>>I agree with you that not everything journalists learn should be published. So do the editors and publishers of reputable media. Not sure this story fits in the category of national secrets. Like it or not, this administration's history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling is probably a factor in the news media opting to report more of what they do rather than less. Someone needs to tell us the truth.
>
>There we disagree. It's a subjective opinion whether the administration has a history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling
Nope, it's a fact, not an opinion. Proven over and over. Choosing to ignore them is a matter of attitude, though.
>and, therefore, doesn't rise to the level of objective news, IMHO, which is a core tenet of journalism. I mean, c'mon, Mike, you're saying that the media is honor-bound to "save" us from Bush. That's not right.
After helping him for so long to get to country where it is now, the media may try to distance themselves from the administration. That's what we called "washing the biography" in the late nineties. There's also a hunch, not quite unfounded (see Bolton thread, for example) that the government may try to do a last-minute stunt in Iran, to provoke a war somehow, because, heh, "we can't leave that to the next president" (or some such words). There were hints galore that the government will try to do something behind everybody's back. Just look - Afghanistan, OK, go there and hunt Bin Laden. Except that the hunt didn't really happen, and the resources went to preparing for Iraq - which was completely unrelated, not a threat at all, not connected with Al Qaeda (until then, that is), and there was no consensus, there wasn't a "Ok, go" - there was a relentless media campaign which went on and on for several months.
>So if the German-American Bund in 1940 published shipping manifests of ships leaving for Britain because of their perceived threat to Germany from Roosevelt, that would have been peachy-keen?
Let's see... was Britain an ally at that time? Was it in a war? Would these manifests present a proof of any clandestine and unlawful government operation in a foreign country? If no, then find a better analogy. Mind you, you're quite close to lose here for pulling a WWII.
>I have to, stringently, disagree with that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that Hersh followed the "three sources" rule before writing. If there are three government sources willing to leak classified ops to a reporter then we are in deep kimchee.
Maybe government sources are also washing their own biographies? They may also see a larger picture and therefore try to avert disaster.
>I think the mantra should be "could people get killed by publishing this". If the answer is "yes", then
...they shouldn't have beaten the war drums without any reserve in 2002/2003. Hundreds of thousands of people ended up dead, because 99% of the media weren't willing to stand up to government propaganda (BBC included) and start asking simple questions. During the 9. March 1991, the first really big opposition rally in Belgrade, which ended with Sloba driving tenks and armor on the streets the third day, you know whose heads were the masses asking (and got them in the end)? The four worst warmongering editors and anchors of the TV news. I can easily imagine a new Nürnberg (aka Nuremberg) where Murdoch would be in the front row among the accused. So, if we're talking about media responsibility, I agree - we need to talk about that.
> the huge temptation to embarrass Bush should be put aside. That's what, apparently, they couldn't bring themselves to do.
...in 2003, when they could have shown that his allegations didn't hold water, that Chalabi is a con artist, that...
>Really, objectively speaking, it's shameful.
...they didn't do any homework then. Maybe they're trying to make it up this time. If yet another real war for faked reasons is sold to the public on their watch, they really should be considering a sepuku.
