"New York Times editor chides White House' Abramson says leaks are vital to democracy" by Liz Kowalczyk | Globe Staff, June 17, 2012
Jill Abramson, New York Times executive editor, criticized the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecutions over leaks during a speech to journalists in Boston on Saturday, warning that White House policy “threatens to rob the public of vital information.’’
Like what, war propaganda and agenda-pushing garbage?
And the part about Obama and leaks is true re: whistleblowers. So much for transparency, remember that? Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. But that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is this kabuki theater regarding the government and its mouthpiece.
Abramson, who took over as executive editor last September, said several reporters who have covered national security for decades have told her that “the environment has never been tougher or information harder to dislodge. One Times reporter told me, ‘The environment in Washington has never been more hostile to reporting,’ ’’ she said.
Abramson was the keynote speaker at the Investigative Reporters &
Editors annual conference, which drew 1,200 journalists. The Boston
Globe, which is owned by the New York Times Co., hosted the conference.
Abramson’s
comments were made in the context of recent articles in The New York
Times about the White House use of drones, or unmanned planes, to carry
out targeted killings, and of cyber warfare, including computer worms,
against Iran.
Related: Obama Campaign Springs a Leak
Also see: Israel Puts Flame Under Iran
America helped light the match.
Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have urged
the administration to investigate the recent disclosures of national
security secrets, while the president has denied that his White House
team is the source of the leaks.
Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. assigned
two United States attorneys to lead separate criminal investigations
into the recent disclosures. But some Republican members of Congress
have called upon the administration to go further and appoint a special
prosecutor.
Among the recent disclosures by news outlets: an Al Qaeda plot to
bomb an airliner failed because of a double agent; a joint
American-Israeli computer virus sabotaged Iran’s nuclear centrifuges;
and Obama has played a central role in approving a list of terrorism
suspects to be killed by drone strikes.
Excuse me for a minute, readers, but I need to hit the crapper.
The New York Times, the Associated Press, Newsweek, and other news
media outlets have published the reports; some were gathered from books
written by Times and Newsweek journalists.
Abramson pointed out that the Obama administration has mounted six
prosecutions involving leaks under the 1917 Espionage Act, double the
number under all previous administrations combined.
“The United States has never had an official secrets act,’’ she said.
“This would be antithetical to our democratic values. But it seems time
to me to ask whether a once obscure espionage law from long ago is now
being used to substitute for one.’’
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
At the same time, legal scholar Geoffrey Stone has concluded that
there has not been any instance when the media’s publication of “a
legitimate but newsworthy government secret has gravely harmed the
national interest,’’ she said.
It makes me laugh because the mouthpiece is either advancing the interest or is being used by it's true masters to advance a certain agenda -- or destroy those who will not.
Secrets, sources, and leaks have long been part of Washington’s culture, she said, despite recent outrage by politicians.
“Prominent Democrats complained that the sources who disclosed
details and aspects of these operations to the Times had endangered
national security by letting America’s enemies know too much about
secret programs,’’ she said, referring to the drone and cyber warfare
stories.
“Republicans, meanwhile, accused the Obama administration
itself of leaking sensitive details in order to portray the president as
an active and able protector of the national security, a kind of
superhero president. Both, clearly, can’t be true.’’
Yet, she said, these subjects are crucial to the public interest.
“Cyber warfare is a new battlefield, where there are no agreements
regulating the use of malware and viruses. So doesn’t the public need
information to evaluate this new kind of battle, especially when it is
waged in its name? Furthermore, when the existence of drone and cyber
attacks are widely known but officially classified, informed public
discussion of critical questions is stifled,’’ she said.
I'm for such a complete openness about so many things it is difficult for me to begin a commentary here considering the endless lies the NYT has told and continues to tell.
Still Abramson acknowledged the stories are delicate and said the newspaper is careful.
“Sensitive stories do not fall into our hands. We often report on
them for months. We double-check and triple-check. We examine the
motives of our sources and seek out sources with different points of
view. . . No article on a classified program gets published until the
responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And
if they argue that publication of a story presents a danger to national
security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing.
Sometimes we have agreed to omit certain details which are not central
to the reader’s understanding of the story. Sometimes we have held
stories while we report more deeply,’’ she explained.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah, that first comment just exudes the arrogance, and why not let US decide that second as readers, 'eh? In a sense we already are: that is why YOU and I are HERE, readers!!
Of course, they tell half-truths all the time, and they have sat on stories, such as the U.S. plan to seize Pakistan's nukes (for three years) and the warrantless Bush spying program.
--more--"
I seem to remember calling them the pinnacle of propaganda at one time, and nothing has changed (sob).
