Who protects us from the "Free Press"

[japantiger 4,051]

I read an OPED in the Washington Post this past week from the deans of five of the "top" journalism schools in the US (Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, etc.). They were writing to defend the NYT, LAT, etc., for publishing the details of our program to follow terroirist dollars through foreign account transfers.

Their collective wisdom was "when in doubt, publish". These "scholars", and I do use that term loosely, believe that any Tom, Dick or Harry-journalism major should be able to determine what goes for state secrets during time of war. And the more ignorant they are of the actual merits of the case, they should have a greater bias towards releasing sensitive material. Pretty shocking, huh.

Remember that in this particular case, we had members of the House/Senate from both parties, Intel Committees and the White House, ask that this not be published. The last time I checked, these were the people that we elected (entrusted) with making these types of decisions. Apparently, being elected doesn't count for much in the face of the advanced wisdon of the press. It must be amazing what they teach in journalism schools these days. I wasn't aware that a four year journalism degree trumped election by the people. I guess you learn something everyday.

What really chaps me, is that the "press" has a pretty lofty opinion of their place in society. What is the press. The last time I checked, the press was really in the business of "selling an audience to an advertiser". Just like a TV show, a radio show, etc. They are a business. They make their money from ad sales. If they have high circulation, more business will buy ads and they make money. If they have low circulation, they sell fewer ads or get fewer dollars per ad. In fact, the NYT, LAT, Post are all big businesses. Huh, I thought we needed to be protected from big business? That's what the press always tells us.

For example, if I am selling other products (like computers, or oil, or phones) and make a lot of money, my actions are immediately suspect (by the press and Democrats anyway). I must somehow being doing something to exploit my workers, the environment, shareholders, migrant workers.....I'm screwing someone, right? That's the press and Dem playbook anyway. So if the press only makes money by selling ads, shouldn't I be suspect of the actions they take to sell more papers? Or, do we believe that somehow the people that work in the press are morally superior to the rest of us and can't be infuenced by things like making money, success, fame, etc. Maybe it's what they teach in those journalism schools? Maybe the religious community should forgoe reading the Bible and looking for divine guidance....four years at "Havad" would innoculate them from the "flesh and sins of the world".

I may not always agree with our elected officials, both the ones I voted for or against. But, at least if they have been elected, a majority of the population has vested them with decision making authority. That's what a republican form of government is all about. In conducting this war, I trust these men and women of both parties to make these decisions regarding what information should be public....not someone who is "just another businessman trying to make a buck". In this environment, who protects us from the actions of the "free press"?