NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, how far would the American Revolution have gotten if the New York Times had done the following:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/nyt-1.jpg

I say - no, there shouldn't be limits.

It wasn't funny the first time a biased government suck up did it, and it isn't funny the second time.

I say - no, there shouldn't be limits.
If they were publishing the British troop movements and secret communications at the same time, the coverage would have been fair. But if it was one-sided, the Colonists would have lost.

I'm just wondering why the NYT coverage is absolutely one-sided. I mean, the Feds are catching terrorists planning things in Miami, the Canadians capture some in Toronto, and the UK caught some, and there's some new guy from San Diego who is a top al-Qaeda man now - but the NYT hasn't broken one single story about the inner workings of any terrorist organization.

Not one. They aren't even trying.

I'm declining to answer on the ground that I'm going to say something that might contradict itself.

Because the NYT are against the US?

Well, the NYT would probably have been against that empire as well.

If theyre secrets, they should be well-guarded

Nothing will ever give you a full view of anything. The NRA has been arguing with opponents over one clause in the constitution, and biblical scholars all use the same sources, and still argue over stuff. This is just more blatant.

If they were publishing the British troop movements and secret communications at the same time, the coverage would have been fair. But if it was one-sided, the Colonists would have lost.

I'm just wondering why the NYT coverage is absolutely one-sided. I mean, the Feds are catching terrorists planning things in Miami, the Canadians capture some in Toronto, and the UK caught some, and there's some new guy from San Diego who is a top al-Qaeda man now - but the NYT hasn't broken one single story about the inner workings of any terrorist organization.

Not one. They aren't even trying.
And when was it again that the NY Times published troop movements, or secret ways in which the US is tracking al Qaeda? Secret, mind you--not the SWIFT stuff--and involving terrorists--not like the NSA tracking everyone bullshit.

That's the beauty of a free press. :)

Keeps people on their toes. In the UK, the press is feared for this reason. With one word, your career can be over, the respect of your peers irretrievably lost, and your children may never want to see you again.

I think it is entirely appropriate that governments should constantly worry what might be revealed. It keeps them honest.

Regarding balance, investigative journalism seems to be a cultural thing. Some countries have it, others don't. If a country doesn't have it, well, too bad. Try developing a public service media held in high esteem.

I believe the limit is roughly 10,000 words.

I mean, how far would the American Revolution have gotten if the New York Times had done the following:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/nyt-1.jpg

Are you suggesting that a newspaper publishing details of a plot to violently overthrow a government of the Americas is a bad thing?

That's the beauty of a free press. :)

Keeps people on their toes. In the UK, the press is feared for this reason. With one word, your career can be over, the respect of your peers irretrievably lost, and your children may never want to see you again.

I think it is entirely appropriate that governments should constantly worry what might be revealed. It keeps them honest.

Regarding balance, investigative journalism seems to be a cultural thing. Some countries have it, others don't. If a country doesn't have it, well, too bad. Try developing a public service media held in high esteem.
Am I the only one who's wondering what that one word is? :confused: :p

Are you suggesting that a newspaper publishing details of a plot to violently overthrow a government of the Americas is a bad thing?

There's a point to that, let us not forget that technically, the colonies were british land, and the revolutionists were criminals.

Am I the only one who's wondering what that one word is? :confused: :p

homosexual.

Or communist.

Depending on your decade.

There's a point to that, let us not forget that technically, the colonies were british land, and the revolutionists were criminals.

The word 'technically' is extraneous.

homosexual.

Or communist.

Depending on your decade.

I think the current word is 'paedophile'.

The word 'technically' is extraneous.

I added that to prevent the onslaught of "omg you think the founding fathers were criminals, what are you a TERRORIST?"

My point is, without saying one way or the other whether the revolution was a good or bad thing, those that conspired against the british government were violating British law and were as point of fact, criminals

a few problems...
first, the lanters were more along the lines of fires lit atop the Great Wall in China or a siren going off before an air raid than anything else. They were part of a warning system, and were not exactly kept secret.

Second of all, "revealing" who were the rebels against the crown was pretty effectively handled with the most powerful of them signing their names to a letter sent directly to the man they were rebelling against...ya know...that declaration of independence thing?

Am I the only one who's wondering what that one word is? :confused: :p
In the case of Mark Oaten, a candidate for leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party, the word was 'homosexual'. That was it. His career is over. His wife took the kids and ran.

Other words include 'beleaguered' (Stephen Byers), 'alcoholic' (Charles Kennedy), 'bribery', 'sleaze', 'arson' (yes, really, a Labour MEP set fire to some hotel curtains) and phrases such as 'cash for questions', 'foreign prisoners' etc.

One word, one phrase in the ears of the electorate. One reminder of something you did, and tried to play down. And you are stuffed.

a few problems...
first, the lanters were more along the lines of fires lit atop the Great Wall in China or a siren going off before an air raid than anything else. They were part of a warning system, and were not exactly kept secret.

Second of all, "revealing" who were the rebels against the crown was pretty effectively handled with the most powerful of them signing their names to a letter sent directly to the man they were rebelling against...ya know...that declaration of independence thing?
Hush you! Don't let such a little thing as facts get in the way of the meaningless rant of the OP :p

Hush you! Don't let such a little thing as facts get in the way of the meaningless rant of the OP :p
oh...sorry...I forgot, I'm on NS :p

oh...sorry...I forgot, I'm on NS :p
Lest you forget.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4241/motivatornsgeneral2hl.th.jpg (http://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=motivatornsgeneral2hl.jpg)

If theyre secrets, they should be well-guarded
agreed and thus the papers should not be blamed, but those who leak those secrets to the press needs to be persecuted.

New York Times didn't start until 1851.

If it weren't for the free press, the American Revolution NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Ever heard of Thomas Paine? Pamphleteer? Or what about Paul Revere's woodcut of the 'Boston Massacre' (is five people a massacre?). If it weren't for the press, the revolution would have been quashed in Boston before it ever really got started.

Hell, freedom of the press is part of the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT. It's what we are supposed to stand for. If the government is too damn stupid to keep something a secret, that's really their problem.

If it weren't for the free press, the American Revolution NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Ever heard of Thomas Paine? Pamphleteer? Or what about Paul Revere's woodcut of the 'Boston Massacre' (is five people a massacre?). If it weren't for the press, the revolution would have been quashed in Boston before it ever really got started.

Hell, freedom of the press is part of the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT. It's what we are supposed to stand for. If the government is too damn stupid to keep something a secret, that's really their problem.
Tell it, brother. Or sister.

If it weren't for the free press, the American Revolution NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Ever heard of Thomas Paine? Pamphleteer? Or what about Paul Revere's woodcut of the 'Boston Massacre' (is five people a massacre?). If it weren't for the press, the revolution would have been quashed in Boston before it ever really got started.

Hell, freedom of the press is part of the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT. It's what we are supposed to stand for. If the government is too damn stupid to keep something a secret, that's really their problem.were those events that those papers covered national secrets? I would say NO.

the question isn't "is freedom of the press wrong", but "can Newspapers go to far in printing Secrets"

were those events that those papers covered national secrets? I would say NO.

the question isn't "is freedom of the press wrong", but "can Newspapers go to far in printing Secrets"


If no public interest is served and the information directly, provably causes significant danger to peoples' lives, then curtails *might* be acceptable.

This would only apply in rare cases such as disclosing the names of undercover agents, &c.

In the case of Mark Oaten, a candidate for leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party, the word was 'homosexual'. That was it. His career is over. His wife took the kids and ran.

Other words include 'beleaguered' (Stephen Byers), 'alcoholic' (Charles Kennedy), 'bribery', 'sleaze', 'arson' (yes, really, a Labour MEP set fire to some hotel curtains) and phrases such as 'cash for questions', 'foreign prisoners' etc.

One word, one phrase in the ears of the electorate. One reminder of something you did, and tried to play down. And you are stuffed.
And it doesn't even have to be something you did or said, like most of those are. Just look at James Callaghan and the Sun's "Crisis? What crisis?" headline- the fact that he didn't say it didn't stop him losing power.

If no public interest is served and the information directly, provably causes significant danger to peoples' lives, then curtails *might* be acceptable.

This would only apply in rare cases such as disclosing the names of undercover agents, &c.
now here's the question... at what point does danger become significant or public interest not served before such curtails become used?

now here's the question... at what point does danger become significant or public interest not served before such curtails become used?


The $1,000,000 question.

The lack of a clear answer should inform a policy of not censoring newspapers.

the question isn't "is freedom of the press wrong", but "can Newspapers go to far in printing Secrets"
The problem is, what constitutes a secret?

The British Atomic Weapons Establishment's budget is a secret. Want to know whether the taxpayer is getting the best possible value for money? What they are spending, and how efficiently? Tough.

Various individuals and bodies have asked whom the next generation nuclear deterrent is intended to deter. It was decided that giving a reply is "not in the public interest". In spite of the fact that the public asked the question.

OPEC have pulled the biggest accounting fraud of all time, that will take place, ever. What are their field-by-field P95 reserve numbers and production histories? State secrets. Sure, the planet spends trillions on transport and energy infrastructure, but it is not entitled to an audit of stats outlining future prospects.

A public inquiry into the handling of the London Underground bombings? You guessed it. The information one is expected to yield, is not worth the expense of conducting one.

The problem is, any inconvenient, uncomfortable, embarrassing truth, can be labelled "disclosure is not in the public interest" and everything surrounding it will stay dead.

Should we accept that? Hell no.

As far as I am concerned, anything anyone manages to discover, is fair game. The problem is not a man who spoke. The problem is a man whose conduct was embarrassing. Someone shouts about the fact that a telephone can be turned into an open mic from a telephone exchange without local modifications? Accept, adapt.

I say - no, there shouldn't be limits.

The New York Times is the only newspaper that has any oversight over the government. We need the New York Times or I would be scared about the way our government is going now.

The $1,000,000 question.

The lack of a clear answer should inform a policy of not censoring newspapers.
agreed. as I mentioned in other threads, the problem is not to stop papers from printing the "news" but stopping the leaks themselves.

The problem is, what constitutes a secret?

The British Atomic Weapons Establishment's budget is a secret. Want to know whether the taxpayer is getting the best possible value for money? What they are spending, and how efficiently? Tough.

Various individuals and bodies have asked whom the next generation nuclear deterrent is intended to deter. It was decided that giving a reply is "not in the public interest". In spite of the fact that the public asked the question.

OPEC have pulled the biggest accounting fraud of all time, that will take place, ever. What are their field-by-field P95 reserve numbers and production histories? State secrets. Sure, the planet spends trillions on transport and energy infrastructure, but it is not entitled to an audit of stats outlining future prospects.

A public inquiry into the handling of the London Underground bombings? You guessed it. The information one is expected to yield, is not worth the expense of conducting one.

The problem is, any inconvenient, uncomfortable, embarrassing truth, can be labelled "disclosure is not in the public interest" and everything surrounding it will stay dead.

Should we accept that? Hell no.

As far as I am concerned, anything anyone manages to discover, is fair game. The problem is not a man who spoke. The problem is a man whose conduct was embarrassing. Someone shouts about the fact that a telephone can be turned into an open mic from a telephone exchange without local modifications? Accept, adapt.wrong, the problem is the man who spoke. no matter the reasons, he/she would prove that they cannot keep a secret and thus should be removed from any chance of accessing any form of secrets.

As for the wrong doers, there are proper channels to go though within the system and the press is not one of them. most of these leaks are made to smear the opposition with little reguard of "Public Interest" or consiquences of such release of information in the mind of the leaker. these people sworn into office, have access to government secrets. so these people are talking to the press, ever wonder who else they are talking to and what about?

As long as it doesn't endanger lives or common goals.

wrong, the problem is the man who spoke. no matter the reasons, he/she would prove that they cannot keep a secret and thus should be removed from any chance of accessing any form of secrets.

As for the wrong doers, there are proper channels to go though within the system and the press is not one of them. most of these leaks are made to smear the opposition with little reguard of "Public Interest" or consiquences of such release of information in the mind of the leaker. these people sworn into office, have access to government secrets. so these people are talking to the press, ever wonder who else they are talking to and what about?
I was referring to the journalists who break the story.

I was referring to the journalists who break the story.
oh, I was referring to those "Confidential and secret sources"... those leaks.

then, I agree with you. if the Journalist finds out about it by investigative work and slick interviews, then by all means, they can print it. but the leaks, those confidential sources, that's what should be stopped.

homosexual.

Or communist.

Depending on your decade.

Ooh, ooh, let's not forget paedophile. That one never goes out of fashion.

EDIT: Curses. Beaten to it.

homosexual.

Or communist.

Depending on your decade.
Anti-semite?

then, I agree with you. if the Journalist finds out about it by investigative work and slick interviews, then by all means, they can print it. but the leaks, those confidential sources, that's what should be stopped.
Well, that's an internal disciplinary matter. Companies terminate people's employment, governments (probably) terminate people :eek: but journalists should have the freedom to print whatever lands on their desk, whatever the consequences.

The responsibility lies with the people who generated the information, with the people mentioned in the information, not with the people whose job it is to disseminate it. If some intrusive new intelligence gathering method is exposed, there are two questions that need to be asked - why did the source leak it and why is authority being exceeded by the people concerned, but never why it was published. The only adaption which should be demanded is in leak management procedures, and in involved people's activities in the first place. The possibility of publication must be taken as a given, and fishy business avoided with that in mind.

Really, what it comes down to is, the moment anyone embarks on a serious WTF trip, be it with wire-tapping, accounting or prostitution, they should expect no right to moan to the media about the fact that their ass got exposed.

Anti-semite?
That's a great one. Guaranteed to tar and feather anyone.

Anti-semite?

Atheist would be a killer, sadly.

That's a great one. Guaranteed to tar and feather anyone.
How about 'misogynist'?

How about 'misogynist'?
Nah. That one doesn't work, as it's too cliche. People using it seriously, tend to be pictured wearing dungarees and screaming 'vagina!'

And atheist is a slur that only works in the US. :p

Nah. That one doesn't work, as it's too cliche. People using it seriously, tend to be pictured wearing dungarees and screaming 'vagina!'

And atheist is a slur that only works in the US. :p
Gotta love those feminists...Meanwhile, while 'atheist' does work, 'racist' does not. Man I hate populism.