Friday, July 21, 2006

Predicted wingnut response to the following article: "See, here is where the media held a story, which means that THE MEDIA SHOULD ALWAYS HOLD STORIES!!!1!"

My take is that this is a bit of journalistic navel-gazing. The article is a juxtaposition to ... what? The writer doesn't say. Could be the secret CIA prisons. Could be the warrantless wiretapping program.

A Secret the Media Kept
Toward the end of 1979, hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations got hold of a dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring. The facts were confirmed, unassailably. Any one of these reporters could have had the scoop of a lifetime.

And yet not one reporter, newspaper, network or newsletter ran with the story until given permission to do so (all at once) by the governments involved. [...]

It was very different back in 1979.

On Nov. 4 of that year, Islamic militants stormed and occupied the U.S. Embassy compound in Tehran and took hostage the more than 70 Americans there.

But six American officials happened to be outside the compound, elsewhere in the Iranian capital, at the time of the takeover. The militants never realized that some Americans were missing; they were being sheltered by Canadian diplomats in Tehran, who were risking their own safety to protect them.

This, then, is an example of news critters holding information that directly affected the life, death, or imprisonment of a number of people. Sounds like a good idea to me. Bully for journalists.

Without specifying a story, the writer also rhetorically asks:
Today, as news media have revealed secret programs of the Bush administration, the questions are being asked: Can journalists keep a secret? Should they? Are news media capable of drawing the line between revelations that would be too damaging to national security interests and those necessary to safeguard American democracy and constitutionally protected rights?

Here's another question. Of the stories that have invoked such questions, how many have had a direct and immediate impact on the life, death, or imprisonment of any person or persons?

I suspect the answer is none. And if so, then this whole comparison falls apart.

It is a pretty color of navel lint, though. And fluffy, too.

1 Comments:

Blogger TOR Hershman said...

More than likely it’s just a case of Skippy Goebbels
(Elitist News Reporter)
being paid-by-the-word but is too much of a Fat Cat, or just plain lazy, to
run-with that.

Stay on Groovin' Safari,
TOR

Sun Aug 27, 07:49:00 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home