PressThink: It's a Classified War

It's a Classified War

"The institutional press, its fourth estate identity, and what Ben Bradlee called a 'holy profession' (because 'the pursuit of truth is a holy pursuit')— these are all modern inventions. Their legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans."

Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror.

Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers.

Since those headlines appeared on June 23 storm conditions have prevailed over the big castle of press authority. (Picture of the skies on June 28.) Some thoughts I hope you haven’t read everywhere else…

Who elected the press to make decisions about secrets and national security? No one, absolutely no one.

Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitimacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law. Whether the journalism is handcrafted and opinionated, or mass-produced and just-the-facts, the press isn’t trustable unless it is independent of the people in charge, and stands apart from interest groups competing for power.

So independence is one means of securing legitimacy. Verification before publication is another. Transparency is a third. (Bill Keller in speeches: “As your math teacher might have said, we show our work.”)

William Safire was, I think, wrong when he asked himself on Meet the Press “who elected the media to determine what should be secret and what should not?” and answered with: “the founding fathers did.”

The institutional press, its fourth estate identity, and what Ben Bradlee recently called “a holy profession” (because “the pursuit of truth is a holy pursuit…”)— these are all modern inventions. Their legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans that an independent and truthtelling press is vital to have as a check on government power, that its loss would be dangerous to their well being, and that professional journalists are doing the job well enough now to be that vital check.

When there are people in politics who wish to change that opinion into… An independent and truthtelling press is vital but the press we have is not independent, it’s aligned with a liberal elite, and has become a threat to national security… they cannot be defeated by invoking the founders or reciting the Constitution. There have to be other ways of arguing the case and fighting back.

Dana Priest of the Washington Post had a good starting point: “We are covering the war on terror, it’s a classified war.” Right. So what does the press do?

If you don’t trust for a moment the judgment or solemn word of the Bush Administration, then you’ll view the Times decision to print the SWIFT story one way.

For example as Glenn Greenwald does: “Americans have abandoned this administration due to a long list of intense grievances with the President, and relentless, hysterical attacks on newspapers are highly unlikely to make them forget about those grievances… Ultimately, any institution or group which commits the Greatest Sin of opposing the President and imposing any limits on his powers will be subjected to this same treatment.”

If you don’t trust for a moment the judgment or solemn word of the New York Times and its editors, then you’ll view the decision in a totally different way.

Hugh Hewitt at the new boombox version of Townhall.com: “The picture that has emerged after a week is of two for-profit newspapers, eager for Pulitizers and aware of the other’s hunt for a headline, disregarding the urgent arguments of senior government officials and running a story on a program only dimly if at all understood by some (and by no stretch of the imagination all) terrorists, the result of which is to alert the world and even the below-average-intelligence killer of one key way the United States tracks them.”

Let’s not pretend there can be any “debate” between those views. Storm conditions, yes. Discourse, no. (See Jack Shafer’s Bush or Keller?) Where I could see a debate emerging is over Priest’s observation: how should an independent press cover a classified war, or should it even try? If you think the press has no business digging into the government’s secret fight against terrorism, then what Dana Priest and others do is deeply illegitimate at the start. This is different than criticizing bad journalism or poor judgment.

David Ignatius ran to daylight when he asked in a column for the Post, not who should be trusted with secrets, but what have the parties involved—the Bush White House, the American press—actually done to build public confidence in their judgment as they handle secrets in a classified war?

“‘Trust us’ is not a winning argument in America — either with newspaper editors or the public at large,” he writes. But that is what the “holy profession” says, especially when it relies on confidential sources. (And “we show our work” is vacated.) It’s also the argument of the Administration. Trust us; we know things you don’t. No, we can’t show our work. But you understand why. It’s the nature of the war we’re in.

David Ignatius sees the cracks: “We journalists usually try to argue that we have carefully weighed the pros and cons and believe that the public benefit of disclosure outweighs any potential harm. The problem is that we aren’t fully qualified to make those judgments. We make the best decisions we can, but they are based on limited knowledge.”

That’s part of the problem. Hosting Meet the Press July 2, Andrea Mitchell turned to Bill Safire. A lot of people think the Times is “motivated by an anti-Bush animus,” she said. “Is The New York Times making a decision that is political rather than editorial?” What escapes her imagination is an editorial call that requires political judgment too. The decision to publish secrets is like that. It eludes the categories in current press think.

My views: I find the decision to publish the SWIFT story defensible, but more arguable than the earlier Times story on the National Security Agency. (That’s where Nick Kristof is on it.) I don’t understand why the information in this post from CounterTerrorism Blog didn’t make it into the newspaper reporting. (Neither does CJR Daily.) Whether damage was done in the fight against terrorism I cannot say; that evidence is shrouded in darkness. (Read Dan Froomkin on how little has come to light.) Look, it’s a classified war. The grounds for judgment are often missing.

Are there any limits at all on the lengths to which the New York Times will go to “get” George W. Bush? Yes, there are.

We know this because the Times does not print everything it knows about what the government is doing. Nor do the other national dailies. “The fact is, journalists regularly hold back information for national security reasons,” writes Kristof, “I recently withheld information at the request of the intelligence community about secret terrorist communications.” I believe that. People in government know it happens.

But under storm conditions Heather MacDonald, writing in the Weekly Standard, can just say no. The Times, she says, is “so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.” (My italics.)

If the Times decides not to publish, MacDonald would normally never know about it. In fact she has no idea which classified antiterror programs the Times found out about but did not reveal, and yet she went with her categorical statement (“by now it’s undeniable”) because it expressed the rage better. The rage may be real, her certainty about what the Times will do is faked. She doesn’t know enough to know.

At his blog, The Horse’s Mouth, Greg Sargent explained the reactions since June 23 as a “diversionary tactic.” It’s “really all about reuniting a Republican base that’s cracking under multiple strains,” he said. It’s true that the New York Times makes for outstanding culture war theatre, but I think election-year tactics do not explain the severity of the storm.

More is involved. There was one sentence that struck me as mighty revealing in the joint op-ed by Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times. They had just said that the conflict between the government’s “passion for secrecy” and the press’s drive to reveal things is not a recent development, which is true.

“This did not begin with the Bush administration,” said the editors in New York and Los Angeles, “although the polarization of the electorate and the daunting challenge of terrorism have made the tension between press and government as clamorous as at any time since Justice Black wrote.” Sorry, that won’t do.

What has made the tension between press and government especially “clamorous” is that people in charge of the Bush White House decided on a strategy for rolling back the national press. It’s part of their reclamation and expansion of executive branch power. The aim is more freedom of action for the President and his powerful VP in going after the terror networks. As I have argued before, the Bush team changed the game on Washington journalists; and they knew they could get away with it.

For some reason Keller and Baquet decided not to mention any of that. (Maybe they agree with Robert Kaiser: “What isn’t new here seems more significant than what is.”) At Yearly Kos in Las Vegas, Matt Bai, who covers politics for the New York Times Magazine, said he agreed with me that the game had been changed, and the press had not responded very well.

David Remnick summed things up in this week’s New Yorker: “More than any other White House in history, Bush’s has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew.”

And this week the base has responded with ugly escalations of its own. If those are the tactics what is the strategy? I think it begins with Dick Cheney’s conviction that executive power was eroded after Vietnam and Watergate, and ought to be taken back from the institutions that had grabbed too much for themselves— especially the oversight troops in Congress and the “gotcha” press.

Another part of the puzzle was brought to my attention in 2004 by journalist Ron Suskind when he wrote of the “retreat from empiricism” in the governing style of George W. Bush. Attacks on the press are part of that. So is the distortion of intelligence.

I just finished reading George Packer’s fine book, The Assassin’s Gate. Chapter to chapter, it follows the retreat from empiricism in the build-up to the Iraq war. The way that war came to us required victory over the facts on the ground, and over people in the government who had knowledge of what was likely to happen. The Bush forces won that victory. Executive privilege got exerted on the terrain of fact itself. That’s at stake too in the storming of the press castle.

After Matter: Notes, reactions and links…

Extra, extra! Journalism deans weigh in. It’s a rarity to see any sort of statement from the heads of major university-based journalism programs. But here is When in Doubt, Publish by Geoffrey Cowan of USC, Alex S. Jones of Harvard’s Kennedy School, John Lavine of Northwestern, Nicholas Lemann of Columbia, and Orville Schell of Berkeley (Washington Post, July 9). The opening lines:

It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets.
Journalists are constantly trying to report things that public officials and others believe should be secret, and constantly exercising restraint over what they publish.

Schell is also a PressThink author, see his J-Schools Have to Get More Involved from July, 2005. This new piece is an example of what he meant.

I’m glad the five men spoke up in a situation of urgency, and I would like to see more of it. I wish their statement added something—anything—to what has already been said in defense of the press, but alas…it does not. Maybe that’s too much to hope for with discourse by committee.

Chrtistopher Hitchens isn’t a fan of the Dean’s statement. Neither is Tom Maguire of Just One Minute. See his A Teachable Moment. Tom thinks it would be fun to ask J-school students whether they agree with the Deans (and Alex Jones, who isn’t a Dean) that Robert Novak made the wrong decision to reveal Valerie Plame’s name.

Jeff Jarvis, soon to be a J-school professor, isn’t satisfied: When and why to tell secrets. “I would have hoped for more from these people, in particular, more than just a defense of one American editor… academics should be able to better distance themselves from the fray of the moment and see where standards should lie.” Jarvis doesn’t care for the formula, “when in doubt, publish.” Neither do I. I don’t think it says anything.

Hitchens also makes a crucial observation about this story: “If the House intelligence committee regards itself as being kept in the dark, what is the press to do but make the assumption that there is too little public information available rather than too much?”

Letter to Romenesko from Tim Graham of the conservative-leaning Media Research Center (and a PressThink author): “The liberal media elite assumes the word of Bill Keller descends from Mount Olympus, and that no one can question his newspaper’s quite obvious political agenda.”

William Powers in National Journal: “Watching the story play out, I’ve found myself hoping that reasonable heads don’t prevail on this one, that the conflict will get hotter and uglier and eventually wind up in court, a la Plame only more dramatic. Why? Because this country needs to have a great, big, loud, come-to-Jesus argument about the role of the press in a time of war, terror, and secrecy.”

Jacon Weisberg, editor of Slate: “The New York Times, while acting in good faith, made the wrong call by printing the SWIFT story.”

Kevin Baker in Harpers: Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth.

Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Felicity Barringer of the New York Times in the comments:

The current generation of extremists, like their predecessors, want to expropriate the meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the flag, making them the private preserve of their ideology or geopolitical perspective. That make it all the easier to label other perspectives obstructionist or treasonous.
So what’s wrong with making the case for press legitimacy on the documents that define us? This isn’t a quaint or irrelevant approach. It is a necessary — though perhaps not a sufficient — basis for increasing public support for an independent press in general and The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time and the rest in particular.

There’s more to her reply.

Daniel Conover in the comments.

Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law.
Granted. Now, given the emerging rules, relationships and capabilities of 21st century media, how do we approach solving this problem? How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?

I’ve been a loyal PressThink reader since December 2004, and I’m beginning to think that this is the central theme interwoven through every thread here.

To secure is not the same thing as to defend.

Exactly. You can’t secure the press just by defending it. This is what the current post argues, as well.

From the post-script to this essay added to the Huffington Post version:

Also involved is a tendency noticed by Paul Krugman, who said this in a 2004 interview with Buzzflash:
For four years now, some of us have been saying, whether or not you think they’re bad guys, they’re certainly radical. They don’t play by the rules. You can’t take anything that you’ve regarded as normal from previous U.S. political experience as applying to Bush and the people around him. They will say things and do things that would not previously have made any sense — you know, would have been previously considered out of bounds.

… Mainstream political journalism is a system that falls apart when deviant or radical behavior overtakes centers of power. It isn’t capable of throwing out the playbook when confronted with a new threat, because it doesn’t have any other playbook and it can’t stop the presses long enough to work one out.

The rest.

Editor & Publisher reported this July 5: “Managing Editor Paul Steiger of The Wall Street Journal and Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. of The Washington Post were both asked to be part of last weekend’s unique joint Op-Ed piece by the editors of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which defended the publication of stories about the secret SWIFT bank monitoring program, E&P has learned. But each declined.”

Recommended: Katrina Vanden Heuvel on The Nation, the New York Times, John F. Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs, and White House pressure not to publish.

Dean Baquet of the LA Times: “Newspapers don’t know how to respond to critics.” (See also Patterico’s worries.)

For the record, here’s the amazing, twisting, confounding and ultimately hilarious Wall Street Journal editorial denouncing the New York Times for running a story the Wall Street Journal also chased and published, and accusing publisher Arthur Sulzberger of wanting to obstruct the war on terror because he told college graduates that the world wasn’t supposed to turn out as it has.

I’ve read it four times and still can’t make sense of it, especially this sentence: “We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.” Huh? But let Rachel Sklar have a go. Editorial Page editor Paul Gigot wouldn’t answer questions about it. I guess he thinks it speaks for itself! And here’s an email from a former WSJ staffer. The news staff of the Journal has been embarrassed many times before by the editorial page; but this was probably the worst. Indeed: “I’ve been here 16 years, and in my 16 years, this is something different,” political reporter Jackie Calmes told the New York Observer.

Frank Rich decoding it: “The Journal editorial page was sending an unsubtle shot across the bow, warning those in the newsroom (and every other newsroom) that their patriotism would be impugned, as The Times’s had been, if they investigated administration conduct in wartime in ways that displeased the White House.” Also see this televised exchange with Marvin Kalb and Paul Gigot.

Robert Kaiser, former managing editor of the Washington Post, before the current blow-up:

I am not going to disclose Priest’s sources (I don’t know who they were), but I do know there were many of them. I know that she traveled extensively to report the story. I know that her article, like virtually all the best investigative reporting on sensitive subjects that we publish, was assembled like a Lego skyscraper, brick by brick. Often the sources who help reporters with this difficult task don’t even realize that they have contributed a brick or two to the construction. Typically, many of the sources who contribute know only a sliver of the story themselves. A good reporter such as Priest can spend weeks or months on a single story, looking for those bricks.
I want to add, immodestly, that The Post’s record on stories of this kind is good. I don’t know of a single case when the paper had to retract or correct an important story containing classified information. Nor do I know of a case when we compromised a secret government program, or put someone’s life in danger, or gave an enemy significant assistance.

Katharine Graham, then publisher of the Washington Post, in 1986:

The terrorist has to communicate his own ruthlessness — his “stop-at-nothing” mentality — in order to achieve his goals. Media coverage is essential to his purpose.
If terrorism is a form of warfare, as many observers now believe, it is a form in which media exposure is a powerful weapon.

For those who want to see prosecutions, the guiding text is Gabriel Schoenfeld, Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? (Commentary Magazine, March, 2006)

Posted by Jay Rosen at July 7, 2006 1:08 AM Print

Jay,
I think you capture a big part of the picture very effectively.

Here's another part that mystifies me. I can't help seeing the press and the Cheney administration as two boxers in a ring. Cheney has cut the press over both eyes with a razor blade inside his glove, he's hit them below the belt, he's stepped on and crushed their toes, and he has them backed up against the buckles in a corner. The press keeps responding like it was just walking down the street minding its own business and can't understand why it keeps getting hit. After each shot to the groin, it keeps muttering, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me." This looks like weakeness to Cheney, so he just hits harder. Cheney's right. It is weakness.

The press's ombudsman says, "Yesterday, Mr. Cheney publicly announced that he violently disagrees with us. We're very sorry. We'll try to do better next time. From now on, we'll try to agree with Mr. Cheney whenever grammatically possible instead of just most of the time like before."

Every once in a while a non-right-wing blogger says, "You know, isn't it about time you considered putting your hands up? Maybe even punching back once in a while? Have you noticed your bloody and staggering on the ropes and Cheney just keeps kicking you in the balls? He just told Rush the other day that, given the chance, he'd shoot you in the face and dance on your grave. His buddy just posted your home address and phone number on his website with directions to your house including convenient gunshops in your area and their ammo prices.

The press: Why do you hate my friend Cheney? Shut up! Can't you see I need to get along with him to do my job? Besides, I can't have a settled opinion about Mr. Cheney and his friends, I'm a journalist. I may have to investigate you for saying such disrespectful things about a major American political figure. At the very least, you clearly don't understand the responsibilites of a serious, professional journalist.

non-right-wing-bloggers: You might like to think of yourself as a journalist, but from here you just look like a defenseless moron. Doesn't it bother you when Cheney and friends say they want you dead day after day? If you can't tell when someone wants you dead, you can't be much of an investigator, can you? Don't come crying to me when you fall bleeding on the ground.

The press: Damn left-blogger barbarians! I may have to file for a restraining order on reality.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 5:12 AM | Permalink

The Bush administration's interpretation of the US constitution is veering perilously close to the comic territory of Catch-22. One of their latest legislative proposals conceded to critics that US citizens be granted the right to a court hearing regarding possible warrantless wiretaps, but only on the condition that those who file suit can demonstrate they have in fact been the target of a warrantless wiretap, a standing that no civilian could ever meet as that information is classified.

In effect, the very unilateral police state classification system that led to the complaint in the first place is supposed to constitute a separate, valid obstacle to legally filing under the proposed statute. Nice.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 5:34 AM | Permalink

Mr. Cheney feels that the power of the Executive branch was eroded post Watergate and Vietnam. Might the Bush administration be trying to recapture the pre 1960s power held by prior administrations. There were oversight committees pre 1960. What is new is news 24/7 on a myriad of sites, talk radio, cable news and opinion shows ad nauseum. The newspapers are always behind the cycle as they update q24 hours. Hence the need for "gotcha". Every time the NY and LA papers find themselves painted into a corner more Red Staters(and some Blue Staters) join the Republicans. Some of us who were children in WW2 still adhere to the slogan "loose lips sink ships"

Posted by: Richard Siegel at July 7, 2006 7:21 AM | Permalink

IMHO, the Times overplayed the SWIFT story.... it comes as no surprise to anyone that banking records were being examined, and the real story was the lack of any Congressional oversight of the program. It was merely a front page, below the fold story, but the Times promoted it as if it was as significant as Dana Priest's WP story on NSA wiretapping.....

Of course, the Times exaggeration of the significance of the story is no excuse for the insanity that is coming from right-wingers. The anti-Times crusade is so organized it has the feeling of a "Two Minute Hate"... only less rational.

Posted by: plukasiak at July 7, 2006 8:47 AM | Permalink

Jay, what the NYT, the LAT and the WSJ reported was neither secret nor harmful in the "war on terrorism."
Please see my post on money, the oxygen of terrrorism? on my blog
reflectivepundit.com
Brigitte Nacos

Posted by: Brigitte Nacos at July 7, 2006 9:03 AM | Permalink

Paul, you meant Priest's prisons story, or the Times' NSA story?

Is it overplayed? It's a legitimate scoop when they have a lot more details (but not arguably operational details) about the banking program, and the effectiveness of it. (No arrests disclosed since 2003, so maybe terrorists caught on.) It was the best story of that day?

I didn't see the deadtree edition to judge the size of the headline or placement of the story. But it's a strange argument to make that Lead Story X is as significant as previous Story Y. There is a lead story every day in the paper.

One thing rarely brought up in the attack on the Times is when someone (the WH?) leaked to the Times about the Al Qaeda computer guy in the fall of 04. That leak was far more damaging. And where was the cry of treason then?

Posted by: Hue at July 7, 2006 9:23 AM | Permalink

Jay,

How does the "production of innocence" frame this debate? Is part of the storm the out-of-position press as neutral, innocent, disinterested third-party (or fourth estate)?

fairness/balance = the professional goal for the product
objectivity = process to reach goal
neutrality = ethos of the process
credibility = byproduct of ethos
trust = byproduct of credibility
innocence = stance taken in regard to the product if the process is followed

How does the out-of-position press affect the balance-of-power?

What appears to be a struggle between the White House and the press is always a triangular relationship among journalists, the Administration and the public. Each leg—the President and the American people, the White House and the press, the press and the public—counts. If we look at two sides without reckoning with the third we’ll always go wrong.

Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 10:06 AM | Permalink

Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law.

Granted. Now, given the emerging rules, relationships and capabilities of 21st century media, how do we approach solving this problem? How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?

I've been a loyal PressThink reader since December 2004, and I'm beginning to think that this is the central theme interwoven through every thread here.

To secure is not the same thing as to defend.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 7, 2006 10:19 AM | Permalink

Daniel Conover: "How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?"

Trust?

Why Newspapers Need Ombudsmen to Ensure their Credibility and Accountability in a Multi-Media, Multi-Ethnic Society

At the Newspaper Association of America's convention, Washington Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser lamented during a panel discussion of the pros and cons of news councils, "We've got a real problem in American newspapers. A lot of people don't trust us."

Trouble at Times Can Be Helpful in the Long Run

A few years ago an audience of Twin Cities journalists heard an outstanding colleague -- Geneva Overholser, former editor of the Des Moines Register and former ombudsman of the Washington Post -- say something that made their collective jaw drop.

She said journalists go about their business knowing that the First Amendment belongs to them. Her audience nodded. Then she said, "No. The First Amendment doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the people who created it -- the public. Journalists get to use it. And if you don't use that freedom responsibly, the public may take it away."

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over (scroll down to Not sovereign)

Big Notion death was a theme in journalism in 2004, coming not from the margins but the middle. Geneva Overholser of the Missouri School of Journalism, former editor of the Des Moines Register, former ombudsman of the Washington Post, said it:
This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.
If objectivity, once the "ethical touchstone for journalism," has finally collapsed, then we have conditions resembling intellectual crisis in the mainstream press. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of Campaigndesk.org, and a former editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, agreed that the press in 2004 "was hopelessly hobbled by some of its own outdated conventions and frameworks."

When people like Fineman, Overholser and Lovelady--who are elders of the tribe, and products of its recent history--are saying about a key commandment "that's over," and "our belief system has collapsed," we can assume the causes are deeper than some spectacularly blown stories or the appearance of more nimble competitors. Loss of core belief is related to loss of editorial sovereignty.

Understanding Media Watchdogs

Despite these concerns, news councils offer a much-needed opportunity for the public to interact with and offer criticism of the media, Geneva Overholser, former Washington Post ombudsman now on faculty at the University of Missouri, said in a Columbia Journalism Review article last February. "We can ill afford to pass up any decent opportunity to hold ourselves accountable, and to help the public understand all that we do to uphold our principles and to get our facts straight," Overholser said.

Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 11:40 AM | Permalink

Tim: The way Overholser defines objectivity -- The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional -- is not the same thing as objectivity of method. It is, rather, a confined and confining way of reporting and structuring a story: You get "both sides" of the story and present them as equally valid.

For reasons that escape me even after 22 years in the business, that approach has become the default mode for presenting news. Problem is, it only works if 1) there are only two, diametrically opposing, sides of a story and 2) they are equally valid. Most stories don't meet those criteria, of course, yet we continue to act as if they do.

Objectivity of method -- that is, pursuing facts, following "discipline of verification" -- is not out of style and probably never will be.

To get back to the original subject of this post, one way we in the news media can continue to secure the legitimacy of journalism -- and although Dan Conover didn't phrase it in quite this way, I hope he would agree that doing so will be an ongoing, never-ending process -- is to adhere as strictly as possible to the discipline of verification.

Another is to remember that, as Geneva Overholser observed, the First Amendment belongs to the people, not just to those of us who work in the news media. Accordingly, we need to keep constantly in mind that we are surrogates for the people in service of their need to keep an eye on what their government is doing. When we must explicitly invoke First Amendment rights, we should strive to ensure that we are doing so in service of First Amendment responsibilities.

What does that mean? One example: In my shop, we almost never use anonymous sources because our readers have made very clear that they neither like them nor trust them, no matter what assurances we give them as to the truthworthiness of the source and the validity of the information. So we use them only when there's no other way to get certain important stories, knowing that there are some stories so important that we're going to have to get them no matter how pissed readers get at our methods.

Even this minor example is one the White House press corps generally has not embraced, and I believe it's one reason they are neither as effective or as trusted as they could be.

Posted by: Lex at July 7, 2006 2:36 PM | Permalink

Jay:

With due respect, you make a factual error in this piece. The Founding Fathers absolutely chose a free press to make those determinations.

No one who has read the Constitutional debates and the Federalist Papers could doubt it.

You mistake the idea of today's institutional press with the press the founders protected. The Founders chose to protect the press and speech regardless of what modernities infected it.

Your error mars your otherwise fine piece.

Posted by: Armando at July 7, 2006 2:50 PM | Permalink

Once again we see how the powerful abuse the idea of capital T Truth in an age of multi-narratives. Those with the most to lose and the loudest voices will be more able to make their own truth into the public truth. The dualities inherited from the cold war battlegrounds supported that simpler version of The Truth, but as the world continuously splits into factions, it gets more and more difficult to talk about the issue. (as opposed to 'the truth') as we still rely on the true/false distinction to make sense of things.

"How do you continue to secure the legitimacy of journalism?" Avoid the truth and stick to the narratives and the 'facts'. What the current US administration seems to be able to do is juggle dualiths that they strategically create in order to retain that capital T on truth. An intellectual bully who finds someone else on the playground to marginalize to create some room for themselves in the center. Somehow the media has to get out of that battle... Comedy central is seen as a local for news for that very reason... they don't allow themselves to be set up as an opponent of the adminstration.

I don't really think its possible... or at least i can't imagine how it could be done.

Posted by: dave cormier at July 7, 2006 3:16 PM | Permalink

With all due respect, A., it's a difference in interpretation, not a "factual error" that causes me to think Safire mistaken to have spoken that way. I believe Safire believes the founders gave rights to the (professionalized) press that they did not give to the people-at-large. To me that is a losing argument, and not what they intended.

Plus, as I wrote: "Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy."

Tim: I think the production of innocence (an image of professional agendalessness...) is always involved when the castle (old press authority) explains itself.

And yes, I still think you need a three-sided view to understand what's going on with the press and the White House.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 7, 2006 3:44 PM | Permalink

From Jay's post: "(Press) legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans."

This framework for Jay's longer argument has a fundamental flaw. What derives "from the founding fathers" and "the opinion of living Americans" can't be disentangled. Our founding documents are the basis of any American's national identity, in the 18th century or the 21st. Public officials and military personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution. Our national holiday celebrates the Declaration. In wartime, other countries rally around common geography or religion or heritage. Americans rally around our common history -- from the revolution to 9/11 -- AND our common understanding of our founders' intent. How can "the opinion of living Americans" avoid taking its cue from the founding fathers?

The current debate, as Jack Shafer points out, is argued on facts most people don't have.
In the absence of verifiable evidence of the harm done by publication or the newspapers' willingness to withhold material crucial to national security making the case for or against press legitimacy quickly devolves into a matter of allegiance. "I believe the newspapers are dangerous because the president said so." Or, "I don't believe anything the president says."

There's a corollary to Jack's point. In the asbence of crucial evidence, it helps to make reference to first principles. Minds that aren't made up may respond to arguments based on a common understanding of the ideas that make us a country.

Extremists in any jihad against the press seek to shatter that shared understanding. That was true in the 1790's, when fear of war with France gave birth to the alien and sedition act and editors were jailed. Within a decade, the public said, "What were we thinking?" The same excess and the same remorse, more or less, prevailed during and after the Civil War and World War I. And about a decade ago, Erwin Griswold, Nixon's solicitor general, who had argued for prior restraint in the Penagon Papers case, wrote an op-ed disawowing his old claims that publishing the secret history of Vietnam endangered national security. (Geoffrey Stone's "Perilous Times" is a great primer on this dynamic.)

The current generation of extremists, like their predecessors, want to expropriate the meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the flag, making them the private preserve of their ideology or geopolitical perspective. That make it all the easier to label other perspectives obstructionist or treasonous.

So what's wrong with making the case for press legitimacy on the documents that define us? This isn't a quaint or irrelevant approach. It is a necessary -- though perhaps not a sufficient -- basis for increasing public support for an independent press in general and The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time and the rest in particular.

Posted by: Felicity Barringer at July 7, 2006 3:51 PM | Permalink

Yep. I agree with Lex that this will be a never-ending process. I think where I may be out of the current mainstream on this one is just that I believe there's a technological arms race going on here, and we newsroom types are generally a bunch of technophobes. We don't want to consider formal, systematic solutions to crediblity, because we (often wisely) mistrust systematic solutions to press problems.

Here's my analogy, for what it's worth. Small town governments tend to be informal and personal, and even though on their face these are a "good-old-boy" systems, they often work quite well for long periods of time. Formal checks and balances, written procedures -- all of this can be inefficient and silly in a town of 600 people where everybody knows everybody. An auditor might have a nightmare in such a town hall, but that doesn't mean the government is run any worse than the big city down the road. Applying big-city rules might even make matters worse.

But what happens when the small town has a building boom? Thousands of new residents flood in, and they don't know everybody, and nobody knows them, and there isn't time to get to know them. Now informal ways of knowing and trusting fall apart. The town must either formalize its governing procedures in a voluntary way face various, inevitable scandals that will force it to become more formal. Must of us who have covered small towns can cite examples. It's practically a law of nature.

One isn't right and the other isn't wrong. It's just a matter of what the computer people call scalability.

I think we're like the small town residents. We're romantic and nostalgic. But we're part of a much larger media now, and the scale of that phenomenon is overwhelming all sorts of standards and traditions. I mean the audience just became TPFKATA. So, yes, securing the legitimacy of the press is something that will go on forever, but it's not quite the same thing that it was 10 years ago. I think we're crossing into terra incognita.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 7, 2006 4:03 PM | Permalink

I believe Safire believes the founders gave rights to the (professionalized) press that they did not give to the people-at-large.

Jay, it's curious that you made this point about Safire since the people-at-large's press freedom was not mentioned in the MTP segment. And you to get annoyed at bloggers vs. old media debate.

Anyway, freedom of the press is for anyone who owns a press. And today anyone can own a press.

Posted by: Hue at July 7, 2006 4:04 PM | Permalink

Thanks for that response, Felicity. I agree on the "can't be disentangled." I agree that in appealing to the opinions of Americans the intent of the founders in setting up a free press is extremely relevant. So is arguing from a "common understanding of the ideas that make us a country."

But... Professional journalists designated by the Constitution to handle secrets on behalf of the rest of us?... is not, in my view, a part of that common frame. That's what I meant to point out in my post. There's nothing wrong ("quaint") with arguing that that it is a part of the common core. I don't buy it. What I do buy is that the founders meant for Keller and Sulzberger to make their decisions independently.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 7, 2006 4:12 PM | Permalink

David Remnick's observation -- “More than any other White House in history, Bush’s has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew” -- reads like a syllabus for a course in Rollback. Professor Rosen.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 4:27 PM | Permalink

This is a fair-minded post by Jay. I would wonder, though, how many MSM people (journalists and watchers - the ostensibly "objective" ones, as opposed to advocates in the press at the righty and lefty mags) come down in support of the Times' story or against it. I see them widely in support of the Times, either thoughtfully, as done here, or thoughtlessly, as Jack Shafer did at Slate, but rarely coming down in favor of witholding the story. I suppose that is to be expected among peers, but this viewpoint must be evidence of some kind of agenda if it is (as I suspect) very divergent from the views of the public at large.

Posted by: R Rainey at July 7, 2006 4:33 PM | Permalink

R. Rainey --

My sense is that there was considerable division within the MSM ranks at first, but less so now.

I think that has more to do with word dribbling out in bits and pieces that the Swift program has been public knowledge since 2002 than it has to do with any "agenda."

In other (public) contests, Bush has bragged about it, John Snow has held press gaggles to boast about it, Treasury undersecretary Stewart Levey has testified about it to Congress and the CounterTerrorism Blog has written in detail about it. In fact CTB's report on it is still up on the U.N.'s website four years later.

That makes all the protest seem a tad disingenuous.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 5:10 PM | Permalink

Armando,

No, they didn't, Armando. The power to declassify sensitive information rests with the Executive. The 4th Estate is not free, willy-nilly, to publish classified information without restriction. That is settled as a matter of statutes, and as a matter of case law upholding said statutes against challenges to their constitutionality.

Indeed, your specific position was soundly refuted by the Supreme Court, in Harlan's decision in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts:

"The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws."

As well as in Justice Black's decision in Associated Press v. United States:

Member publishers of AP are engaged in business for profit exactly as are other business men who sell food, steel, aluminum, or anything else people need or want. . . . All are alike covered by the Sherman Act. The fact that the publisher handles news while others handle food does not, as we shall later point out, afford the publisher a peculiar constitutional sanctuary in which he can with impunity violate laws regulating his business practices.

The Pentagon Papers case - so often lauded by half-educated reporters who haven't bothered to read Justice White's decision - also upheld the constitutionality both on the a priori restriction of publication of information which would cause grievous harm to national security, as well as the constitutionality of prosecuting members of the press after the fact for violating secrecy laws in other cases. In fact, Justice White ruled that he would have "no problem" with prosecuting the New York Times under criminal statutes, in that particular case.

The founding fathers ensured the freedom of the use of the printing press to hold the powerful accountable - but that does not extend to the reckless disregard of national security concerns in express violation of federal laws prohibiting in some cases even the possession of - much less the publishing - of lawfully classified information and documents.

All parts of the constitution are coequal with all other parts. The intellectual trap so many journalists - and liberals in general - fall into, is that they fetishize the 1st amendment over and above the other coequal paragraphs of the constitution (even as they chide conservatives for fetishizing the 2nd).

But the power to classify and declassify documents is part of the chief executive's constitutional function as commander in chief of the armed forces.

This power is not itself without limitation, of course. But the idea that the 4th estate usurps the legitimate function of the executive - in essence becoming an unelected and unaccountable branch of government in itself - is clearly unconstitutional.

The law recognizes the compelling interest of government to keep certain things secret. And the courts have affirmed so repeatedly.

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 7, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink

Daniel Conover in earlier comments.

Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law.
Granted. Now, given the emerging rules, relationships and capabilities of 21st century media, how do we approach solving this problem? How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?

I've been a loyal PressThink reader since December 2004, and I'm beginning to think that this is the central theme interwoven through every thread here.

To secure is not the same thing as to defend.

Exactly right with "How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?" That is the Mississippi of narrative streams at this blog. But you put it better than I did with "to secure is not the same thing as to defend."

How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism is a lot trickier problem than people socialized (educated) by the profession normally assume. New complications today with a switch in platform, networking costs lowered, and a new balance of power with users.

However, sometimes the best way to secure the legitimacy of journalism is to defend its practices. And so PressThink, 04-06, has also been about which parts should be defended, maintained, strengthened and carried along to the next stage of practice. It's tried to be against automatic thinking.

I think the key to improving journalism is finding the really good problems to work on.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 7, 2006 5:53 PM | Permalink

To Mr. Lovelady-- Did you or the staff at CJR have knowledge of Swift before the Times published? If the answer is yes-- did you understand the intricities in following the money or did you assume that we were looking for monetary transfers by and among terrorists here and/or abroad?

Posted by: richard siegel at July 7, 2006 7:06 PM | Permalink

Jay Rosen:

But... Professional journalists designated by the Constitution to handle secrets on behalf of the rest of us?... is not, in my view, a part of that common frame.

The modern invention is really the divide between the "professional" - or what the Supreme Court called the "institutional" - press and citizens.

Rise of a Free Press 1474-1830

Federalist, no. 84

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: In the first place, I observe that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this state, and in the next, I contend that whatever has been said about it in that of any other state, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved?" What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this, I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.1 And here, after all, as intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

First Amendment Center

What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and now Web sites and Internet postings....

Indeed, the Court has rejected arguments advanced by the institutional press that, because of its structural role in ensuring the free flow of information in a democratic society, it ought to enjoy unique protections from otherwise generally applicable laws that inhibit its ability to gather and report the news.

CJR, Freedom of the Press: The Most Serious Threat Is ABUSE OF PRIVILEGE

So the press was not so imperial as some have portrayed it. But, as the dust settled in the 1980s, it was the powerful press that most visibly symbolized the drastic changes of the preceding twenty years. Its new prominence, in turn, exposed more of the workings of the process to public scrutiny. In the process, the press came less and less to seem like a faithful surrogate for the public, whose alleged "right to know" journalists used as a kind of universal search warrant. Sources and news consumers alike became much more aware of the press as an institution with its own survival requirements, private interests, and sometimes unattractive ways of tending to those needs.

Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 7:41 PM | Permalink

Richard --

Did I have knowledge of Swift before the Times published ?

Yes, I did. It is hardly a "secret" that U.S. Intelligence tracks financial transactions in search of money flowing into the hands of terrorists. As I noted, it's been known for four years -- and the administration has been bragging about it for four years.

Did I "understand the intricacies" of the program? Of course not. But, then, neither did I want to -- and neither did the New York Times report reveal those intricacies to me or to anyone else.

I have the same problem with this bogus uproar as I had with the bogus uproar over USA Today's revelation about phone taps. (I don't have a problem with the uproar over the New York Times' revelation of illegal and warrantless surveillance.)

I'm trying really hard to imagine a group of terrorists (or, for that matter, a group of Congressmen) sitting around exclaiming, "Omigod, you mean to tell me the U.S. government taps phones ???" or, equally unlikely, "Omigod, you mean the U.S. government tracks money transfers ???"

Sorry, does not compute. Greenwald is right; this is election year politics; this is an attempt to divert attention.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 8:01 PM | Permalink

A typical SWIFT transfer instruction:

Amount: USD 5,000,000
value: July 10, 2006
Beneficiary: Jay Rosen
account number: 1234 5678
Bank: JP Morgan Chase Bank
SWIFT id: CHAS US33
Reference: Nigerian lottery
by order: Sani Abacha

under debit of account 1234 5678 with Nigerian Trust Bank [remitter's bank/account]

What part of this set of instructions is it too complex for a terrorist transfering money to understand?

First, it was never a big story, but apparently the Times, in a moment of conceit, thought it was. Second, it must be an idiotic terrorist that does not know about the investigative holy grail 'follow the money'.

Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 8:28 PM | Permalink

All ye supporters of the 'freedom of the press' and 'editorial judgement', think of this: how would you like to have Brit Hume exercise that judgement in a Gore presidency?:-)

Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 8:42 PM | Permalink

Lichtblau was clueless about the entire subject in an article in 2005. This conflicts with the "everybody knew about it" second or third set of excuses.

If everybody knew it, why is it news? More to the point, why is it front-page news? According to the NYT, it was legal, there was oversight, and it had been effective. And, if everybody knew it, putting it in the paper was a complete waste of ink. Their excuses don't wash, and conflict with each other. Sorry performance.

Martha Graham thought that the WaPo might have inadvertently alerted the terrs to a code breaking and contributed to the Beirut bombing which killed about 240 Marines. She says it was an accident, one of those things, which is nice to know. The WaPo actually did purposefully blow a Laos POW rescue op in the Seventies. I talked to the reporter who did it. He lied about the reason. Man, was I suprised to hear that. That he would lie to me, I mean.

I think the public's right to know includes the sources the journos use. I mean, I'm the public. Don't I get to say what I have a right to know? Or are the journos the guys who know what I have a right to know and what I have no right to know?

Now, the journos are obviously in a position to tell me to pound sand when I ask who their sources are, but that's not the same as convincing me they're right, and when I find some leverage, I may--not being convinced they're right--use it.

As I used to say thirty-five years ago, if I were getting ready to step into the dark over an enemy city, depending for my life on nobody knowing, would I be happy to know a journo knew? Hell, no. I'd refuse to go. It is conceivable that some would hold back the info. But the NYT and its buddies are making the odds I could be convinced considerably less.

Victor Hanson, who is plugged in, said the military has discussed ways it can win a war before the media lose it. I don't know if he was venting, speculating, had heard a bitch session, or something more formal. But if the military are not dicussing such things, they're 'way behind.

Village. Not all terrs are geniuses. I would presume they choose their finance guys with at least some concern about IQ. But when the investigators are on your tail, and when the methods of moving money are closed to you, or perhaps they're closed, or some of them are closed but you don't know which, and you haven't been reading the NYT who thought--the first time--that this was news which means few knew of it, you might be inclined to do something besides get a pile of small bills and a ticket to Waziristan.
Point is, now that the Europeans are going to drop out of the investigation, this is OPEN to them.

This was unnecessary, and partisan. And forty'leven posts making excuses don't change that.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 7, 2006 10:44 PM | Permalink

Tim Schmoyer, I'm not entirely sure why you are reminding us that Alexander Hamilton was an ardent opponent of attaching a Bill of Rights, or any amendments at all, to the Constitution.

But you forgot to mention: He lost that argument.

Fortunately, the rest is history.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink

Village. Not all terrs are geniuses. I would presume they choose their finance guys with at least some concern about IQ. But when the investigators are on your tail, and when the methods of moving money are closed to you, or perhaps they're closed, or some of them are closed but you don't know which, and you haven't been reading the NYT who thought--the first time--that this was news which means few knew of it, you might be inclined to do something besides get a pile of small bills and a ticket to Waziristan.

Genius is not even in play; SWIFT is pretty much the only cross-border electronic money transfer system. It mostly operates through in-country clearing systems that are typically run by central banks. So it is difficult to ignore the government presence and neither is there any expectation of privacy. If somebody is using this system, it would have to be by routing funds through one or more bank accounts in names that do not attract scrutiny (like the Saudi Ambassador's, or Jack Abramoff's, for example) and having the person/s launder the money for you. But if one has gone to these lengths to set up a money network, it is hard to imagine that the Times story would be news to this person.

Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink

Whatever one may think of its choices, the public elected a government via long established constitutional democratic processes. That government was elected during a time of war, obviously empowered by the electorate to conduct that war.

Some holders of highly sensitive classified information, not satisfied with the consequences of that process, choose to ignore democratic principles by anonymously leaking this information. These individuals, violating oaths by which they gained access, are ultimately anti-democratic. By their decision to anonymously break the law, they have proven unwilling to shoulder the consequences of their actions, instead changing US policy and damaging capabilities without accountability. These are not whistle-blowing people of conscience, or they would aver anonymity.

The press' choice to use these cowards, by publishing the resulting classified information, abets this criminal anti-democratic activity, and should be viewed as such. The press is encouraging serious anti-democratic criminal activity for its own purposes.

How does it justify this conspiracy to violate the democratically enacted (and constitutionally tested) laws and the undermining of recently elected officials? Have harmful abuses of the "blown" programs been found? If so, do these outweigh the dangers of publication? Does the MSM have the knowledge to know those dangers, when it betrays appalling ignorance in so many areas? Why does the MSM repeatedly and knowingly violate national security laws?

The founders and the Constitution envisioned a healthy and free press. But no government can protect the rights of its people if it cannot protect them or itself from attack. To be dead is to not have freedom of speech.

Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans, I’m afraid. As Jason mentioned, SCOTUS has repeatedly found that the press can be held criminally responsible when it violates the law. The establishment press has no more protection than the ordinary citizen (TPFKATA), no matter how much power it arrogates to itself or how noble it imagines its motives. Members of the MSM are (so far) unconvicted felons, and proud of it.

Asked above is how the press gains legitimacy. How about by behaving responsibly and not conspiring with anti-democratic cowards? How about giving the administration, regardless of political differences, some credibility in its warnings of danger? How about not repeatedly acting feloniously.

Beyond the danger of the MSM’s revelations is the obvious partisanship. The press crowed almost every day about the evil of the Valerie Plame leak (which apparently was legal and immaterial), while producing little but self-congratulation about other far more damaging revelations? Could it be that the MSM smelled administration blood in the former?

Is it any surprise that many of us deduce partisan motivation, and choose not to believe any of the high-minded bloviations we read here and throughout the MSM justifying the release of our most sensitive secrets to Al Qaeda and its friends? From the publication of the NSA foreign wiretap program to the recent publicizing of the SWIFT program, the press has behaved as if working for our enemies.

Legitimacy? How about just behaving well enough to be regarded as responsible American citizens?

Posted by: John Moore at July 7, 2006 11:45 PM | Permalink

I'm with Chalmers Johnson when it comes to taking on the classification state. This is not something that can ultimately be solved by the fourth estate.

This statement brings us to the third sorrow that accompanies imperialism and militarism--the replacement of truth by propaganda and disinformation and an acceptance of hypocrisy as the norm for declarations coming from our government. Official lying increases exponentially as imperialism and mlitarism take over. Our military sees propaganda as one of its major new functions.(p.298) There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted elections laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption. Failing such a reform, Nemesis, the goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us.(p.312)

Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire

Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 11:51 PM | Permalink

Can't agree with you more; the press has been neutered. Rollback is not the only cause, however; the press' own self-alignment with the establishment, the monied and the powerful, over the years is equally to blame. It is inextricably 'embedded' now, in more ways than one. Nothing farther than "holy", in fact.

On the other hand, I would not put too much hope in the notion that the citizenry is about to rise up against the established order. The chances of a popular uprising taking root are inversely proportional to the obesity index of a society!

So, on to Lachlan from Rupert, we go lurching ....

Posted by: village idiot at July 8, 2006 12:40 AM | Permalink

VI,

Your presumption of knowledge on the part of the terrorist is a common and unconvincing excuse. It is easy to assert, and may be very comforting, but dangerous.

It’s foolish to credit an enemy with either too much or not enough capability and knowledge. Defense should be in depth. Rather than arguing for minimum secrecy, which is an essential part of the MSM excuse, one should argue for excessive secrecy.

Counter-intelligence experts understand this. An example is the "need to know" principle in the handling of secrets. When I held a security clearance, I was not authorized to read material at that level unless I had a "need to know" it in order to do my job - even though I was "cleared" (investigated) for material that sensitive.

While something may seem obvious to one of us, it may not be to the enemy. Furthermore, the enemy is forced to choose among unpleasant alternatives in his logistical operations. By revealing our capabilities and actual activities, the accuracy of those choices is improved - to our detriment.

Enemies seek to know as much as possible about the opposition. This is done by intelligence techniques, which even in the first world use primarily public information. It is the knitting together of many clues from public and other sources that results in a picture of capability and actions. Thus an enemy may be able to see, or evaluate a chink in our armor, ultimately as result of a "minor" release of information. Data mining is a high tech way to do this, and unfortunately some of that by our government has also been hobbled.

In this war, more than any other, we are fighting a heterogeneous enemy. The ideology is viral, and complete amateurs catch it - becoming terrorists without any initial contact with an organization. These folks will likely seek contact and support, and may be unsophisticated in doing so. This provides an fleeting opportunity for us: a relatively obvious "secret" may be new to them, but the revelation may prevent us from detecting them.

In wartime, dramatic sacrifices may be necessary in the name of secrecy. During World War II, Churchill sacrificed the inhabitants of Coventry to preserve the Enigma cryptographic secret, for example. Is it asking too much for a bit more discretion in the publication of even "minor" secrets, much less major ones such as who we are cooperating with (ending that cooperation) or NSA capabilities and how they are being used?

The primary argument against the holding secrets is distrust of government - a healthy attitude. However, during wartime the balance of this distrust and the chance of enabling an enemy to do grievous harm has to be more tilted towards secrecy. We have a long history of democracy, and even those occasions where the government has misused secrets for partisan or personal advantage have failed to ultimately damage our civil liberties.

We have more liberty today, in a time of global war, than we had a mere 40 years ago. Unfortunately, some in the MSM are showing that they cannot use it wisely.

Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 12:57 AM | Permalink

VI:I can't agree with you more; the press has been neutered.

This "neutered" press still seems able to broadcast our vital secrets far and wide.

I think your assessment is ridiculous.

Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink

I agree with Paul and Steve on this one. SWIFT itself is not secret and the fact that the government is monitoring it is not surprising and not really new. When the story broke, SWIFT sounded familiar to me, and I realized the reason was that I had, years ago, written a story about EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) software. EDI transactions at that time usually ran over private networks made up of lines leased for dedicated use from phone companies; these networks are usually referred to as VANs (Value Added Networks). SWIFT was one of the biggest VANs, many banks and financial institutions were and are subscribers. SWIFT itself is most definitely not secret (just a quick Google brought me this press release regarding child support payments made internationally via SWIFT).

My main reaction to the revelation that the government was monitoring SWIFT was, "Duh! Of course they are!" I'd be kind of upset to find out that they weren't, particularly as monitoring of SWIFT has been used frequently in the past to detect money-laundering and fraud.

The existence of SWIFT and its monitoring isn't a surprise to me, and I'm hardly an insider; I doubt the existence of SWIFT and the probability that it's being monitored and has been used to detect crime in the past is news to any criminal hoping to use it to move money.

Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 8, 2006 1:08 AM | Permalink

Lisa,
Your personal example is great if you think you fit the demographic of all possible terrorists who might want to use international funds transfers.

But you don't.

Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 1:14 AM | Permalink

Reminder from post: Let’s not pretend there can be any “debate” between those views. Storm conditions, yes. Discourse, no.

Second reminder from post: David Ignatius ran to daylight when he asked in a column... not who should be trusted with secrets, but what have the parties involved—the Bush White House, the American press—actually done to build public confidence in their judgment as they handle secrets in a classified war?

You can tell who's chomping at the bit, but... Arguing about the decision to publish is going to go nowhere fast. Not because the decision isn't arguable, but because it is endlessly arguable, in part due to the fact that our knowledge is vastly and fatally incomplete.

It won't be easy, but try to imagine a situation where every decision the Times could make is irresponsible-- to trust in Bushco, to not trust and make an independent judgment with fatally incomplete knowledge, to ignore, to wait.

Watch out. We may be in a situation like that. Why does there have to be a "right call?" (As in: "that was the right call.") Is it a law of nature? Maybe all calls are wrong and that's what so vexing.

Which is why I recommended instead: how does an independent press cover a classified war?

Let's see if any of you learned anything about being baited by people who think you represent the clueless, irresponsible, war-undermining press and who come here to spew their disgust and jeer at you, so that you'll make the noises they expect to hear. I'm anticipating the same old game and that the same old tactics will work on you, the baitees, so any improvement will be a plus.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at July 8, 2006 1:49 AM | Permalink

Jay, I don't come here to bait, but I suspect you are referring to me along with others, since I do indeed think many here represent or at least defend the irresponsible war-undermining press (not clueless, though).

I would hope that the work I put into my responses is not dismissed as spew, but it probably will be. Certainly it is meant to be harsh, as that is both my viewpoint, and perhaps one that will cut through the clouds of bloviation.

Yes, some of us have strong opinions, and some are very negative towards the MSM. Of course, I see equivalently strong opinions in the press and here directed towards people with my viewpoint. Fair is fair - except when you own a press and I do not.

As to arguing about whether to publish - Jay, isn't that at the heart of covering a war you describe as "classified", at the heart of the issue of journalistic respectability during that war, and is very much an issue today because of the much discussed publication of secrets?

To dismiss discussion of that as a game and tactics (or "baiting") is to demean those of us who have a different point of view from your own.

Once again, as I see so often in the press, it would appear that disagreement is taken as mere tactics - nothing to be taken seriously, but rather just some of the great unwashed trying to cause trouble.

It reminds me of how the press covers so much in Washington - not as the serious business of governing, but as a petty contest of tactics, and as a horse race. Too many times, the actions of officials are reported in a purely political context - as if officials never mean what they say or work for the nation, as opposed to pure partisanship.

Projection by the press? I often suspect that members of the press view almost anything through a cynical zero-sum lense - as pe