NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So...

One might presume that it would be of incredible public interest to know the location of, say, Osama bin Laden, or to know the names of the men in the al-Qaeda network, or to have copies of Osama's latest plans.

News organizations seem to be pretty good at infiltrating top secret US government programs and recruiting sources.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?

Mmm? Don't tell me they're not brave enough to follow in Daniel Pearl's footsteps. This is groundbreaking stuff we're talking about - stories, that if broken, would sell so much copy that it would make the NSA stories pale by comparison.

Because they're part of the liberal Islamist conspiracy to slay the unborn, ban pencil sharpeners, and DESTROY AMERICA.

I'm afraid the Liberal Media is more eager to promote the evil Homosexual Agenda and disparage our noble president's fine deeds of counter-terrorism than contribute to the safety of America.

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So...

One might presume that it would be of incredible public interest to know the location of, say, Osama bin Laden, or to know the names of the men in the al-Qaeda network, or to have copies of Osama's latest plans.

News organizations seem to be pretty good at infiltrating top secret US government programs and recruiting sources.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?

Mmm? Don't tell me they're not brave enough to follow in Daniel Pearl's footsteps. This is groundbreaking stuff we're talking about - stories, that if broken, would sell so much copy that it would make the NSA stories pale by comparison.


I dont think they have as many "confidential sources" in the iraqi insurgency or al qaeda as they do in the US government.

It's a newspaper, not the CIA.

Also, you might want to direct this question to Daniel Okrent's successor at the Times, his name escapes me but he works as the "Public Editor."

You may well get a response from him.

Risk to their reporters, Kimchi.

The reporters willing to do that sort of thing didn't become reporters. They went into military intelligence. Military intelligence has had no success so far at infiltrating Al Quaida.

Reporters are valuble to a news agency. Getting them killed doing someone else's job would be stupid.

I dont think they have as many "confidential sources" in the iraqi insurgency or al qaeda as they do in the US government.

It's a newspaper, not the CIA.
Agreed. How about putting some NYT reporters in the CIA as "covert operatives"? They seem to be quite skilled at getting intel, and they are (probably) not stupid enough to blow their own cover on the front page.

I dont think they have as many "confidential sources" in the iraqi insurgency or al qaeda as they do in the US government.

It's a newspaper, not the CIA.
Yeah, given that the CIA mines vast quantities of data from newspapers, the newspaper is far better equipped to squeeze into holes and utilize sources with questionable backgrounds than the CIA.

Back in WW2, the US Government asked the newspapers to not print stories about the Japanese ballon bombs, even though several hundred of them hit the US and did start fires/kill people.

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0298/bombsb.htm

You know what happened? The Japanese stopped sending the balloons, assuming they had no effect.

Because they're part of the liberal Islamist conspiracy to slay the unborn, ban pencil sharpeners, and DESTROY AMERICA.

You forgot "destroying Christmas, motherhood, and the comma that comes before 'and.'"

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?


Kind of vague question. As suggested by New Granada, nothing stops you putting your question to the actual paper. Make it a little more pointed, they might even publish it :)

I tell ya, that damned 1st amendment just keeps getting in the way, don't it?

Why don't they infiltrate the Al Qaeda? Well for one, if they get caught infiltrating the government they get sent to jail, perhaps get bail. If they get caught by the Al Qaeda...?

The Japanese stopped sending the balloons, assuming they had no effect.

Are you sure they didn't simply run out? :p

Yeah, given that the CIA mines vast quantities of data from newspapers, the newspaper is far better equipped to squeeze into holes and utilize sources with questionable backgrounds than the CIA.

It's pretty apparent that the CIA, throughout its history, has been fairly lame at infiltrating foreign groups.

Why the NYT and other news organizations don't even try is not a matter of "doing the CIA's job". They have plenty of reasons of their own to do so - the first being the sacred "public interest".

I don't think that there are any Americans alive who can rationally say that they would not be interested in Osama's exact location, or means of communication, etc.

And that is worth money. A lot of sales. An incredible journalistic coup of unimaginable proportions, especially if they succeed where the CIA does not.

I tell ya, that damned 1st amendment just keeps getting in the way, don't it?

I'm not advocating that. I'm wondering why the newspaper isn't publishing stories that are of EXTREME public interest. Much more "interesting" than anything else they could publish.

I tell ya, that damned 1st amendment just keeps getting in the way, don't it?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


...So the Times doing what the government asked and not reporting 2 news stories that are vital to national security is a breach of the 1st Amendment how?

I'm not advocating that. I'm wondering why the newspaper isn't publishing stories that are of EXTREME public interest. Much more "interesting" than anything else they could publish.
Violations of the law by the government that bend the constitution aren't of public interest? I think they are.

the newspaper is far better equipped to squeeze into holes...than the CIA.

OMG he called the CIA fat.

The primary purpose of the First Amendment was to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches - Slightly paraphrased by yours truely.

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So...

One might presume that it would be of incredible public interest to know the location of, say, Osama bin Laden, or to know the names of the men in the al-Qaeda network, or to have copies of Osama's latest plans.

News organizations seem to be pretty good at infiltrating top secret US government programs and recruiting sources.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?

Mmm? Don't tell me they're not brave enough to follow in Daniel Pearl's footsteps. This is groundbreaking stuff we're talking about - stories, that if broken, would sell so much copy that it would make the NSA stories pale by comparison.

What "Public interest" did the NYT satiate by blowing open the Al Qaeda banking investigation? The investigation that they called for, by the way, imediately after September 11th.

That paper is just full of assholes like Pinch Sulzberg looking to embarass the Administration.

I tell ya, that damned 1st amendment just keeps getting in the way, don't it?

With Rights come responsibilities. People always seem to forget that.

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So...

One might presume that it would be of incredible public interest to know the location of, say, Osama bin Laden, or to know the names of the men in the al-Qaeda network, or to have copies of Osama's latest plans.

News organizations seem to be pretty good at infiltrating top secret US government programs and recruiting sources.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?

Mmm? Don't tell me they're not brave enough to follow in Daniel Pearl's footsteps. This is groundbreaking stuff we're talking about - stories, that if broken, would sell so much copy that it would make the NSA stories pale by comparison.

ummm pearl had his head choped off...ummm you are talking about ...the ...NY Times right...

its okay with them as long as SOMONE ELSE has thier head cut off.

The media should simply use judgement. If there is something the government is doing, which is wrong, please do inform the public, but they shouldn't inform people of things simply to fill up their pages.

For example, when the name of a CIA agent leaked to the press, why did they feel the need to tell everyone? Are they fighting the evil CIA by revealing their secret agents?

Violations of the law by the government that bend the constitution aren't of public interest? I think they are.
Not half as interesting to the vast majority of the American public as where Osama is sitting right now, or how he communicates with his followers, or what his plans are right now, and you know it.

Not half as interesting to the vast majority of the American public as where Osama is sitting right now, or how he communicates with his followers, or what his plans are right now, and you know it.
Eh, Osama isn't going anywhere. Not that he really had any power besides being a figurehead anyway. I'd prefer to keep my rights, kthnx.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


...So the Times doing what the government asked and not reporting 2 news stories that are vital to national security is a breach of the 1st Amendment how?
It's up to the Times to do so or not, but it is THEIR decision and not the Government's.

The media should simply use judgement. If there is something the government is doing, which is wrong, please do inform the public, but they shouldn't inform people of things simply to fill up their pages.

For example, when the name of a CIA agent leaked to the press, why did they feel the need to tell everyone? Are they fighting the evil CIA by revealing their secret agents?

I'm saying "Fine. Print everything you find out about the CIA and NSA and every other aspect of government. Sure, it's in the public interest. But... many other things are of much greater public interest - and we have no breaking news on anything related to al-Qaeda or the insurgency in Iraq."

I'm not advocating that. I'm wondering why the newspaper isn't publishing stories that are of EXTREME public interest. Much more "interesting" than anything else they could publish.
They're a newspaper, not a spy agency. They also don't have the budget that the NSA and CIA have.

With Rights come responsibilities. People always seem to forget that.


Among them the responsibility to report on matters of public interest, regardless of the government's attempts at censorship.

This government has demonstrated that it has no respect for the right to privacy and not a lot for others, someone has to keep an eye on its shenanigans.

Eh, Osama isn't going anywhere. Not that he really had any power besides being a figurehead anyway. I'd prefer to keep my rights, kthnx.

I'm not advocating taking away your rights. I'm just wondering why they aren't investigating many things - such as every last detail of the insurgency, or of al-Qaeda. If you believe he's just a figurehead, it would be nice for a newspaper to prove it. But they don't.

If they are the brave reporters they claim to be, willing to sacrifice for a story, why not these stories?

I'm saying "Fine. Print everything you find out about the CIA and NSA and every other aspect of government. Sure, it's in the public interest. But... many other things are of much greater public interest - and we have no breaking news on anything related to al-Qaeda or the insurgency in Iraq."

I agree with you that I would like them to do that, but I don't expect them to, becase its dangerous.

With Rights come responsibilities. People always seem to forget that.
Indeed, and the NYT's responcibility is to inform the public, it met what it was designed to do.

Not half as interesting to the vast majority of the American public as where Osama is sitting right now, or how he communicates with his followers, or what his plans are right now, and you know it.

And it's a one thing to get a domestic government official to leak a program and an entirely different thing to infiltrate a foreign terrorist network, and you know it.

The only news network with any sort of shot at that kind of deep coverage would be Al-Jazeera.

They're a newspaper, not a spy agency. They also don't have the budget that the NSA and CIA have.

Their business is to report on matters of the public interest. They already send reporters overseas on long assignments in the middle of nowhere. It wouldn't cost them any more money than they spend now.

And it's a one thing to get a domestic government official to leak a program and an entirely different thing to infiltrate a foreign terrorist network, and you know it.

The only news netowork with any sort of shot at that kind of deep coverage would be Al-Jazeera.

Why? Which news organization prints more stories about secrets, both here and abroad? Why would they not talk to the NYT, which presents itself as a neutral party?

I don't buy that.

Not half as interesting to the vast majority of the American public as where Osama is sitting right now, or how he communicates with his followers, or what his plans are right now, and you know it.


Perhaps a better story would be "Incompetent Government Unable to Locate Bin Laden, Learn his Plans."

This isnt a serious question unless you send it to this gentleman.

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

CONTACT
• E-mail: public@nytimes.com
• Phone: (212) 556-7652
• Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

Sent

I'm not advocating taking away your rights. I'm just wondering why they aren't investigating many things - such as every last detail of the insurgency, or of al-Qaeda. If you believe he's just a figurehead, it would be nice for a newspaper to prove it. But they don't.

If they are the brave reporters they claim to be, willing to sacrifice for a story, why not these stories?
Kimchi, you DID hear that more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in all of WWII, right? They are there covering the news and getting their hands dirty.

As a matter of fact, I seem to recall you complaning that they only show the bad stuff of the insurgency because they are normally on the scene of a firefight or IED going off before it could be prettyfied. If they were hiding out in the green zone or in the hotels of Afganistan, they wouldn't have those pictures to show now would they?

Perhaps a better story would be "Incompetent Government Unable to Locate Bin Laden, Learn his Plans."

This isnt a serious question unless you send it to this gentleman.

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

CONTACT
• E-mail: public@nytimes.com
• Phone: (212) 556-7652
• Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

Sent. Exactly. You know that would sell copy. And earn rewards far beyond money for the paper.

Why? Which news organization prints more stories about secrets, both here and abroad? Why would they not talk to the NYT, which presents itself as a neutral party?

I don't buy that.



Muhammad Abdullah: "Sir! The reporter from the Jewish Newspaper of the Great Satan wants to interview you, he wants to know our plans!"

Ayman al Zawahiri: "Is he here?"

MA: "Yes!"

AZ: "Allahu Ackbar, get the video camera, the blindfold, and the knife!"

Kimchi, you DID hear that more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in all of WWII, right? They are there covering the news and getting their hands dirty.

As a matter of fact, I seem to recall you complaning that they only show the bad stuff of the insurgency because they are normally on the scene of a firefight or IED going off before it could be prettyfied. If they were hiding out in the green zone or in the hotels of Afganistan, they wouldn't have those pictures to show now would they?

Never complained about the current coverage in Iraq in that way. Be that as it may, what I want to know is why they aren't having live interviews with the insurgents, copies of their plans, rosters of their names, etc. You know - the meat and potatoes that you know if were published, would SELL. And it would make them look even more competent than the CIA.

Don't see them trying at all.

I'm not advocating taking away your rights. I'm just wondering why they aren't investigating many things - such as every last detail of the insurgency, or of al-Qaeda. If you believe he's just a figurehead, it would be nice for a newspaper to prove it. But they don't.

If they are the brave reporters they claim to be, willing to sacrifice for a story, why not these stories?
Besides the reporters that they've had killed?

Muhammad Abdullah: "Sir! The reporter from the Jewish Newspaper of the Great Satan wants to interview you, he wants to know our plans!"

Ayman al Zawahiri: "Is he here?"

MA: "Yes!"

AZ: "Allahu Ackbar, get the video camera, the blindfold, and the knife!"

That's not a guarantee. They seem to be aware that killing Daniel Pearl was bad press. And they would love to feel like they are "manipulating" the American press. I think they would jump at the chance to be interviewed.

That's not a guarantee. They seem to be aware that killing Daniel Pearl was bad press. And they would love to feel like they are "manipulating" the American press. I think they would jump at the chance to be interviewed.


Bad press with the people they're trying to kill or bad press with the people they're trying to recruit?

I think it's pretty obvious that they get their source information from Washington insiders.

Its a little bit of a pathetic commentary on the state of US intelligence when there are "calls for the New York Times to find bin laden and discover the plans of al-qaeda."

Vote of confidence for the Times, I guess.

"Amateur hour is over" Hayden had better get cracking at the CIA.

Its a little bit of a pathetic commentary on the state of US intelligence when there are "calls for the New York Times to find bin laden and discover the plans of al-qaeda."

Vote of confidence for the Times, I guess.

"Amateur hour is over" Hayden had better get cracking at the CIA.

Fukin A right.


When do they earn their pay ?

Bunch of fucking morons...where are the WMD'S ?

You trust this bunch of assholes to find their own ass with both hands ?

It's up to the Times to do so or not, but it is THEIR decision and not the Government's.

Exactly! But that's NOT a 1st Amendment breach!

Now, by the same token, it is the Government's right to bring the Chief Editor (who printed the story) up on charges of Treason.

Military intelligence has had no success so far at infiltrating Al Quaida.


O rly? Last week's Time magazine had an article claiming quite the contrary.

Because they're part of the liberal Islamist conspiracy to slay the unborn, ban pencil sharpeners, and DESTROY AMERICA.

Hmmm. That explains where my pencil sharpener went. Nice theory. :cool:

Exactly! But that's NOT a 1st Amendment breach!

Now, by the same token, it is the Government's right to bring the Chief Editor (who printed the story) up on charges of Treason.

Hear, hear... he did give enemies of the U.S. "aid and comfort" by printing this information.

I'm afraid the Liberal Media is more eager to promote the evil Homosexual Agenda and disparage our noble president's fine deeds of counter-terrorism than contribute to the safety of America.

i think your half right.

Hear, hear... he did give enemies of the U.S. "aid and comfort" by printing this information.
Oh really? Then I guess they're not alone. Here's the website of SWIFT, the Interbanking organization that runs the program with the US government. They are very open about their compliance. Apparently, they even cover it in their magazine.

http://www.swift.com/

Also, George Bush himself has been bragging about this program in the media since its inception in 2001. So I guess he must be subject to charges of treason, too.

Of course, I've been saying that about him all along.

Newspapers are used in hamster cages, they're not useless after all! :)

Oh really? Then I guess they're not alone. Here's the website of SWIFT, the Interbanking organization that runs the program with the US government. They are very open about their compliance. Apparently, they even cover it in their magazine.

http://www.swift.com/

Also, George Bush himself has been bragging about this program in the media since its inception in 2001. So I guess he must be subject to charges of treason, too.

Of course, I've been saying that about him all along.

I'd never have found that site without you posting it. Likewise, the planet would have been mostly in the dark about it had the NY Times not broken the stories.

He has? Um... no. Saying "we're going after their bank accounts" in a speech is *not* the same thing as printing the actual DETAILS of how.

I'm afraid the Liberal Media is more eager to promote the evil Homosexual Agenda and disparage our noble president's fine deeds of counter-terrorism than contribute to the safety of America.
Didja catch the post just above this?
Pwned.
Cute one-two, though.

I'm fascinated - somehow people think this thread is about stifling the NYT - read my first post - I'm fine with them printing the story about the various secret US programs.

What I want to know is why, when they risk reporters' lives elsewhere in the world, they haven't made any attempt to do the same kinds of stories on the insurgents in Iraq and the inner workings of al-Qaeda.

Saying "it's dangerous" is specious, to say the least, when reporters are risking their lives elsewhere.

I'm fascinated - somehow people think this thread is about stifling the NYT - read my first post - I'm fine with them printing the story about the various secret US programs.

What I want to know is why, when they risk reporters' lives elsewhere in the world, they haven't made any attempt to do the same kinds of stories on the insurgents in Iraq and the inner workings of al-Qaeda.

Saying "it's dangerous" is specious, to say the least, when reporters are risking their lives elsewhere.

Why do you care? And more importantly, its their paper, shouldnt they be able to report on what they want without having to justify it?

Plus I think the reasons given in this thread so far are all good enough, how on earth would they get such indo anyway, the danger etc.

Why do you care? And more importantly, its their paper, shouldnt they be able to report on what they want without having to justify it?

Plus I think the reasons given in this thread so far are all good enough, how on earth would they get such indo anyway, the danger etc.

I do care. Because I am "the public interest". And I believe it's not possible to deny that such a story would be of far more interest than virtually any other story they could cover.

I do care. Because I am "the public interest". And I believe it's not possible to deny that such a story would be of far more interest than virtually any other story they could cover.

So do you think its their responsibility to investigate matters such as this?

So do you think its their responsibility to investigate matters such as this?

That's what I'm saying.

Investigate secret US programs - Yes.

Investigate secrets of all insurgencies - Yes.

They have defined their responsibility by saying that it's their job to report matters of urgent public interest.

So why aren't they doing it?

That's what I'm saying.

Investigate secret US programs - Yes.

Investigate secrets of all insurgencies - Yes.

They have defined their responsibility by saying that it's their job to report matters of urgent public interest.

So why aren't they doing it?

So let me get this straight, you think that since they have reported on secret weapons programs, they should be required to report on terrorist organisations too?

I dont get your definition of repsonsibility. Surely they can report whatever they want? Maybe they have their reasons for only reporting on matters relating to the US. Maybe they hate the US government and want it to fall as soon as possible, but as long as they report the news well, who are you to say what they should and shouldnt do?

So let me get this straight, you think that since they have reported on secret weapons programs, they should be required to report on terrorist organisations too?

I dont get your definition of repsonsibility. Surely they can report whatever they want? Maybe they have their reasons for only reporting on matters relating to the US. Maybe they hate the US government and want it to fall as soon as possible, but as long as they report the news well, who are you to say what they should and shouldnt do?

I'm a customer, and the customer is always right.

I'm a customer, and the customer is always right.

Well feel free to stop buying the paper, I'm sure they'll notice.

Well feel free to stop buying the paper, I'm sure they'll notice.
Funny you should mention that - their subscribers have been fleeing at a steady rate over the past couple of years.

They don't seem to notice though. They think that if they just keep doing the same thing, it will somehow turn around.

Funny you should mention that - their subscribers have been fleeing at a steady rate over the past couple of years.

They don't seem to notice though. They think that if they just keep doing the same thing, it will somehow turn around.

Ok, I doubt many people have stopped buying the paper because they think the Times should be doing the CIA's job though.

And I know what happens in countries where the government tries to suppress or intimidate or censor the press, because that's what the communists did to my friends.

Communists silence the press. Not nations that proudly advertise freedom. Not nations that proclaim the freedom of the press shall not be infringed upon.

Ok, I doubt many people have stopped buying the paper because they think the Times should be doing the CIA's job though.

No, they stopped because they found out that instead of doing their job, the NYT either makes up stories out of whole cloth (Jayson Blair) or makes a sham of investigative journalism (Judith Miller).

No, they stopped because they found out that instead of doing their job, the NYT either makes up stories out of whole cloth (Jayson Blair) or makes a sham of investigative journalism (Judith Miller).

So there you go, if the customer doesnt care that they're not reporting something, they have no responsibility to do it. Not that responsibility is the right word here, but it'll do.

So there you go, if the customer doesnt care that they're not reporting something, they have no responsibility to do it. Not that responsibility is the right word here, but it'll do.
If customers find out that the paper is not doing its job of reporting news of "public interest", and is concentrating on stuff they pull out of their ass, the customers put the paper in severe financial trouble.

As they are doing.

Yes, in a free society, the newspapers should be free to publish whatever is found to be "in the public interest.

So...

One might presume that it would be of incredible public interest to know the location of, say, Osama bin Laden, or to know the names of the men in the al-Qaeda network, or to have copies of Osama's latest plans.

News organizations seem to be pretty good at infiltrating top secret US government programs and recruiting sources.

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?

Mmm? Don't tell me they're not brave enough to follow in Daniel Pearl's footsteps. This is groundbreaking stuff we're talking about - stories, that if broken, would sell so much copy that it would make the NSA stories pale by comparison.
During Vietnam, it was a rare reporter indeed who ever left the bar of the Saigon Hotel. I'm sure that if more reporters were willing to face hardship and danger, they would find many of the answers we would all like to know.

During Vietnam, it was a rare reporter indeed who ever left the bar of the Saigon Hotel. I'm sure that if more reporters were willing to face hardship and danger, they would find many of the answers we would all like to know.

Over sixty reporters were killed in Vietnam. I guess the bar of the Saigon Hotel was at least a little dangerous.

That's what I'm saying.

Investigate secret US programs - Yes.

Investigate secrets of all insurgencies - Yes.

They have defined their responsibility by saying that it's their job to report matters of urgent public interest.

So why aren't they doing it?


Have you emailed he ombudsman yet?

Its possible, you know, that ayman al zawahiri and mullah omar and the others simply do not trust the NY Times, a jewish-run american newspaper to keep their secrets secret.

Have you emailed he ombudsman yet?

Its possible, you know, that ayman al zawahiri and mullah omar and the others simply do not trust the NY Times, a jewish-run american newspaper to keep their secrets secret.

Did that yesterday evening right when I was told to.

If customers find out that the paper is not doing its job of reporting news of "public interest", and is concentrating on stuff they pull out of their ass, the customers put the paper in severe financial trouble.

As they are doing.


The Times isnt in "severe financial trouble."

The newspaper industry as a whole has seen its subscribers flee over the last ten years, the primary reason is the internet.

When you can go to nytimes.com and read most of the paper for free, there is a strong disincentive to spend 300$ a year to subscribe to it.

Bill Keller was on cspan or somewhere a while after the "jayson" blair nonsense, and he summed up the times' position pretty well.

Something like "We made a mistake, we learned a lesson. Don't hire lying sociopaths."

Did that yesterday evening right when I was told to.


Great, I hope you get a response, should be interestesting to see what they say.

Ok, I doubt many people have stopped buying the paper because they think the Times should be doing the CIA's job though.

I stopped my subscription in 2004 when I stopped being able to tell the editorials from the articles. :(

Back when I started (1996), it was a pretty balanced paper. Around 2002, it was leaning left. Then it just started moving further and further left... faster than the gas gague on a Hummer.

I used to use newspaper as bedding in my rabbit's cage. Newspapers aren't useless after all! :)

So, why haven't these same news organizations, who pride themselves on getting the story and publishing material that is "in the public interest", gone and broken the big stories on al-Qaeda, or the insurgents in Iraq?
The British media regularly exposed the identities of Irish terrorists, in some cases broadcasting footage of them coming and going from their own homes, and confronting them on the doorstep or at the door of their car with questions.

Channel 4 News and the BBC were the leading organisations in this regard.

The British media regularly exposed the identities of Irish terrorists, in some cases broadcasting footage of them coming and going from their own homes, and confronting them on the doorstep or at the door of their car with questions.

Channel 4 News and the BBC were the leading organisation in this regard.

That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what the US press should be doing.

Yes, I think they should be exposing the government's secrets as well. It is a First Amendment kind of thing.

But they should give some thought to at least trying to do the same thing with the various insurgencies the US deals with.

It would make great news for instance, to see what each side was thinking, and each thinking that their thoughts were secret. It might be very revealing - the nature of the conflict may bear little resemblance to the fodder that is thrown at us on the evening news.

That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what the US press should be doing.

Yes, I think they should be exposing the government's secrets as well. It is a First Amendment kind of thing.

But they should give some thought to at least trying to do the same thing with the various insurgencies the US deals with.

It would make great news for instance, to see what each side was thinking, and each thinking that their thoughts were secret. It might be very revealing - the nature of the conflict may bear little resemblance to the fodder that is thrown at us on the evening news.
The US press does not really have a tradition of risky investigative journalism.

For example, the BBC has had undercover reporters and bugs in dozens of gangs and organised criminal outfits, including international criminal operations. The best, like Donal MacIntyre, have performed work over a period of years, which equals or surpasses the careers of many undercover agents. One documentary, on African money laundering, was almost in Interpol territory.

Interrogating terrorists on their doorstep is nothing compared to working day-to-day with gangsters or mafia for years, with a concealed camera and tape recorder in your jacket.

The US has no such journalistic culture, it has no audience for this sort of thing, people really don't have the patience, and you are not going to develop it overnight. In your case, it is best left to the professionals.

The US press does not really have a tradition of risky investigative journalism.

For example, the BBC has had undercover reporters and bugs in dozens of gangs and organised criminal outfits, including international criminal operations. The best, like Donal MacIntyre, have performed work over a period of years, which equals or surpasses the careers of many undercover agents. One documentary, on African money laundering, was almost in Interpol territory.

Interrogating terrorists on their doorstep is nothing compared to working day-to-day with gangsters or mafia for years, with a concealed camera and tape recorder in your jacket.

The US has no such journalistic culture, it has no audience for this sort of thing, people really don't have the patience, and you are not going to develop it overnight. In your case, it is best left to the professionals.

I've noticed that a lot of BBC journalists and camera crew die, when compared to the number of Americans who die.

(Adding to the above - unless of course you want a whole FBI department to join CNN, work undercover for years and then get their faces plastered all over prime time TV).

I've noticed that a lot of BBC journalists and camera crew die, when compared to the number of Americans who die.
They don't just embed themselves with their own forces, that's why.

Though there has yet to be a high-profile case of such a reporter being killed by a gang during an investigation.

They don't just embed themselves with their own forces, that's why.

Though there has yet to be a high-profile case of such a reporter being killed by a gang during an investigation.


To be honest, if I were and organized criminal and discovered a BBC plant among my underlings, I wouldnt bring the great scandal of killing him on myself, I'd just try to keep him at arm's length and ideally feed him disinformation.

The US press does not really have a tradition of risky investigative journalism.

For example, the BBC has had undercover reporters and bugs in dozens of gangs and organised criminal outfits, including international criminal operations. The best, like Donal MacIntyre, have performed work over a period of years, which equals or surpasses the careers of many undercover agents. One documentary, on African money laundering, was almost in Interpol territory.

Interrogating terrorists on their doorstep is nothing compared to working day-to-day with gangsters or mafia for years, with a concealed camera and tape recorder in your jacket.

The US has no such journalistic culture, it has no audience for this sort of thing, people really don't have the patience, and you are not going to develop it overnight. In your case, it is best left to the professionals.
The US did at one time, back when there was real newspaper competition in most cities, but the fact is that newspapers in particular have become more concerned with making more profits every year--like most corporate entities--than they are in spending the money it takes to do real investigative journalism. It's a problem of the corporate mindset more than anything else.

To be honest, if I were and organized criminal and discovered a BBC plant among my underlings, I wouldnt bring the great scandal of killing him on myself, I'd just try to keep him at arm's length and ideally feed him disinformation.
Doesn't really happen. The journalists are as professional as the criminals and probably more professional than most of the police attempting to infiltrate their networks. They would notice.

And if the criminals did successfully feed them disinformation, it doesn't really matter. Everything gets handed in to the authorities at the end of the investigation, and although you may conceal what crimes you are committing, you cannot conceal with whom you are communicating. Most of the time, that information is half the goal.

I've noticed that a lot of BBC journalists and camera crew die, when compared to the number of Americans who die.

That's because of this so-called embedding of reporters. The government sets the reporters up with military groups. This ensures that the reporters give the story that the gov't wants them to tell, and makes it look like those reporters are getting the "inside scoop."

I'd never have found that site without you posting it. Likewise, the planet would have been mostly in the dark about it had the NY Times not broken the stories.

He has? Um... no. Saying "we're going after their bank accounts" in a speech is *not* the same thing as printing the actual DETAILS of how.
Hahaha. You probably wouldn't have found it because you're not a terrorist network looking to transfer large amounts of money between banks in different countries. Possibly, you're not a multinational corporation transferring funds between countries, either, and I'll go so far as to guess that you're not a billionaire trying to hide funds from a divorce attorney, either.

But if you were Donald Trump, Halliburton, or Osama bin Laden or any member of his family, you probably subscribe to SWIFT's magazine.

It's called PUBLIC INFORMATION. :rolleyes:

Hahaha. You probably wouldn't have found it because you're not a terrorist network looking to transfer large amounts of money between banks in different countries. Possibly, you're not a multinational corporation transferring funds between countries, either, and I'll go so far as to guess that you're not a billionaire trying to hide funds from a divorce attorney, either.

But if you were Donald Trump, Halliburton, or Osama bin Laden or any member of his family, you probably subscribe to SWIFT's magazine.

It's called PUBLIC INFORMATION. :rolleyes:


All of this in addition to simple common sense.

Unless these people are incapable buffoons, (in which case our little 'war' should have ended long ago) they should certainly have assumed that spies were tracking their finances.

I for one didnt see the import of this story, I already assumed everything which it confirmed.

Hardly "treason," regardless of the noise from some of our more shrill and childish posters.

All of this in addition to simple common sense.

Unless these people are incapable buffoons, (in which case our little 'war' should have ended long ago) they should certainly have assumed that spies were tracking their finances.

I for one didnt see the import of this story, I already assumed everything which it confirmed.

Hardly "treason," regardless of the noise from some of our more shrill and childish posters.
Terrorism experts already acknowledge -- and have been saying in the media -- that terrorist groups no longer use the international banking system to move their money around. They have gone, instead, into the traditional non-bank cash system of the middle east and Africa, and, of course, into the purely criminal international black market. How long ago did they make the switch? Well, pretty much right after Bush first announced that we'd be monitoring international banking in 2001.

All of this in addition to simple common sense.

Unless these people are incapable buffoons, (in which case our little 'war' should have ended long ago) they should certainly have assumed that spies were tracking their finances.

I for one didnt see the import of this story, I already assumed everything which it confirmed.

Hardly "treason," regardless of the noise from some of our more shrill and childish posters.
And none of this even begins to explain why the White House is going after the NY Times so hard and heavy when they asked the LA Times to hold the story also, and never even asked the Wall Street Journal to hold theirs, even though all three were working on the same story at the same time. Why aren't they going after all three papers? Why only the NY Times?

And none of this even begins to explain why the White House is going after the NY Times so hard and heavy when they asked the LA Times to hold the story also, and never even asked the Wall Street Journal to hold theirs, even though all three were working on the same story at the same time. Why aren't they going after all three papers? Why only the NY Times?

When the NY Times declined to not wait and to publish , the other papers that were inclined to hold publication no longer had any reason to do so .

That's because of this so-called embedding of reporters. The government sets the reporters up with military groups. This ensures that the reporters give the story that the gov't wants them to tell, and makes it look like those reporters are getting the "inside scoop."

Sure like seeing Ted Koppel beheaded live on the internet wouldnt be a good thing for a bunch of terrorist...or having a group of reporters running full speed into a road block and being machinegunned to death by US troops wouldnt be great news....War is confusing enough without having idiots with camera's running about getting killed by both sides .

When the NY Times declined to not wait and to publish , the other papers that were inclined to hold publication no longer had any reason to do so .
But that still doesn't explain why the Wall Street Journal was never asked to hold the story in the first place.

But that still doesn't explain why the Wall Street Journal was never asked to hold the story in the first place.


I was under the impression they were . Or they had already reached an understanding.

look the fact is they did it and will have to deal with it...but not by any government action ..that would be totaly illegal .

If anyone is pissed off about leaks ..then find those who leak this stuff and squash them .

The NY Times DID NOT take an oath to hold this countries secrets..the leakers did .

Going after a newspaper is only a misguided attempt to reflect the stupidity of a government that cant keep its own secrets . Issue some paperwork..get the source of the info and punish them.

I find it very odd that no one is calling for the holes in the leaking ship of state to be plugged .

Whats the story with that ? Why are no calls being shouted from the talking heads to find the spies or the traitors that are leaking secrets? Is it someones cousin or uncle ? why are they being protected ?

Am I the only one who finds this VERY odd ?

And none of this even begins to explain why the White House is going after the NY Times so hard and heavy when they asked the LA Times to hold the story also, and never even asked the Wall Street Journal to hold theirs, even though all three were working on the same story at the same time. Why aren't they going after all three papers? Why only the NY Times?

LA Times: Left-leaning, low power.
Wall Street Journal: Right-leaning, high power.

New York Times: Left-leaning, high power.

Two out of two criteria.

LA Times: Left-leaning, low power.
Wall Street Journal: Right-leaning, high power.

New York Times: Left-leaning, high power.

Two out of two criteria.
sharp as an obsidian blade... :D

sharp as an obsidian blade... :D

How sharp is an obsidian blade?

How sharp is an obsidian blade?
very sharp. :D

And none of this even begins to explain why the White House is going after the NY Times so hard and heavy when they asked the LA Times to hold the story also, and never even asked the Wall Street Journal to hold theirs, even though all three were working on the same story at the same time. Why aren't they going after all three papers? Why only the NY Times?
Oddly, as the OP, I will note that this thread is NOT about whether or not the NYT was doing the right thing by publishing the story - I feel it was perfectly OK.

This thread is about why they don't do the same level of investigative journalism that, say, the BBC has done over time. You know, investigating insurgencies up close and personal.

As has been pointed out, the BBC was able to do this in the Northern Ireland conflict. And did a good job. They also expose the government's laundry. Good for them.

Why aren't US news organizations getting off their asses and breaking the same kinds of stories? Mmm? Is it easier to knosh on a bagel with cream cheese at 2 AM while listening to your source in the government wail about his job - as opposed to growing a beard and joining al-Qaeda just like a young white American named John Lindh did?

Lindh even got to meet Osama. And they didn't kill him - he got to join.

And I'm not calling for the NYT to do the CIAs job - they need to get off their asses, too.

But the NYT is either being extremely lazy, or it has no interest in truly serving "the public interest". Only its own "interests".

How sharp is an obsidian blade?

One slip and you would be beside yourself :p

Oddly, as the OP, I will note that this thread is NOT about whether or not the NYT was doing the right thing by publishing the story - I feel it was perfectly OK.

This thread is about why they don't do the same level of investigative journalism that, say, the BBC has done over time. You know, investigating insurgencies up close and personal.

As has been pointed out, the BBC was able to do this in the Northern Ireland conflict. And did a good job. They also expose the government's laundry. Good for them.

Why aren't US news organizations getting off their asses and breaking the same kinds of stories? Mmm? Is it easier to knosh on a bagel with cream cheese at 2 AM while listening to your source in the government wail about his job - as opposed to growing a beard and joining al-Qaeda just like a young white American named John Lindh did?
It takes ambition, belief in the cause, and balls. It takes people who can immerse themselves in that world, in some ways people who have one foot there already. It takes a sense of public duty, and certainly in the case of British public service broadcasters, an attitude that you are not paid by the government, but by the public directly.

It is not an assignment for which a corporate soldier with his eyes on a nicer car and more stock options, will volunteer. You need to look to the US public service media, not to the corporate media, because this is a job for people primarily doing it for an ideal, not for a profit. Unfortunately, whereas public service broadcasting is part of the Establishment (capital E) in the UK, in the US it has long been relegated to the fringe.

Ironically, the American journalists who would most like to do it, probably do not have the start-up funding, and have no means of getting it.

Ironically, the American journalists who would most like to do it, probably do not have the start-up funding, and have no means of getting it.

How much money did John Walker Lindh spend to join al-Qaeda?

Oddly, as the OP, I will note that this thread is NOT about whether or not the NYT was doing the right thing by publishing the story - I feel it was perfectly OK.

This thread is about why they don't do the same level of investigative journalism that, say, the BBC has done over time. You know, investigating insurgencies up close and personal.

As has been pointed out, the BBC was able to do this in the Northern Ireland conflict. And did a good job. They also expose the government's laundry. Good for them.

Why aren't US news organizations getting off their asses and breaking the same kinds of stories? Mmm? Is it easier to knosh on a bagel with cream cheese at 2 AM while listening to your source in the government wail about his job - as opposed to growing a beard and joining al-Qaeda just like a young white American named John Lindh did?

Lindh even got to meet Osama. And they didn't kill him - he got to join.

And I'm not calling for the NYT to do the CIAs job - they need to get off their asses, too.

But the NYT is either being extremely lazy, or it has no interest in truly serving "the public interest". Only its own "interests".

You have to wonder why reporters like that didn't give away Osama's position to the Coalition.