Why we ran the bank story (LA Times)

[spindrifter]

The Times editor on the paper's decision to expose U.S. money monitoring.
By Dean Baquet, DEAN BAQUET is the editor of the Los Angeles Times.
June 27, 2006

<snip>

The decision to publish this article was not one we took lightly. We considered very seriously the government's assertion that these disclosures could cause difficulties for counterterrorism programs. And we weighed that assertion against the fact that there is an intense and ongoing public debate about whether surveillance programs like these pose a serious threat to civil liberties.

We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. In this case, we believed, based on our talks with many people in the government and on our own reporting, that the information on the Treasury Department's program did not pose that threat. Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism.

In the end, we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts.

<snip>

The founders of the nation actually gave us that role (of covering government), and instructed us to follow it, no matter the cost or how much we are criticized. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." That's the edict we followed.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-baquet27jun27,0,7950949.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[Greyhound]

1. K & R

:kick:

[nashville_brook]

2. here's my problem with this -- the LAT is suddenly

a hero b/c they are doing their job? this is the kind of story we (should) EXPECT to see everyday from the LAT, the NYT, the Miami Herald and the Kingsport Times-News. it's a regular, old investigative story. government/business oversteps bounds. newspaper reports it.

all of a sudden they are looking like heros for doing their freaking job.

and we *all know* that we are in POST-MEDIA world. a post-911 world, where the media gave it's last pretentions of ever being anything but a money-making, corporate enterprise. ergo, i'm having a difficult time not being cynical about this.

it's going to take a whole lot more for me to root for them no matter how many hate radio wackos are calling for their heads. watching the two groups go up against each other is like watching WWF wrestling. it smells of theater.

here's what i think the RW has to gain by making theater out of this -- privacy issues are conflated to the status of troop movements. think about it. it doesn't matter how it all shakes out -- it's THEATER. what is important is that we all leave with the "moral to the story."

[Fovea]

3. In my mind

the LA Times has this exactly right.

Indeed, the government's 'war on terror' is not a valid reason
to shred the constitution. That would be just as true for wars against any other abstract noun.

Similarly I would oppose torture as a tool in the war on toothdecay (a much more physical threat),
I would oppose suspension of due process in the war on obesity, willy p in the war on inflation is also a bad idea.

But it all started with the trashing of the 4th amdendment in the 'war on drugs' so obviously fake wars are the best way to shred the constitution.

[nashville_brook]

4. omg -- i love your comment!

you are so right. it did start with the fake "war on drugs."

i was in college during that time and trying to get traction on the constitutional issues surrounding the WOD was nearly impossible outside of poly sci classes and buddies drinking pitchers of beer. we KNEW where it was going, but the "realpolitik" was "shut up hippy."

here we are, 20 years later living the nightmare of those "theoretical discussions" becoming reality. slippery slope, indeed.

[katty]

5. OMG, do my eyes deceive me? the papers are huddling in revolt

finally?