times seems to be unimpressed by the exigencies of preemption.
Another problem for the Times, this time the enemy’s list (unlike Nixon) does not include Ivy Leaguers or Hollywood stars. So the Times has a real problem convincing people as to the Bush danger. There are real bad guys out there. So using SWIFT to “follow the money” is not like sending the IRS after people and linking numbers found on a “safe house” to a number in Florida is not wiretapping. Iraq is not Vietnam.
BTW, Ooops goes the USA Today.
Leaks are a series of incessant drip drip drip; only after awhile it begins to have an effect. If the Times makes a mistake they won’t own up to it because they believe it will be in the interest of a bigger story; that we are headed for dictatorship. So as far as the Times is concerned, no secret is safe. They believe they are saving the country.
Jul 2, 2006 - 10:51 pm 26. Camp Runamok:Another Roger had the perfect solution to this problem. With minor edits…:
“I’ll catch the leakers, Mr. President. And I’ll try them, convict them and execute them.”
Jul 3, 2006 - 6:47 am 27. VA_Voter:The way to fight these “stoolies” is to create a reward fund that will pay anyone who can verifyably identify the leaker. I would give $100 to such a fund.
Jul 3, 2006 - 4:35 pm