« Build or Buy | Main | A Better Way »
June 23, 2006
Obligations
I was going to write at some length about the latest attack by the New York Times on the American war effort, and thus on the people of the United States1, by disclosing yet another method the government uses to find terrorists. Fortunately, most of that ground was covered by Fran Porretto, so you can see much of the rest of what I would have written there.
But there is one thing that Fran didn't cover and that I would like to discuss: obligations. A member of a community — up to and including a citizen of a country — has obligations to that community. One of those obligations is to obey the constitutionally-valid laws duly passed to govern that community, and another is to not deliberately attack that community directly or by aiding those who attack the community. To do otherwise is to yourself be an enemy of that community. (If someone would like to propose a definition of "enemy" that doesn't include deliberate attempts to destroy or weaken an entity, I'd love to hear it.) For institutions that are part of a community, there is a double obligation: the obligation of the institution to support the system that governs and protects them, and the obligation of each and every member of that institution to do likewise. As such, the Times has multiple obligations to the US that should prevent the Times from deliberately attempting to weaken the US. "Serving the public interest" is not only the Times' duty, but that of every US citizen or institution — and most particularly of the government. The government has an absolute duty to protect the US from attack, and the Times' weakening of that ability is a moral and cultural failure.
The Times, though, has some other peculiar views about obligations that it seems to share with many other MSM outlets. For example, the Times seems to think that the government has an obligation to the Times (and other self-designated journalists with the proper accreditations, memberships and viewpoints) to grant access, disclose information and otherwise to assist the Times in its organizational (corporate, in this case) endeavors. The government has no such obligation. This lack of obligation on the government's part opens a road to dealing with the Times and its like-minded compatriots: banishment.
The President should immediately announce that the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have, through their disclosure of this and other critically sensitive government programs, policies and procedures in the War passed beyond the point where they can be reasonably believed to be acting as responsible American journalists, particularly in refusing to withhold publication of sensitive information about vital government war measures. That, as a result, it is the policy of the government for one year from this date to hold those named institutions and their employees to be persona non grata in their role as journalists, with the following consequences: neither those organizations, nor any employee or associate of those organizations, nor any person whose material is published by those organizations during the year, will be granted press credentials at any government news conference or other event, including travel on Presidential and other government trips abroad; nor will any executive officer or employee grant interviews or otherwise disclose any information of any kind in their official capacity to those organizations or their employees, on pain of termination. The organizations' behavior over the sanction period would determine if the sanctions would continue in place past that year.
The MSM have for too long trampled over the people's true interests, and the people's representatives, in the MSM's own self-interest (while piously insisting they are merely our representatives, as if they were an elected, rather than self-appointed, agent of the public!). It is time for the government to reassert its own obligations to the citizens, by failing to cooperate with those who would harm our war efforts. True, there would be a firestorm over this. But then, what can the Times say that would be worse than what they've already said? What can they do that would be worse than what they've already done? It's time — it's past time — to reclaim government's role as our watchdog.
Certainly, there needs to be a free press covering the government, but there also need to be limits to how far that press goes. Exposing true malfeasance by government (yes, Abu Ghraib counts, though the coverage was one-sided and excessive) is one thing. A sustained attack on the country's ability to defend itself is quite another. And while censorship is not the answer, neither is ignoring the rot within.
1Yes, I realize that the Times would claim that they are "serving the public interest", or, in private, perhaps that they are attacking the Bush administration, but when you deliberately weaken a country's war effort, it is the people of that country who are put at risk. Do I question their patriotism? Unhesitatingly.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1031
Comments
A fine coda, Jeff. Thanks for filling in that bare spot. (I seem to recall that I intended to address this topic, but that might be an "alcohol memory.")
Patriotism, to be meaningful and worth celebrating, must be compatible with the other characterological desiderata, including above all others the obligation not to bring harm to innocent others. Were the Times any sort of business other than a newspaper, the outrage of its fellow newspapers would deafen the world. But somehow, reporters and their employers have been exempted from the obligations of humanity and decency, if there's a juicy story to be had.
Therefore, don't "question" their patriotism. Deny it utterly.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at June 24, 2006 4:40 AM
I have an issue with the term "obligations". If there's a law passed to prevent this disclosure, then that's one thing. But, I disagree if we're talking about an issue of "honor" and "respect" for the "community". There are many members of said "community" who would want more openness in their government and what it's doing.
"Obligation" is a funny word in that it depends on a two-way agreement as to one's rights and duties. You can't have communication without two parties. You can't have obligations without concurrence. Now, one can bring up "ethics" and "respect", and I agree that the MSM has no respect for the authority, but that just makes them irreverent members of the community.
Now, terrorism is probably an extreme example, and there are degrees that govern discreetness. But you've got to draw the line somewhere, and when it comes to the government, and in particular this administration, I don't mind ripping the curtain back.
[There's a great line about "terrorism" or "children" being the root password to the Constitution.]
One of the factors that emboldens the MSM to disregard what this administration would consider to be "standards" for reporting is the fact that the administration really has little recourse. Like it or not, the administration needs the MSM. The MSBS (Mainstream Blogosphere) likes to crow about how much influence they have -- and they do enjoy some influence -- but most of the Americans who actually vote -- the moms and pops in Iowa -- don't read the MSBS. They read the paper (which is just picking up an AP wire story when it comes to national news).
Banning some of the biggest (and yes, most overrated) MSM representatives would do nothing to help the case of the administration or the GOP in the midstream elections. If I gave the MSM any credit, I'd think this was a deliberate bait to try to get themselves banned, so that they could ensure a Democratic win in November from the backlash.
Anyway, I'm rambling - but here's the bottom line for me:
- If it's not codified, then a one-way sense of "obligation" on someone else's part is wishful thinking.
- Dubya doesn't have as much leverage with the MSM as the MSBS wants to think.
Posted by: queuno at June 24, 2006 10:05 AM
Certainly an obligation depends on a two-way agreement as to rights and duties. My argument is that, simply, every social contract must include the obligation of all of its members to not destroy the society. If it does not, the society cannot survive. The Times has been putting itself separate from — above — this society for a long time, and it is not alone. A society that does not respond to that cannot survive, because if the Times is not beyond the rules of society, then why should any person be governed by society's rules?
The government needs a watchdog, yes, as much as we as citizens need the government to be watched. This watchdog exists to protect the rights of US citizens by ensuring that the government is not violating them. But there is no issue here, or in the European prisons case, or in the detentions at Guantanamo other than of US citizens, or in the methods the CIA uses to move prisoners around — there is no issue in any of this of protecting the rights and freedoms of US citizens. This is entirely about the Times' (and others) disapproval of the government's exercise of powers it legitimately holds.
That goes well beyond standards of reporting, and gets to a fundamental necessity of a society to survive: its members cannot weaken or damage the society without punishment or banishment, because the alternative is that the society falls. Yes, the Times and other outlets can say whatever they want. And because they've published things that violate their inherent obligations as a member of society, the government should simply not deal with them for a period of time. This in no way censors the Times; it just reduces their access. They have no special right to that access, and we've lost nothing because other watchdogs still exist and still have that access.
And while it may indeed help the Times, and regardless of whether or not it helps or hurts anyone in the next election, that is irrelevant. There is an issue of principle involved: people and institutions cannot be allowed to become cancers on society, or society dies.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 24, 2006 10:27 AM