There seems to be a difference of opinion on the subject of the New York Times’s revelations about a program of monitoring international financial transactions (I’ve posted on the subject before here and here). In one corner Demosophist at Winds of Change:
People and institutions make mistakes, especially in war, and one of the maxims about conflict is that it’s not those who strive to eliminate all error who win, but those who strive to make the fewest really awful mistakes. So this isn’t about carrying a grudge against the NYT, but about the fact that they’re apparently so clueless that they don’t even know they’ve made a mistake. And since the expertise required for them to make informed judgments about which disclosures are harmful has gone the way of the Monty Python Parrot, they ought to be enjoined from making such decisions until they wise up.
In the other corner is Michael Reynolds of The Mighty Middle:
The panicky loudmouths on the right who hype the fear of terror, and use that fear as an excuse to attack American freedoms, are the not the strong and steadfast in this war: they are the cowards. They’re the gibbering hysterics who needed a slap across the face in the London Underground while German bombs were falling. They’ve had five years now to try and grow some balls, or at least a stiff upper lip.
I think that a good deal of the disagreement depends on what Demosophist means by “enjoinâ€. Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition:
to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition
“Admonitionâ€, in turn, is defined:
gentle or friendly reproof
So, which is it, Demosophist? If you want to direct the NYT to change its ways by authoritative order, that would be prior restraint i.e. censorship and I agree with Michael. However, if you mean that the NYT should receive urgent but gentle criticism for its actions, I agree with you.
As I noted in the comments to Michael’s post, I think that the NYT is at least in part keeping this ball up in the air itself. Bill Keller’s letter, the editorial in defense of the piece, a full page ad, and subsequent stories have served to keep the ball rolling.
To the best of my knowledge the Times has never alleged that the activity was illegal or ineffective or even should not have been done. I don’t think that the Times was treasonous (or even seditious) in publishing the story—I’ve written about that before. I don’t think that the publication demonstrates that the Times hates America or that the story was published because the editors of the Times hate Bush.
I think it’s more cynical than that. I think that the Times knows its target market and it was trying to consolidate that market and garner support by publishing the story. Take a look at the corporation’s stock value: they need to bolster their position.
Meanwhile, a bleg. Can anyone produce a citation in which members of the Bush Administration are calling for prior restraint of the press in reference to this story or elsewhere? I really want to know.
By “enjoin” I was thinking of someone about the size and aggressiveness of Shacquel O’Neill sticking his big salami-sized finger in Keller’s face and shouting “STFU until you know WTF you’re doing, you pimply faced little weasel!”
So, gentle? Well, not exactly. Definitely something in the shame department, so they feel like little boys for awhile though. There’s just way too much undeserved privilege here.
As long as it’s not in the sense of “legally prevent”, I don’t have a problem with it.
Thanks for the sharp eyes, Dave, and for the clarification, Demosophist. “Prior restraint” is and should be a total non-starter. In the current legal climate, to attempt it a la Pentagon Papers would be political suicide. Let’s keep it that way. I don’t trust Bush/Cheney’s judgement at this deep level, nor will I trust their Jan. ’09-on successors, Dem or Rep.
The Plamegate investigation was a fool’s errand from the start, with respect to those who demanded it. It’s now clear that Richard Armitage was almost certainly the original leaker. Collective yawn, and no legal consequences.
But it set out a useful paradigm for what to do in the case of damaging national security leaks. Make sure that reporters have the rights and privileges of other citizens, no more and no less: No Federal Shield Laws for journalism!
Reporters and their anonymous sources should have the Fitzgerald investigation in the back of their minds as they talk. If the issue is sufficiently important to bring to public notice–illegality, privacy violations, trampling on Congress, etc.–then great. When it’s another case of playing the inside-the-Beltway game, the risks of subpoenas, contempt-of-court citations, and exposure seem quite appropriate.
BTW, my problem with Michael Reynold’s position is that when it comes to reporters in contempt sitting in jail, he was for it (Miller in Plamegate) before he was against it (Lichtblau in Swift). Maybe this is something other than hypocrisy based on short-term political advantage. Reynolds penned his amusing “panicky loudmouths on the right” essay instead of making such a case.