Things that make me go hmmm
I got steaming mad when the conservative press started whining left and right about the liberal media a couple of weeks ago when details of how the U.S. is tracking terrorist financing activities appeared in several major newspapers (not all of which were of the alleged barking-moonbat variety, thank you).
Apparently the White House had told The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The L.A. Times to not run with the story, and they all did. And the N.Y. Times took a huge butt-banging without any lube, like nobody else did it. And apparently it’s now wrong to say no to the Oval Office if it says so. The same office that is somehow, indirectly or otherwise, responsible for the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Anyway, now that we’re hearing reports of an American soldier and his buddies allegedly slaying an Iraqi family and then he and one of his merry band raping the girl before killing her, well, where’s the outrage on behalf of the White House now?
Not to say they are condoning it — it’s an investigation, first and foremost, and this country doesn’t stand for that kind of monkey business. But instead of being so worried that the terrorists know how we track their money (it’s not like the Treasury Department has given up and gone home — they will find out any new ways the scary people develop to transfer/spend funds. That is, if nobody’s “outing” any additional undercover governmental employees), shouldn’t we be worried that those sand-pounding sons of bitches will get wind of one moron’s actions and, let’s face it, hold it against our entire nation?
THAT’S the kind of stuff we don’t need to know, if we want to get technical about it. THAT’S what will incite those cave-dwelling misanthropes to come out and blow shit up. I mean, we’ve already got those kooks from North Korea testing missiles — don’t we have enough fucking problems?
Now, as someone with a journalism degree myself, hell yeah I think we should report anything and everything that could/should be in the interest of the people. When the Beltway Snipers were terrorizing D.C. just a few years ago, the cops were telling us to look for a “white box truck.” So while we were all having heart attacks at the sight of the millions of them that are in this area, the cops were actually looking for an ancient blue car with a hole in the trunk. Which, hey, if it got them caught, then woo. Good on the law enforcement in charge. But could those sick, psychotic bastards been caught sooner if we the people had known what to look for? We’ll never know.
What I’m saying is that if everyone’s going to boo-hoo and bitch about the Times (as apparently the world revolves around it and the, oh, conservative-based Wall Street Journal’s publication of the story was swept under the rug), why aren’t the proverbial “they” getting outraged at the allegations of the actions on the part of this formerly honorably discharged soldier being splayed all over the media? Sure, if he did it, he should be strung up by the balls. No question. But if we’re so worried about the terrorists reading the same papers/ watching the same news programs as the rest of us, let’s apply the same rules to each incident.
UPDATE
I’d heard reports of this, but if E&P writes about it, it must be true! I’d read (on the most conservative site out there) that the WSJ claimed it hadn’t been asked by the White House to kill the terror financing story. So, what, only the liberal media was contacted? I highly doubt THAT. But before the fit hit the shan, the WSJ was whining that it had the scoop, too! Check out this opinion piece from E&P:
The (Wall Street) Journal also claimed that it was right to run the same story because it had not been asked to hold it and that the Times had it first. What logic is this? If a story is wrong to run then it is wrong to run. It appears that the Journal is the one shielding itself from criticism by pointing a finger at the Times with the childish “he started it!†defense.
And even that does not hold water, when you consider that Journal Washington Bureau Chief Gerald Seib, who wrote an e-mail to E&P shortly after the story broke claiming that our description of the Times’ story as a scoop was wrong.
“I was surprised to see your news story about the New York Times ‘scoop’ on the government program to monitor international bank transactions. As you could tell from the lead story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, we had the same story,†Seib wrote in an e-mail on June 23, the day the stories appeared in print. “Moreover, we posted it online early last evening, virtually at the same time the Times did. In sum, we and the Times were both chasing the story, and crossed the finish line at the same time–and well ahead of the Los Angeles Times, which posted its story well after ours went up.â€
Way to go, WSJ.
Where is the outrage?!?!
July 5th, 2006 at 8:19 AM
Silly Goddess, you are asking for the rules to apply to all, equally. Surely you must know that it cannot be allowed to happen. I am wondering if the soldiers involved are from Repug or Democratic families. That’d be something interesting to add to the equation dealing with a lack of uproar over the reports.
Me, personally, I think it should all be reported. But I’m an anarchist I think 🙂
July 5th, 2006 at 11:48 AM
I operate under the guise that our government, in it’s present state, deserves none of our trust whatsoever. I’m not certain I find the reports that were published as anything that could jeopardize security. Only in those rare, extreme circumstances do i feel news should not be reported, only held until a safer time. Well, it’s a major election year, and the Republicans are in danger of losing some seats in the house and senate ( though the democrats, as a whole, are disappointing me with their inactivity..more on that later). Do you think there ever would have been a “safer time” under this white house to allow the story? Perhaps…only when a major “victory” or kill has been acheived (i.e. Saddam being caught 6 months before the election). I get very suspicious of and regime who tells what can and cannot be reported. Conservatives get all hopped up about the former “threat” of communism. In many cases, this “leadership” practices just that. When the government runs the press, expect nothing but spin.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Do as they say not as they do. Oh, and who wants to take bets on how much longer it is before the present Administration is asking to “see our papers” every where we go.
Sigh.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Yep, you’re a journalist allright.
Plame wasn’t undercover, therefore she couldn’t be “outed”. The law that everyone keeps bringing up is explicit about that, and she wasn’t in a covert position, she was just another desk jockey for the agency. The fact that she appeared in Washington DC’s “Who’s Who” for several years, and was listed by name as Joe Wilson’s wife doesn’t matter either I guess.
I remember when facts used to matter when telling the story. Now they conveniently get forgotten when they don’t fit your preconceived worldview.
Yay journalists.
And since we’re busy being outraged, how about the fact that members of both parties, not just “the White House” asked the newspapers to not publish the details. But Keller, the editor, decided to run it anyway. Funny, but I don’t remember voting for him, and if anyone with a newspaper can decide what’s classified information and what isn’t, then why bother? Accountability? There is none, except that the Times (both NY and LA) and yes, the WSJ are facing a backlash from pissed-off people. Welcome to free-market America.
Amy, get a grip. I chuckled at your hyperbolic orwellian fantasy about “seeing your papers”, now how about providing something factual and concrete to back up that claim? Or are you worried that “they” are already listening and taking notes?
It’s easy to be bold and daring in one of the freest countries in the world. I’m so impressed.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:37 PM
One more thing:
“The same office that is somehow, indirectly or otherwise, responsible for the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.”
An indictment was handed down, but the investigation continues. Since this *is* the White House though, you’ll just ignore that because you know the real truth about those guilty bastards. Indirectly or otherwise? *snicker*
Yeah, journalists.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Last I checked, Caterwauling never claimed scholarly or journalistic status.
It occurs to me that the repugs need only hold true to their own ideals and that in and of itself is what irritates the better party to say/do the “wrong” things or nothing at all.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:15 PM
You brought up your journalism degree, as if that gave you some unique perspective to the story.
So lets see… a classified and completely legal government program, with full congressional oversight, which was not only successful in the past in preventing terrorist attacks, but was still useful and instrumental in several ongoing investigations, is revealed in detail by one man who’s sole qualification is that he’s the head of the NY Times.
Exactly what need of the people did that serve?
As for the “repugs” remark, I’ve told you before that the name calling isn’t debate, it’s childish and beneath you. If you have an alternate suggestion then make it, but whining that the other guys are evilmeancorrupt isn’t going to solve anything. And if your “better party” remains silent because they don’t like the other guys, then they deserve exactly what they’ve got now. As for saying the “wrong” things, blaming the other guys because you stoop to childish no-no-no games isn’t how you win friends and influence people. It’s not even a close to convincing as an argument.
Like it or not, half of America voted against what the Democrats stood for in the last election. It will happen again if the Dems don’t craft a coherent message and sell it to America. So far, it ain’t happening.