Posted on 07/21/2005 11:14:27 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
During the 32 years I covered Washington for the Los Angeles Times, I learned that leaks from anonymous sources are crucial to informing the public. In the debate over what Karl Rove said when and to whom, and over the role of confidential sources in general, that must be underlined: Without leaks, without anonymity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government.
The stories that have depended on confidential sources, and often on classified information, are legend: Watergate in the Nixon administration, the Iran/Contra scandal and cover-up in the Reagan administration, and President Clinton's lies in the ...Lewinsky scandal.
More recently, leaks aided The Times' investigations of the EPA's plan to ease up on mercury emissions, dissent within the CIA and the State Department over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the alarming number of Army officers quitting after duty in Iraq.
It sounds good to say that classified information must stay classified. But even government officials have acknowledged that it's necessary to dispense classified information from time to time.
In 2000, after Congress passed a piece of legislation tightening the law against classified leaks, Clinton vetoed the measure at the urging of some of his aides. They explained they could not properly brief reporters under the law because such a huge amount of important information is classified, even though much of it involves no national security risk.
Kenneth Bacon, Clinton's Pentagon spokesman, told reporters the bill would be "disastrous" for journalists and for "any official who deals with the press in national security."
...this is especially important when it comes to the Bush administration, which is notoriously secretive. Over the last five years, the government has more than doubled the number of classified documents.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"... the Bush administration, which is notoriously secretive."
Because his predecessor basically opened the library except for his pimping service. GW is merely closing our flood of national security material from making it abroad.
Actually, as we have found out lately, it's the media that needs checks and balances.
Kenneth Bacon....LEAKER of Linda Tripp's CONFIDENTAIL FBI FILE!!!!!!
WIthout truth, the LAT dries up.
Interesting. Wasn't it Kenneth Bacon who (illegally) released Linda Tripp's personnel records? What a great spokesman for leaking to the press!
I have little or no problem with leaks made by individuals as individuals. At least I can understand how that can happen. It is the nature of a government such as ours, and we just have to put up with the occasional dissenter who believes it is their patriotic duty to leak information to the public.
I have a much larger problem with a political party planting operatives in our government for the purpose of undermining public policy. If a political party is orchestrating leaks to undermine a duly elected government, and if such a conspiracy exists, it must be squashed.
Keep in mind that we've already seen the efforts of what might be a conspiracy to undermine the President, and his public policy. We've seen forged memos... multiples of them, leaked to the press. We've seen out of context leaks that have led to uproars like the rioting in the Middle East that resulted from the leak of out of context allegations in the report on abuses at the Guantanamo Bay facility. There are probably other leaks that have occurred that I'm missing, but they all have one goal in mind, and that is to obscure the truth, not reveal it.
And that is the problem we are facing now, conspiracy or not. The leaks that are occurring are politically motivated to obscure the truth, and whether or not the leaks are being directed I can't honestly say. It just looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Whether or not its a duck.... I'll withhold my judgment.
A free press, yes...but not this press we have today.
The liberal propaganda press, aka old media, abandoned that mantra decades ago. It is married to the government, as long as it's a socialist democRAT government.
The only purpose served by leaks is for one faction to take a leak on the other. It does become amusing when one someone takes a leak while facing into the wind.
"...a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government."
Although not a scholar on the subject, I don't recall the Constitution saying ANYTHING about the press being a check OR a balance against the power of government. It is the people, through the vote and discourse with their elected representatives who have that job. Those same people the lat treats as ignorant vermin, to be controlled by a socialist nanny state, deprived of volition, control of thier own lives, and self defense against tyranny. Admit it lat, you are becoming superfluous against the backdrop of the net, 24 hour cable news, and the blogsphere.
What a snivel-fest!
Leaks are important indeed.....if the government was as small as it should be, we would't bother or be bothered much by the goings-on in Washingtoon (where the DC means Don't Care).
Cheers,
Top sends
That's the problem with leaks - there's no way to verify the truth without exposing the leaker. We already have whistleblower immunity laws - why wouldn't they apply in most of these cases ? I say, let the sun shine in and out the identity of any leaker.
I can't think of any leak that was beneficial - can anyone ?
Reporters are not above law. Obey the law or change the law.
Hmmm, right now I trust the media LESS than I trust the government.
This guy Jack Nelson is a self important, ego inflated, head of the dunce class liberal who hasn't had an intelligent thought since kindergarten.
To do maximum damage to President Bush, we must be able to lie in such a way that the information can't be checked or challenged.
Dan Rather's problem wasn't what he said, it was that he said too much. If he had used an anonymous source and alluded to the forgeries not shown them, he'd still be at SEE BS, helping to bring down a sitting President at war.
Remember our twin mottos "Journalists are above the law" and "We bash Republicans"
To do maximum damage to President Bush, we must be able to lie in such a way that the information can't be checked or challenged.
Dan Rather's problem wasn't what he said, it was that he said too much. If he had used an anonymous source and alluded to the forgeries not shown them, he'd still be at SEE BS, helping to bring down a sitting President at war.
Remember our twin mottos "Journalists are above the law" and "We bash Republicans"
"...since when is it the press' job to be a check and balance against the Government?"
The press is a business. They are in it to sell as much of their product as they can. All the propaganda and smoke they put out about being "a check on the government" and "looking out for the little guy" is just that - propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.