In the comments to another post, I made the statement that I was done commenting about the warrantless surveillance issue. I lied. I really didn't mean to, but here I am talking about it again, so there is only one conclusion to draw. I lied.
And apparently so did Attorney General Michael Mukasey when he commented publicly about a pre-9/11 call the U.S. intercepted from Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Furthermore, to date, the media has failed to pick up the story demonstrating once again that folks on all sides of the issues of the day have cause to doubt the professionalism of our fourth estate.
It also points out a main reason I've been so shrill about the whole warrantless surveillance issue. Denny has argued here that the action of our government and the telecoms was justified for national security reasons. While I disagree with this view and have taken even greater issue with some of the factual and logical inconsistencies in the arguments he has put forth to make this point, the point itself is not completely without merit. We disagree on the degree of the threat facing us and on the relative priority national security, in this instance, and adherence to the law among our leaders must take in our calculations of right action. Despite some of the harsh words I have lobbed at Denny, this is ground upon which reasonable people can rightly disagree.
What makes me unreasonable is the growing mountain of evidence of the government’s dishonest attempts to avoid any accountability for their actions at any cost. I may have overlooked something, but I have heard no one from the government who was in a position of responsibility for the illegal surveillance they conducted come forth and make precisely Denny’s argument – “we broke the law, but the national security need was so great we felt we had to. Please don’t hold the telecoms responsible for responding to our need. We paid them and leaned on them to comply; it’s not their fault."
No. Instead we have been presented with an array of factual inaccuracies about the law as it exists today and spurious claims of the need to protect state secrets, claims that have persisted even in the face of solutions offered by the House of Representatives to all of the supposed problems. Moreover, the administration has consistently used scare tactics to convince us to comply with their wishes, telling us that we're wide open to threat -- that this is a zero sum game: either pass this new legislation with telecom amnesty or be killed by terrorists. The Mukasey performance was just the latest in this long series of parlor tricks.
Here are a couple of mutually referencing links to another discussion of the situation:
Center for Citizen Media
Glenn Greenwald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
It's a good thing neither of the sources you linked has an underlying political bias or agenda, or else Scott would be all over you for eating fruit from a poisoned tree.
(You can ignore this comment as baseless and snarky if you want, because it is. Hey, everyone else is lobbing hand grenades. I just wanted to get my turn!)
(raised eyebrow)
By which you are implying bias on my part.
I'll peruse them later for statement that are lacking in factual backing. I haven't the time at the moment. It is made more difficult by the fact that on the blog he didn't link to a specific post that he considered compelling or otherwise praise them as oracular. He also didn't cite them as sources or indicate any specificity that they were anything more than a continuation of the current debate.
That being said, if you link to a blog, you're asking for trouble. Blogs are (mostly) opinion by their very nature. As such I only take them to task when they are libelous or alleging facts that are not in evidence. Unless a blog adheres to journalistic style and ethics, in fact, I generally take everything I read there with a grain of salt and I could give a damn who is writing it.
I read the newspaper the same way. It is how I remain an informed citizen of this nation and anyone who doesn't apply a grain of salt to everything they read or hear in the news is a fool, or at least asking to be fooled which is much the same thing in my view.
There is a difference between news and opinion/editorials (and by extension, blogs). And alleging bias based on what they say in their opinion section of the paper or website or newscast under the heading "Opinion" or "Editorial" is misleading and wrong.
Is there bias in media? Sure. Because reporters are people, editors are people, newscasters are people and opinions are like as... um, noses. Just about everyone has one and they usually smell. (ahem)
Slate has a long record of journalistic integrity, and I have nothing against them. If I read something there that is posted as news or as fact, I will take them to task for it. Just as I would (and do) with the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Seattle PI, Fox News and CNN.
If any source proves to be pushing an agenda, I do indeed put it under the microscope and I tell you what I see. If they prove to be consistently colouring their postings to push their agenda under the guise of presenting misconstrued 'facts' (as with our list of Jihadis) you bet your ass I'm going to hold it up so you can see the holes. I make no bones about that and offer no apologies.
Feel free to do the same to any source I care to cite.
Hm... actually I suppose he did link to specific posts. At first glance, I thought he'd sent us to the front page. It takes time to run down sources, especially in these arenas. I'll get back to you on those...
I'm not implying bias on your part. Just pointing out that you've been doing your part to act as a sort of source police -- which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. It's just what you do, and that's cool.
I was also poking David with a stick, because he and I have had conversations about Greenwald before, during which the topic of bias has come up.
Seriously, I'm not looking to open up a discussion here. Just having a little fun on a Friday afternoon, at the expense of all of us who take ourselves too seriously.
See, Chris, there you go again. I don't take any of US seriously, just the issues, man, just the issues.
Good to see you having some fun.
Just out of curiosity, though, Scott, what does Slate's long record of journalistic integrity have to do with anything vaguely associated with this post?
Nothing at all. When you said 'sources' I took that to mean the site rather than the poster. Slate is a fine site, and I visit it often. Not very often have I found their reporting to require my additional attention. Their editorial section (in its modern interpretation of hosted blogs) seems to run the gamut between laughable and serious and - as with all op/ed sections and pieces, you generally leave with what you came in carrying.
Greenwald himself obviously has more books to sell. I haven't read any of them... are they any good?
All of that being said, if Mukasey said this (and apparently he did) and if the chairman of the 9/11 commission doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (I think that came out wrong, but you know what I mean) then that is certainly troubling.
Are you talking about Slate or Salon?
Did I type "Slate"? I guess I did. My bad. But I do read both of them, so... well... there you go.
It's what I get for referring back to my own post (which is next to where I'm typing this) rather than back to the original post I'm supposed to be commenting on. One typo begets a cascade of strange statements oddly unrelated to what I'm actually trying to comment on.
Ha! Joke's on me.
I haven't read any of Greenwald's books, but I'd like to check them out.
His blog posts are generally solid. He sometimes shows how vexed he is about an issue, and that's when his "colors" tend to show. Otherwise, I find much of what he says spot on. He concentrates on media behavior and legal issues, both of which he has a good eye for.
I'm sure many people view Salon as a "liberal" site and paint Greenwald with the same brush. I think the liberal label is fair, but I think much of Salon's reporting is fair as well, and Greenwald is rarely off the mark in his facts, logic, or opinions.
When it comes to agendas and bias I think the issue is more why the person or source has the agenda or bias and how they go about putting it forth. Any agenda or bias can be arrived at very honestly, but not all people pursue them honestly.
I think the people on this blog are a great example of the former case. We all have are own worldview, each honestly arrived at. The agenda or bias we display here comes from our beliefs and, most importantly, are presented with literally nothing to gain. We may need one another to help check our assumptions -- we all have favorite sources that we might not question as closely as we should -- but I don't think we ever put forth information that we know to be false.
This description probably applies to a lot of people in the media, but there are clearly those on all sides who actively choose to ignore contrary information or who purposely twist facts to suit their case. Those are the sources to distrust. This is where sites like Media Matters and Fact Check dot org come in handy. There may be others, but their value is that they at least try to penetrate the fog of the culture war.
(I should post this in the correct comment section, shouldn't I? Sorry, folks, I've been a bit distracted of late...)
Having looked into the other site now, I think I feel comfortable vouching for them... as a blog (must be specific here). They are affiliated with two prestigious organizations that do not suffer fools lightly, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Arizona State University and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Law School.
Their intent is pure, though from a brief survey I'd say that their product is only as good as the person writing it and their contributors vary wildly from the folks who essentially cut & paste from other sites (as with the linked poster) with the apparent aim of provoking discussion to more serious attempts at 'grass roots journalism'.
I was - up to this point - unaware of this program/site. I am intrigued by their concept.
Scott - "And alleging bias based on what they say in their opinion section of the paper or website or newscast under the heading "Opinion" or "Editorial" is misleading and wrong."
But, as a general rule, wouldn't the opinions expressed (by the editors, not the general public 9n the "speak-up" part) in the opinion/editorial sections be a good indication of the bias of the overall publication?
So, David, to clarify: Salon is liberal, but it's fair.
Are there any sites you would name off the top of your head that would qualify as "conservative, but fair"?
(That's not meant to be snarky, and I promise I won't quibble with your picks. I'm seriously wondering what you consider to be good, conservative sites.)
A thought question, however, because I make a living asking them: Is your brush any narrower for "conservative but fair" sites than it was for "liberal but fair"? I.e., is it more likely that a liberal site would be considered "fair" than a conservative one? Are you more likely to have a "yeah, but" attached to your conservative list? More inclined to give broader leeway to those that more closely resonate with your own worldview?
Of course, it is possible that there is no such thing as a fair conservative, since we're all such a partisan, benighted lot...
Happy Friday!
The Bush syncophant here,
One plausible explanation for Mukasey's statement is as follows:
Just prior to 9-11, the volume of jihadist chatter, including telephone calls among other things, spiked. Some of this chatter was monitored, some was not. That fact is clearly contained in the 9-11 commission report (I've read the entire report, the hearings report, and some of the hearing notes, which I recommend everyone does before citing it). For the chatter that was not monitored, a variety of reasons could apply, including lack of specific authority to act on that monitoring.
Of course, without a whole bunch more details, it is impossible for anyone--journalist, blogger, or otherwise-- to factually comment on Mukasey's statement because there is not enough information to make a comment other than "well that's interesting, what else?"
This furor drives to the heart of something that is critically wrong with this entire debate: most of the people debating have access to a preciously small amount of actual facts. The entire rest of the debate is based on presumption, distortion, supposition, and outright fiction. Further, most of this information will never be publicly available because it should not be. Whether anyone likes it or not, the actions of national intelligence should be classified because failing to protect such information risks exposing our ability to defend ourselves.
If Mukasey is guilty of anything here, it is probably of revealing protected information and then not being able to clarify what he said because the clarification is also protected.
/syncophancy
I haven't checked into this, I've been spending my time in other ways, but if that quote from the chairman of the 9/11 commission is accurate it argues otherwise. If anyone would know what the hell he's talking about, one would imagine he'd be one of them.
Denny, you make a good point about needing more details. That's precisely what Glenn Greenwald was calling for. He's looking for people to ask Mukasey to clarify what he said and why he said it and to determine, if possible, if it indicates any malfeasance or misfeasance.
Chris, I'll have to give more thought to your question. Off the top of my head, I don't really concern myself with the mostly false distinctions between "liberal" and "conservative." I used the term because I assumed others would argue Salon is liberal. Ok, fair enough. There is certainly some "liberal" content on the site. However, Salon and NPR, as another example of a media outlet that is considered "liberal", strike me as pretty fair sources based on what I know about journalistic standards and, when opinion is expressed, how to use information to construct an argument.
I don't care for the use of terms like liberal and conservative because they are relative. You consider me to be a liberal, no doubt, but there are those who are to my left that would consider me more conservative. The terms themselves gloss over real distinctions in viewpoint and are often used as ways to "smear" someone in the eyes of certain listeners or readers.
Once upon a time you called David Brooks one of your "favorite conservatives." So you at least recognize the distinction, and to some extent use it yourself.
Or did you simply mean that Brooks was "more conservative than you"?
Either I've totally blanked about that, or you have me confused with someone else. I don't really know who David Brooks is. Maybe I just liked a column you pointed me to and that's where the confusion is coming in.
But yes, I do recognize the distinction and have used it. I take full responsibility for using it when I say that I, like most who use those distinctions, did (and do) so from laziness. It's handy, but it's rarely used accurately or with good intentions in most circles.
I'd be happy to take reading recommendations. I don't have time to read a lot of political commentary. I read Salon regularly because it's easy for me to detect their biases and thus to see where they are fair. Mostly, I find myself being sent to other sources either by the people here, or in an effort to confirm or debunk something I've read on Salon (or heard on the way home on NPR). I occassionally get to watch something on PBS. I ignore the network nightly news and don't subscribe to the local paper.
I've had occassion to read Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. They sometimes do well with the facts, but I'm turned off by their style.
Hell, Denny's probably my favorite conservative right now. I disagree with his position on a number of issues, but at least he makes an effort to research and he rarely makes an ad hominem attack. He sometimes mischaracterizes a position, but I don't have any evidence that he does it intentionally. He doesn't always articulate his arguments as well as he could, but it's not like this is his full-time gig either.
That is, Chris, unless you're a conservative. Then you're my favorite because you strike me as one of the more objective people I know. We've disagreed a lot (and agreed some too), but I always felt like it was at least possible to get you to re-think your position, if not change your mind and I always felt like you respected my point of view even when you disagreed.
Scott's your liberal doppleganger. Denny and I are the rogue elements; you never know when we're going to go off. :)
I'm thinking of starting to keep a tally of people in my life who call me liberal and those who consider me a conservative. You'd be amazed how often I've been accused of either or both.
Hm... maybe I can get government funding for a research project. (ducks all incoming spitwads)
David --
I recant. It was George Will who is one of your favorite "conservatives," and I distinctly remember you saying that to me in regard to an article of his that I linked you to. I think it was called "A Lexus in Every Garage," but don't quote me on that. I can dig thru email archives to prove myself right if I need to.
David Brooks writes for the NYT, and was a talking head on PBS's coverage of Super Tuesday. I enjoy his column, but I'm not sure where he would fit on the spectrum of liberal-conservative (especially vis-a-vis this blog...)
George Will, yes I remember that exchange. I'll stand by that.
Post a Comment