Posted on 07/21/2006 8:00:11 PM PDT by LdSentinal
Toward the end of 1979, hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations got hold of a dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring. The facts were confirmed, unassailably. Any one of these reporters could have had the scoop of a lifetime.
And yet not one reporter, newspaper, network or newsletter ran with the story until given permission to do so (all at once) by the governments involved. No court or governmental threat of retribution forced them to do so. It was all voluntary.
For more than two months the news industry did not even hint at an adventure that the public would have been eager to know about, a tale complete with heroes, victims, villains and hair-raising suspense. Today, as news media have revealed secret programs of the Bush administration, the questions are being asked: Can journalists keep a secret? Should they? Are news media capable of drawing the line between revelations that would be too damaging to national security interests and those necessary to safeguard American democracy and constitutionally protected rights?
The government has raised the possibility of prosecuting on espionage charges not only those who leaked this information but the journalists and media organizations that revealed it.
It was very different back in 1979.
On Nov. 4 of that year, Islamic militants stormed and occupied the U.S. Embassy compound in Tehran and took hostage the more than 70 Americans there.
But six American officials happened to be outside the compound, elsewhere in the Iranian capital, at the time of the takeover. The militants never realized that some Americans were missing; they were being sheltered by Canadian diplomats in Tehran, who were risking their own safety to protect them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do I think that a thousand reporters could be trusted today to make the same call that we did in 1979? I wonder. Even back then, there was the fear that some rogue reporter would ignore the pleas and go with the story. In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
I really don't think the bloggers are the problem.
*cough* (newyorktimes) *cough*
In a word, no.
But the main offender, now, is not some blogger or counterculture types who just have access to newswires, but the NY Times.
It's also useful to recall that the Drive By Media had the Monica Lewinsky story for at least a year and sat on it until Drudge blew the lid off.
Drive by Presstitutes.
if it was today while Bush is President, the NY Times could hardly wait to leak that piece of news to get those Americans killed and then rejoice at hurting America and blame Bush.
The oversight to publish has reduced drastically since the 79. I would like to see the ocupational definition of journalist loosen because integrity is key to the job. The problem is that sociopaths and opportunists without integrity can publish almost as effectively as a journalist with integrity. It may be that our free press, certainly the press in Europe, has tipped in the favor of sociopaths and opportunists. I hope I’m wrong about that.
In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
The oversight to publish has reduced drastically since 79. However I would not like to see the ocupational definition of journalist loosen because integrity is key to the job. The problem is that sociopaths and opportunists without integrity can publish almost as effectively as a journalist with integrity. It may be that our free press, certainly the press in Europe, has tipped in the favor of sociopaths and opportunists. I hope I’m wrong about that.
"In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call" and go with the story.
Not to worry, 95% of the print and television media will "make the wrong call". Umm, well, unless they're covering for a democrat AKA, liberal, socialist, progressive...
Cheers
*cough* (enemedia) *cough*
Yep. I remember it like it was yesterday.
If Ken Taylor EVER paid for his own dinner in this country, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.
They must have thought some of the six were journalists...
ping
I think 'counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool' has a name & it's 'Pinch'.
Only when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Because that was a Democrat in the White House. They would not have sat on it were a Republican there. There are different rules for when a Democrat is in that office.
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.