Skip to main content

View Diary: It's Enough to Give You Agita (The AP & its Press Freedom) (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You've put together a rationale (0+ / 0-)

    for adopting a system of propaganda managed by an authoritarian government.

    •  Did I really? Who knew? I'm not even sure what (0+ / 0-)

      that statement means but you're welcome to believe whatever suits you.  I'm going to take a wild guess that you disagree with something I wrote and/or misunderstood some or all of it.  

      One of my degrees is in Journalism. I studied at NYU and earned my degree more than 3 decades ago when standards were quite different than they are today.  I think I have a pretty good grasp of the way the press should function to fulfill its role in a society like ours, a role important enough to be protected in the Bill of Rights.

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:59:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess I just don't buy into the idea (0+ / 0-)

        that the press deserves government harassment just because they suck.  I don't disagree with your list of failures - I could add many more myself - but I'd hate to have George Bush directing a government agency like DOJ to investigate a media outlet because they said things with which he disagreed or didn't say things he wanted them to say.  Oh wait - that happened!  Don't want Democrats to become accustomed to following suit.

        Personally, I am fine with finding out whether or not the DOJ monitoring the phone records of more and 100 journalists and editors at AP was indeed appropriate. I feel no fealty to any Administration when Constitutional question arise and I happen to think that this is a fairly important and big one.

        I don't like the AP much, but I can decide not to spend money on their product.  I don't want the government to decide what acceptable media is or is not.  When the government decides what acceptable reporting is, we are in propaganda, authoritarian land - a place I don't want to live.

        Been there and done that, actually - and it isn't pretty, fair or even remotely "OK".

        •  I want to be clear about my stand. (0+ / 0-)

          It's really more than the AP.  Much of the press is standing in the way of important communication that needs to get out.

          I'm talking about a problem that goes far, far beyond "they suck."  They are as owned as the government and they only dribble out information if it's advantageous to the privileged few.

          Read my diaries if they're not too tedious.  The right was griping for years because the Senate didn't pass a budget. This year it did pass one and there was bickering in Congress for two weeks because the Republican caucus refuses to follow the regular order for reconciling the House and Senate versions.  Regular order is a 200 year old protocol and it was brushed aside by people who said We'll only go to conference if the outcome is determined ahead of time and it will have to be the fiscal policy we Republicans dictate.  

          The newsmedia outlets did a huge favor to Republicans by not breathing a word of it.  There was constant friction during the 3 years when the Senate didn't pass a budget. If it was important enough to talk about it then, why isn't it important enough now that it's time to proceed through the protocol of regular order?  Because the newsmedia outlet owners don't care to communicate information unless it benefits them.

          And it's bigger than partisan Ds or Rs too because the whole construct has become so inscrutable that it appears they're all in cahoots together.  

          Apart from that, leaking classified information is indeed against the law.  People disbelieve the leak was serious.
          But we have Exhibit 1, the article that AP published.  The writer took the extraordinary step of stating within his article that it included sensitive information that was leaked, which the federal government wanted to delay in realeasing, and an admission that the article was being published anyway.  There's no need for anyone to buy in sight unseen.  The article is linked in this diary.

          On top of that, a discussion panel at the AP was held on May 8 2012, the day after the article was published.  The panel's topic for discussion was: to leak or not to leak.  One of the speakers recalled a time when the AP fired a reporter for defying the federal government and publishing sensitive information that it wanted delayed.  Another speaker said competition makes it necessary to ignore government orders to wait.

          Any journalist worth his salt should be familar with title 18 USC 798 and be prepared to take his lumps if he breaks the law.

          I want to know who leaked that information and it isn't government harassment.  It's MY right.

          There is no existence without doubt.

          by Mark Lippman on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:56:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site