The New York Times thinks it's mightier than God...or the US Government, for that matter. Journalists, who are unelected, took it upon themselves to divulge a secret monitoring operation that sifts through national and international banking transactions. "But we're the counterbalance to a government who thinks it's above the law." Really? Oh, I thought the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress was the counterbalance in a government style with three branches. Maybe the people at the NY Times are so ignorant that they forgot the government class they took in high school (which was probably worthless because the entire education system is run by people like them).
Or maybe the NY Times will say and do anything that justifies what they do, which therefore makes them die by their own sword—there are LAWS against divulging secrets of the U.S. Government, and they broke those laws. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. This, even when previous presidents have done much farther-reaching things during wartime, such as IMPRISONING people who threaten critical government operations. You see, the NY Times doesn't believe it is wartime—at least, not the war against Islamic terrorism. To the NY Times, the war is against an "arrogant" administration that "flouts" the law at every turn.
But one second. Who appointed or elected the NY Times to become members of Congress of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court? Nobody. Congress KNEW of these programs, including both sides of the aisle. Open to abuse? Of course! That's why there are 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. If terrorists are able to get past US financial safeguards and surveillance because of the NY Times, all the editors who signed off on the article should be tried for treason.
The trouble, again, is that the folks at the NY Times do not take the threat of terrorism seriously. That's what it comes down. People think we're safe. But guess what folks? The only reason there hasn't been another attack is because the government is doing whatever it can to protect us. The NY Times doesn't care about security, which is ironic given Sept 11. They will be singing about their rights until a suicide bomber lights his or her fuse right here in the
"But what about our rights?! Our rights are being trampled by THIS ADMINISTRATION!" Really? You know, every operation the government runs has been told to Congressional leaders. Ever think about that? Ever heard of the Senate Intelligence Committee? YOU’RE NOT ON IT. If there was a problem, those people are the people who launch investigations. But they haven't. Yes, there is always the possibility of abuse. Yes, these secret operations should be overseen by the secret court system. So be it.
BUT THE NY TIMES IS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. I'm so sick of it. They are not above the law, and neither is Bush. The NY Times is a complete and utter disgrace to journalistic integrity. They are not the people, they are the media. Never confuse the two. I got out of journalism precisely for this reason: these are self-appointed “experts” on policy and legal matters, when they really aren’t. They do the “homework” on stories that fulfills their point of view, not a balanced point of view. It’s lazy, it’s arrogant, and it’s shameful. It's also insane.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The NY Times is NOT a branch of the US Gov!
2 comments:
This is the most biased and least thought-out article you've written.
The news media was created to be a government watch dog back in the day. Their job is to report when the government is doing something the people don't know about, for example, illegal acquiring bank account information.
Why aren't you mad at the person who is engaging in all of these illegal activities?
Security is well and good and all, but it's not a promise. True liberty and true freedom comes with a price. The price that I may very well die by the hand of a terrorist or some nut job in a grocery store. But that's a price we have to be willing to pay if we truly want to be free.
Every article I write is biased. Fortunately, I am not the New York Times--otherwise, someone might squak at me for being biased. Oh wait. And for the record, I was in a bad mood when I wrote this disjointed piece.
Now, I'm aware of your reasoning here, and it is a point of a view I have debated with a number of individuals. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. As with everything, there is a balance to be maintained: the executive branch (federal gov't) is responsible for maintaining transparency whenever it can possibly do so. As such, it's exactly where and when that all this messy business comes about. Now, I understand that the papers' job is to disclose whatever "illegal" activities are occurring under the guise of "national security" or whatever other reason the federal government may give...or even to disclose information that is not made known to the public for non-security purposes. Ok, we've established this.
But where do we draw the line? Because on either side of the line, as you know, there is the inevitable slippery slope. There always is, because humanity is nothing more than slippery slopes. First of all, if the NY Times was able to disclose every secret government operation that it judged to be "questionable" or "illegal," it is very possible that our intelligence and anti-terrorism operations would completely collapse, say nothing of operations run through the State Department or DOJ. The problem I have with the NY Times is not necessarily that it found something it judged to be questionable, but rather that it judged itself to be the judge in what is and is not questionable government operations. Look, I don't like Uncle Sam looking over my shouler any more than Mickey Mouse. But the NY Times isn't a judge nor a jury - it just acts like one. And although it has a place to act like one, I feel that it oversteps its bounds sometimes by revealing information that could potential harm millions of people. Yes, yes, those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither, but then again, no one asked the 3000+ people who died on Sept 11 if they would've traded 30-45 minutes extra travel time and some pat-downs for their lives. Again, it's all about where you draw the line.
In this case, I believe the NY Times took its liberty too far. The main reason? Because Congress (leaders who are both conservative and liberal) knew about the program already. If they believed there was illegal activity going on, they should've made a big cry out of it and told the world. Like I said, the NY Times has a burden, just like the federal government, of choosing when it is appropriate to reveal information to the public. Both should be held responsible for when they overstep their bounds - I distrust the NY Times more because it is not held accountable by the public, while the government, even if it isn't immediate, ultimately is.
I appreciate the comment though ryan. Give me another angle to this though, because I'm tired of the 'those who trade freedom for security deserve neither' - it is a nice phrase, but ultimately unrealistic. We wouldn't trade our comfortable lives for no laws would we? Why? Because having no laws (no limits on freedom) would ultimately create less freedom. Again, a line must be drawn somewhere to balance the need for both.
Post a Comment