Defensive Times

From todays NY Times Editorial:

...

As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper, and we were not part of the news side's debates about whether to publish the latest story under contention — a report about how the government tracks international financial transfers through a banking consortium known as Swift in an effort to pinpoint terrorists. Bill Keller, the executive editor, spoke for the newsroom very clearly. Our own judgments about the uproar that has ensued would be no different if the other papers that published the story, including The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, had acted alone.

...
Really? Are they telling us about the wall so the prosucuter will know they had nothing to do with Keller's decision even though they agree with it? Just to also be helpful to the prosecuters they mention in the first paragraph a couple of cases that went badly when proscutions were broubght against the press. However, they do not mention the language in one of them, the Pentagon Papers case. where the court said while there may be prior restraint the government could prosecute the papers and their employees for printing the material. In the securities laws, that is known as a material ommission.

The paper goes to mention Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs which is responsible for the arrogance of the media and its assertion that it has a right to interfere with the policy of duly elected officials if in its arrogant opinion it does not meet the media's test.

The underlying tone of this editorial suggest someone whose back side is puckered and ready for the fight or flight syndone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains