Here is a link to an editorial response from the New York Times regarding the publication of the Wikileaks material:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05pubed.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
This brief item deserves being read in its entirety, because it is only in its totality that it can be understood.
The Times poses the issue of publication as a dichotomous one- are Americans better off armed (their word) with knowledge, or with someone else concealing knowledge from them. They pass in a breathtaking series of assumptions from a journalistic issue of publication versus non-publication, to philosophical issues of government, including information and freedom of speech. Of course, in such a dichotomous argument, free speech and knowledge win over ignorance and suppression.
The Times supports their argument with two hypothetical questions, one about Johnson and Vietnam, and the other about Bush and Iraq. These hypotheticals, and the entire argument of the paper, ignore other significant issues that surround the question of publication of sensitive material. It is not just a matter of information and freedom.
It is quite revealing to read the NYT from WW2. The stories are remarkably wrong, and deliberately so. The troop strengths, locations and intentions are all false. The position of the Times presumes there is no, or at best little, reason to withhold information from the public. But this is quite patently false with regard to military and diplomatic activity. Many such activities benefit from secrecy, and some can only be done in secrecy.
Let us consider some other hypotheticals to illustrate the point. What if the NYT had come into possession of details about US nuclear experiments in WW2? Should those have been published, at a time when there was a considerable concern about German advances in the same field? What if information about US-Soviet negotiations were published, compromising the intimacy and delicacy of them?
It is easy to place individual 'rights' of information above the collective need for privacy, but it is a false channel. In war, and in diplomacy, there are too many situations where collective benefit outweighs individual knowledge. In such cases, individual knowledge does NOT equal empowerment; rather, the revelation of private material reduces collective power.
The real essence of the NYT's motivations is revealed in the middle of their editorial-
"The Times, like other serious news organizations in democracies, exists to ferret out and publish information — most especially information that government, business and other power centers prefer to conceal. Arming readers with knowledge is what it’s about, and journalists are motivated to pursue that end. "
Really? Is that what being a journalist is all about? That sentence reveals much about how the NYT views itself relative to the government and society. Society's needs can be damned in the Times' pursuit of its self defined mission. I do not suggest that the Press should be a government stooge. Rather, there is much more to being a journalist than just printing whatever 'They' want to keep secret. The presumption is that anything kept secret must be of value to the public. Sometimes its only value is in its secrecy.
The Times' values are from 40 years ago, when the Press was an important part of exposing inappropriate governmental lying and manipulation. Not all secrets are lies. The self-described mission to expose secrets reminds me of children who desperately want to see what their parents are doing behind closed dorrs. It is juvenile and lacking in finesse and judgment.
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05pubed.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
This brief item deserves being read in its entirety, because it is only in its totality that it can be understood.
The Times poses the issue of publication as a dichotomous one- are Americans better off armed (their word) with knowledge, or with someone else concealing knowledge from them. They pass in a breathtaking series of assumptions from a journalistic issue of publication versus non-publication, to philosophical issues of government, including information and freedom of speech. Of course, in such a dichotomous argument, free speech and knowledge win over ignorance and suppression.
The Times supports their argument with two hypothetical questions, one about Johnson and Vietnam, and the other about Bush and Iraq. These hypotheticals, and the entire argument of the paper, ignore other significant issues that surround the question of publication of sensitive material. It is not just a matter of information and freedom.
It is quite revealing to read the NYT from WW2. The stories are remarkably wrong, and deliberately so. The troop strengths, locations and intentions are all false. The position of the Times presumes there is no, or at best little, reason to withhold information from the public. But this is quite patently false with regard to military and diplomatic activity. Many such activities benefit from secrecy, and some can only be done in secrecy.
Let us consider some other hypotheticals to illustrate the point. What if the NYT had come into possession of details about US nuclear experiments in WW2? Should those have been published, at a time when there was a considerable concern about German advances in the same field? What if information about US-Soviet negotiations were published, compromising the intimacy and delicacy of them?
It is easy to place individual 'rights' of information above the collective need for privacy, but it is a false channel. In war, and in diplomacy, there are too many situations where collective benefit outweighs individual knowledge. In such cases, individual knowledge does NOT equal empowerment; rather, the revelation of private material reduces collective power.
The real essence of the NYT's motivations is revealed in the middle of their editorial-
"The Times, like other serious news organizations in democracies, exists to ferret out and publish information — most especially information that government, business and other power centers prefer to conceal. Arming readers with knowledge is what it’s about, and journalists are motivated to pursue that end. "
Really? Is that what being a journalist is all about? That sentence reveals much about how the NYT views itself relative to the government and society. Society's needs can be damned in the Times' pursuit of its self defined mission. I do not suggest that the Press should be a government stooge. Rather, there is much more to being a journalist than just printing whatever 'They' want to keep secret. The presumption is that anything kept secret must be of value to the public. Sometimes its only value is in its secrecy.
The Times' values are from 40 years ago, when the Press was an important part of exposing inappropriate governmental lying and manipulation. Not all secrets are lies. The self-described mission to expose secrets reminds me of children who desperately want to see what their parents are doing behind closed dorrs. It is juvenile and lacking in finesse and judgment.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment