Media Self Censor: When? Never?

[southside grabowski]

The US president has accused US newspapers of hampering the "war on terror" by publishing details of a secret scheme to track money transfers

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5119394.stm


No need to recap the story as you all know it. The President, his loyal pundits and others are outraged that the NYT would release information about such a program to the World. I have heard more than on person comment that Ann Coulter was right when she wished that the Ok city bomber had taken out the NYT building. Some call for legal action against the Times. Those on the other side of the aisle support the Times and other media outlet claiming that they have the freedom to publish whatever they want to.

It is my opinion that the Times or any media outlet has a right to publish information freely. It is the responsibility of media to challenge the Government. Government control of the press is unacceptable and contrary to the fiber of everything I believe. There are times, however when the press should censor itself. There is a line between being a watchdog and an obstructionists. Such situations include those where the release of information is likely to result in death or injury. I have not decided about this “money transfer” case, but I lean towards the Times’ position.

What are your feelings on press self censor? Is it ever appropriate? Never?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5119394.stm


No need to recap the story as you all know it. The President, his loyal pundits and others are outraged that the NYT would release information about such a program to the World. I have heard more than on person comment that Ann Coulter was right when she wished that the Ok city bomber had taken out the NYT building. Some call for legal action against the Times. Those on the other side of the aisle support the Times and other media outlet claiming that they have the freedom to publish whatever they want to.

It is my opinion that the Times or any media outlet has a right to publish information freely. It is the responsibility of media to challenge the Government. Government control of the press is unacceptable and contrary to the fiber of everything I believe. There are times, however when the press should censor itself. There is a line between being a watchdog and an obstructionists. Such situations include those where the release of information is likely to result in death or injury. I have not decided about this “money transfer” case, but I lean towards the Times’ position.

What are your feelings on press self censor? Is it ever appropriate? Never?

There was no reason to disclose this program. Period.

[hardeeharhar]

There was no reason not to disclose this program.

As the government's case will be people have no real assurances of privacy in money transfers -- ultimately there is always a third party who will look at the transfer, which ultimately means this program is a non-issue as long as it isn't abused (as there was apparently at least one case of abuse). Revealing it also, by the same token, doesn't release information to the public that wasn't already there. Subpoenas for bank information occur, the terrorist know this, the american people know this, and this knowledge doesn't help criminals fund their crimes more readily. They still need to transfer money, and they are still going to use banks or wire transfer agencies to do this.

It changes nothing.

It was a dumb article; but there is no great reason to get in a huff about it either way.

[jimmac]

Hey the way I look at it. Bush isn't terribly concerned with our privacy. Why should we be concerned with the privacy of one of his pet programs?;)

Besides all of his pet programs seem to have another agenda. Why should this one be any different?

[southside grabowski]

Rather than debate this case, let's focus on the general issue. In a scenario where a media outlet obtains information (via a talkative Gov official let's say) do the reporter and editor have a responsibility to consider the consequences of publishing or are they obligated as journalists to publish? If there are circumstances when a story should be shredded, what are those circumstances?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Rather than debate this case, let's focus on the general issue. In a scenario where a media outlet obtains information (via a talkative Gov official let's say) do the reporter and editor have a responsibility to consider the consequences of publishing or are they obligated as journalists to publish? If there are circumstances when a story should be shredded, what are those circumstances?

I think we've already covered that.;)

[hardeeharhar]

Depends on the situation and its immediacy.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Hey the way I look at it. Bush isn't terribly concerned with our privacy. Why should we be concerned with the privacy of one of his pet programs?;)

Besides all of his pet programs seem to have another agenda. Why should this one be any different?


There is no privacy issue here. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There is no privacy issue here. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

If there's no privacy issue and since it's known that large money transfers have been reported to the government as a matter of course for a long time (anything above $10,000, I believe), why is the government so riled by this newspaper report?

[Chucker]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

And yet you don't put any effort into setting him straight?

Enlighten us: why should this program not be disclosed?

[jamac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There was no reason to disclose this program. Period.

You really think that our terrorist enemies didn't know this already?? You are the dummest MFr.

The first thing they did is follow the money. The trails all lead to the Saudis and Dubai. So let's invade Afghanistan and Iraq. cause we are smart!:err:

I know you hate the thought that this is still a free country.

[Placebo]

Governor/senator/congressman shouldn't have discosed it in the first place. What dumbasses.

[midwinter]

Stupid Andrew Hamilton. What a bastard.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chucker
And yet you don't put any effort into setting him straight?

Enlighten us: why should this program not be disclosed?

Because it makes us lose Teh Wah On Terra!11!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Because it makes us lose Teh Wah On Terra!11!

But not before it emboldens teh enemy!