so you wouldnt call ranking the newspapers by copies sold "rating the newspapers"

stop making yourself sound dumb

but more importantly why dont you address the meat of that post instead of reaching

that the government said exposing the program could hurt its usefulness

6/26/2006 5:36:09 PM

There seems to be a logical disconnect in his response. He cites the presses duty to report on abuses of power but then makes the claim that the Times is not passing judgment on the legality of the program but by publishing the story thats exactly what they are doing.

6/26/2006 5:36:12 PM

the story informs the electorate of a government program so that the electorate may decide what they think about it.

6/26/2006 5:37:33 PM

dont claim they were justified in running the story because they "discussed it with the administration for weeks" before running it, and then ignore the government saying that "exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk"

6/26/2006 5:38:48 PM

If there is no abuse of power they have the responsibility not to print the story.

6/26/2006 5:40:10 PM

6/26/2006 5:43:53 PM

Thats not the same issue at all.

6/26/2006 5:49:19 PM

there is contention that there is an abuse of power.

have you read the article?

6/26/2006 5:49:36 PM

^yes i read the article

but a lot of people think the newspapers are abusing their power

a lot of people

^^i know its not the same thing...but some people think the media should be able to do anything they want...im just reiterating my example from earlier

if bush and administration will do anything to stop terror, the newspapers will do anything to break a big story, the tv stations will do anything to break a big story, etc

6/26/2006 5:50:33 PM

a lot of people think that this program is an abuse of power.
a lot of people.

a lot of people also like to know what their tax money is supporting.

believe it or not, the gov't works for us.

6/26/2006 5:52:54 PM

believe it or not, the media shouldnt publish everything

6/26/2006 5:53:18 PM

Those people are called terrorists.

6/26/2006 5:53:51 PM

from the article in question (which hasn't been quoted once in this thread, for some reason):

Quote :

"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization."

6/26/2006 5:54:30 PM

Quote :

"the program remains classified. "

do you not see any potential problem with publishing the story?

6/26/2006 5:55:57 PM

and because it's classified means it's on the up and up and we should just trust the executive branch?

i thought the founding of this country was about limiting the power of the executive branch and distrust of our leaders to do the right thing.

6/26/2006 5:58:37 PM

no...because its classified means you dont publish it in a public newspaper...its CLASSIFIED...its not supposed to get out

damn whats so hard to understand about that?

and i thought the power of the executive branch was supposed to be checked and balanced by the legislative and judicial branches...not the New York Times...maybe I missed the amendment where the New York Times are mentioned

6/26/2006 6:04:02 PM

Quote :

"and i thought the power of the executive branch was supposed to be checked and balanced by the legislative and judicial branches...not the New York Times...maybe I missed the amendment where the New York Times are mentioned"

you missed the part in the article that said that neither congress nor the judicial system has had any authorization or review of this in any official context.

6/26/2006 6:08:37 PM

yet the newspapers have that authority?

6/26/2006 6:09:51 PM

the have the responsibility to show operations which are operating outside of legislative oversight.

6/26/2006 6:10:26 PM

they already said the program was legal

so remind me again what responsibility the NY Times has to publish classified information?

and maybe they should publish names and pictures and locations of all US covert spies around the world since one of them might be abusing power..there couldnt possibly be any negative repercussions to our intelligence community from that either, could there

6/26/2006 6:11:56 PM

who is "they"?

to the added part:

you know that there is a difference there.

also, taken directly from the article in question:

Quote :

"Treasury officials said Swift was exempt from American laws restricting government access to private financial records because the cooperative was considered a messaging service, not a bank or financial institution. But at the outset of the operation, Treasury and Justice Department lawyers debated whether the program had to comply with such laws before concluding that it did not, people with knowledge of the debate said. Several outside banking experts, however, say that financial privacy laws are murky and sometimes contradictory and that the program raises difficult legal and public policy questions. "

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 6:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/26/2006 6:12:15 PM

Quote :

"who is "they"?"

Quote :

"The Administration= case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk. It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case."

so again i ask, where is it their responsibility to publish classified information about a legal program

6/26/2006 6:14:38 PM

their responsibility to bring light to this case so that the legal issues can be debated by the public.

6/26/2006 6:16:30 PM

oh man, maybe somebody else can convince you about classified information and that by definition its not for the public

6/26/2006 6:17:33 PM

Quote :

"ok. stop making yourself sound dumb. newspapers don't have "ratings". sales, sure. ad revenue, sure. ratings? it's not tv or radio. there are no ratings."

Circulation is to newspapers what ratings are to TV. In fact, there was a recent scandal regarding falsified circulation numbers:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4704566

Ever since the rise of cable news and the internet, newspaper circulation has been on an almost contiuous downturn. Since advertising rates are tied to circulation numbers in the same way that commercial rates are tied to TV ratings, the decreased circulation numbers have cost newspapers a significant amount of revenue. Which is bad, since, above all, newspapers are businesses out to turn a profit.

Many of you have a healthy cynicism of business and believe that businesses will sacrifice almost anything to turn an extra buck. What makes anyone believe that newspapers, or any other news outlet, don't behave in the same manner? At what point do margins outweigh journalistic integrity? How sure are you that the article you're reading was written in a wholly objective manner and not in a manner to increase circulation?

6/26/2006 6:33:02 PM

lying to the public (and getting caught) is the surest way to lose readers on a large scale, obviously not a good business model if the ultimate conclusion is eventual bankruptcy.

6/26/2006 6:38:23 PM

i think this thread shouldve been called "NY Times and friends still don't get it."

6/26/2006 6:50:50 PM

I just wanted to thank everybody for not caling me an idiot.

I've had some time to think about this (in the shower), and I think I may have posted too soon. I shouldn't have jumped on this as proof Bush "doesn't get it"--other policies still support that notion.

There are some things I do want to add to this thread, but I don't want it to appear that I'm just reaching for more criticism since my first set of criticisms didn't pan out.

So I'm gonna wait a little bit to come out with it.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 7:11 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2006 7:00:39 PM

^^^ Jayson Blair? Dan Rather? CBS and NYT are still in business.

Out and out lying would probably be over the edge for most major news outlets. But I'm pretty sure that article language, 'slant,' and selection are based a lot more on what editors think their readers want to read, rather than on what is a clear and objective view of the government and the world.

But my main point was to emphasize that the people we depend on to present an accurate view of the workings of government are in a business that depends entirely on maintaining a large readership/viewership.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 7:18 PM. Reason : quite the run on]

6/26/2006 7:16:34 PM

Quote :

"Dan Rather"

Not to burst your bubble but he left CBS because he wasn't being treated right (he said). Rather sounded pretty bitter about it, maybe somebody could locate the quote...

6/26/2006 7:35:51 PM

The quote you're looking for is:

Quote :

"I leave CBS News with tremendous memories. But I leave now most of all with the desire to once again do regular, meaningful reporting. My departure before the term of my contract represents CBS's final acknowledgement, after a protracted struggle, that they had not lived up to their obligation to allow me to do substantive work there. As for their offers of a future with only an office but no assignments, it just isn't in me to sit around doing nothing. So I will do the work I love elsewhere, and I look forward to sharing details about that soon."

As you mentioned, this is what he said. But I'm sure the overriding factor at CBS was the fact that the Evening News has been dead last in the ratings for many years now.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 8:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2006 8:44:25 PM

Twista, would you be fine with the gubment installing a police state and taking away all your civil liberties, without having any kind of insight or heads up that it was happening (info via the media)? Do you not care or want the media as an additional check to a big government? Are you not confident that our government can figure out how to catch terrorist without having to resort to strong armed tactics wich may infringe on the rights of it's own people?

It's been 5 years this program is running, how many terrorist did we catch, and what were they up to? I'm not a hard line government stay the fuck out of my life guy mainly because I don't do anything wrong, but if a program begins nearing a slippery slope and isn't giving much in return for my loss of liberty, then I don't want it.

Quote :

"so during the weeks of speaking with the administration prior to running the story, the Times appears to have failed to understand when the administration told them that "exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk." I guess the Times was content with putting the program's usefulness at risk...probably for ratings"

Do you just tote the party line without even really thinking about anything? Hey, if we let the government have access to all our records and everything about us, would that make you happy? As I just mentioned, just how useful has the program been? We might have caught some nickel and dime terrorists, but unless this program has really caught some high caliber folks, then fuck it, we don't need it. A side benefit of exposing it is the terrorist know we are watching (and I hate to think they didn't already know this, but I digress) which means they have to resort to other much slower means of transferring money, which is a good thing.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 9:10 PM. Reason : our]

6/26/2006 9:07:57 PM

Quote :

"Twista, would you be fine with the gubment installing a police state and taking away all your civil liberties, without having any kind of insight or heads up that it was happening (info via the media)?"

we're not in a police state

so presenting all the worst case scenarios isnt gonna make your point

Quote :

"Do you not care or want the media as an additional check to a big government?"

what makes you think you can trust the media?

Quote :

"Are you not confident that our government can figure out how to catch terrorist without having to resort to strong armed tactics wich may infringe on the rights of it's own people?"

i'd be a lot more comfortable if the media didnt reveal all our strategies and tactics to the public where anybody could hear/see them

course i could ask the same dumbass questions that you did but from the other side:

Hey 1CYPHER, would you be happy if every single military general had to strategize troop deployments on TV? would you be happy if we had a couple more 9/11 type attacks on US soil just as long as they didnt know you called up your dad for fathers day a couple weeks ago?

btw i dont tote any party lines...i just happen to think checking the money transfers of suspected terrorists is worthwhile if it can prevent future attacks...do you make a lot of multi-thousand dollar international transactions that you dont want the government monitoring or something?

6/26/2006 9:25:37 PM

toe the line

6/26/2006 9:37:16 PM

Quote :

"i just happen to think checking the money transfers of suspected terrorists is worthwhile if it can prevent future attacks"

I addressed this with my very first post. I don't have one problem at all with them tracking suspected terrorists. By this logic, everyone, and I do mean everyone in the United States of America that has ever made or received an international call is a suspected terrorist and I'm sure if the NSA had their way (and they probably do or will, we just won't know about it) then that means basically everyone. Are you fine with that, do you mind being labeled as a suspected terrorist? Slippery slope my friend, they now have the right to send you off to Guantanamo where you can't have a lawyer. Hope you mind the tortue for a couple years and are ballsy enough to take your own life, because that's what is happening here.

Quote :

"Hey 1CYPHER, would you be happy if every single military general had to strategize troop deployments on TV?"

What generals are plotting in a foreign land during a real combative war has no bearing on me or any citizen on US soil. When I transfer large sums of money overseas, it does. You're going to have to do a much better job than this parallel you keep touting.

Quote :

"what makes you think you can trust the media?"

What makes you think you can trust the government? Do you think the media is a giant collective trying to trounce your beloved president. Inaccuracies in the media usually get dealt with and severely, they don't band together. Don't you think if one source reported something incorrectly that another would call them out on it? Durr. This whole "out to make a buck" thing, which seems to nearly be the cornerstone of your argument, just really falls flat on its face. The media helps the administration often by not running stories or not mentioning things (as stated in the letter from Keller). I really don't think sitting on a story for weeks, and discussing it with the admin. is "out to make a buck". It's my opinion, but there is nothing about that which comes across as sensational to me, ymmv.

Quote :

"so presenting all the worst case scenarios isnt gonna make your point"

Well draw your line then for me, because you don't seem to have one at this point.

Quote :

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson "

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 9:41 PM. Reason : ^ durr, dunno why I put tote]

6/26/2006 9:39:56 PM

Quote :

"they now have the right to send you off to Guantanamo where you can't have a lawyer. Hope you mind the tortue for a couple years and are ballsy enough to take your own life, because that's what is happening here. "

is this salisburyboy?

6/26/2006 10:02:06 PM

Answer everything else, it's just the slippery slope argument I am using to show the weakness in your logic. I don't actually think it could happen, but by your logic there is no end to the government power and it certainly could. Why don't you address the other stuff, or does your standard replies not work anymore once they have been addressed accordingly?

6/26/2006 10:09:31 PM

Anyone have the link to that old-timey cartoon that has a printing press and a slogan akin "defender of freedom, enemy to tyrants?"

6/26/2006 10:10:53 PM

^^addressed accordingly?

from the get go you've been defending a public newspaper, available all around the world to anyone who wants it, who published classified US Government information that could clearly negatively affect our efforts in thwarting terrorism by directly informing our enemies, the United States' enemies, your and my enemies, of our plans and strategies, allowing them to easily find out some things we do and don't do, and then adjust their own plans and strategies accordingly

the only way big brother would take away all your freedoms and create a police state would be if our country got attacked many many times and was overrun with terrorists, committing terrorist attacks on US soil frequently...they're not gonna take away your rights and freedoms if they can continue to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us

if you dont want the govt to use their various intelligence means to try and foil terrorist plots, then what do you recommend?

6/26/2006 10:29:05 PM

I don't see where invasion of privacy was in this anti-terrorism tactic. They got the court orders, so it wasn't as if they just did this on whoever they felt like without reason or probable cause.

6/26/2006 10:40:49 PM

^thats correct, but some people have an unbelievable fear and expectation that all their rights and freedoms and liberties will be taken away for some reason

they have an extreme perspective on how things might go yet they think I'm crazy because I don't believe that some govt intelligence, the likes of which has been going on for decades and decades, is going to immediately pave the path for losing all our constitutional rights and freedoms and creating a police state

6/26/2006 10:42:39 PM

Quote :

"did you guys enjoy the looks on the West Virginia coal miners' families' faces when the media told them that all the miners survived and then had to tell them they reported a false story as much as you enjoyed Bush being angry at the NY Times for essentially publishing classified information?"

I know what you're getting at, but I also remember that the president of the coal company announced this to the families before the media announced this.

6/26/2006 10:54:56 PM

After having time to reflect on the coal miner incident, I must admit it is kinda funny.

"They're alive!


Psych...we got you good, you fuckers."

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : LOL]

6/26/2006 11:05:39 PM

Ok, I apologize. I got educated on this whole thing. I have been talking out my ass up until now (not purposefully against bush though, basically just to argue), I'll get a little more informed next time before I launch into arguments based half on correct reasoning and half on bad (or lack of) information.

6/26/2006 11:10:20 PM

Quote :

"this was needless and pointless, but fuck if seeing bush all pissed off wasnt worth it"

You clearly are an idiot

6/26/2006 11:17:46 PM

oh yea.

would you rather have this program, or be dead?

because those are your two choices.

6/27/2006 3:03:02 AM

the government can also catch a lot of terrorists if they read all of your mail

6/27/2006 7:01:42 AM

Quote :

"I also remember that the president of the coal company announced this to the families before the media announced this."

Actually, neither the CEO nor anyone else made a statement that twelve miners survived. The suspicion is that someone, in an attempt to be helpful, directly called the families with misheard communications overheard at the mine. TreeTwista's issue is that the media reported--and continued to report for several hours--the fact that the miner's had survived, all with no confirmation from an official source (e.g. mine spokesman, MSHA official, etc). Similar to Katrina, where it was continuously reported that 10's of thousands were dead and that the Superdome had devolved into murder and anarchy. Reporting based solely on rumor.

But I'm not sure how this really applies to this particular article.

6/27/2006 7:36:55 AM

the miners story doesnt directly relate to the anti-terror program

but its clearly another example of the media fucking up

what quote did i hear last night...something about "I don't need the NY Times to stand up for my rights while sacrificing my life"

6/27/2006 10:08:39 AM

Quote :

"the government can also catch a lot of terrorists if they read all of your mail"

how fucking stupid would you be if you thought the bush admin. doesnt read your mail.

6/27/2006 1:16:47 PM