Too Much Freedom?
I'm all for freedom of the press, but the attached link begs this question. Is there such a thing as too much freedom?
Take a piece from today's NYT that introduces a charter jet company, Aero Contractors of Smithfield, North Carolina. Depending on your perspective, the following quote is an example of good reporting or giving away a national security secret.
"While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
Behind a surprisingly thin cover of rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations that share officers who appear to exist only on paper, the C.I.A. has rapidly expanded its air operations since 2001 as it has pursued and questioned terrorism suspects around the world."
Can we agree that the NYT has exposed Aero and has potentially put the company, their pilots, and all future missions into needless jeopardy. Missions which could very well result in the death of members of the American military.
Am I exaggerating? I don't think so, especially given the fact that this is the New York Times. I'd almost be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to almost any other paper, but the track record of the Times is so atrocious, so terrible, I just automatically question the veracity of anything I read from the Times.
Even the headline offends me. "CIA Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights," as if the CIA, by extension the Federal Government and by extension George Bush is doing something illegal, sneaky and underhanded.
No, what's happening actually is that the Federal Government via the Central Intelligence Agency at the direct orders of President Bush is doing things differently from the way they might have been done before. I think that alone, is a good thing. I think it is a great thing that the White House is enlisting the help of private enterprise to assist in fighting the War On Terror.
It's a rather sinister development when the American press attempts to tell America's enemies what Americans are doing to neutralize the enemy threat. Report all you want, do the story your editor wants you and assigns you to do, but keep in mind that you are a journalist second and an American first. It seems that distinction has been ignored or lost in the zeal to be 'the first,' to report a particular story or to advance a particular agenda.
I have never before seen the type of anti-American, anti-military bias that I've seen in the press in the days and weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan in late '01. The MSM will deny it, but the fact is the American press hopes and wants America to lose the war on terror. Why? Because an unknown percentage of the MSM thinks America is the root of most evils around the globe.
"Secrecy Is Difficult"
That's the sub-head for the last four paragraphs of the story. Secrecy is difficult. It sure is. Especially when the NYT runs a story that outs your company. Aero might have been a secret before this story ran today, but not anymore.
So I ask again. Does the press have too much freedom when they potentially compromise national security? You know where I stand.
Take a piece from today's NYT that introduces a charter jet company, Aero Contractors of Smithfield, North Carolina. Depending on your perspective, the following quote is an example of good reporting or giving away a national security secret.
"While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
Behind a surprisingly thin cover of rural hideaways, front companies and shell corporations that share officers who appear to exist only on paper, the C.I.A. has rapidly expanded its air operations since 2001 as it has pursued and questioned terrorism suspects around the world."
Can we agree that the NYT has exposed Aero and has potentially put the company, their pilots, and all future missions into needless jeopardy. Missions which could very well result in the death of members of the American military.
Am I exaggerating? I don't think so, especially given the fact that this is the New York Times. I'd almost be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to almost any other paper, but the track record of the Times is so atrocious, so terrible, I just automatically question the veracity of anything I read from the Times.
Even the headline offends me. "CIA Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights," as if the CIA, by extension the Federal Government and by extension George Bush is doing something illegal, sneaky and underhanded.
No, what's happening actually is that the Federal Government via the Central Intelligence Agency at the direct orders of President Bush is doing things differently from the way they might have been done before. I think that alone, is a good thing. I think it is a great thing that the White House is enlisting the help of private enterprise to assist in fighting the War On Terror.
It's a rather sinister development when the American press attempts to tell America's enemies what Americans are doing to neutralize the enemy threat. Report all you want, do the story your editor wants you and assigns you to do, but keep in mind that you are a journalist second and an American first. It seems that distinction has been ignored or lost in the zeal to be 'the first,' to report a particular story or to advance a particular agenda.
I have never before seen the type of anti-American, anti-military bias that I've seen in the press in the days and weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan in late '01. The MSM will deny it, but the fact is the American press hopes and wants America to lose the war on terror. Why? Because an unknown percentage of the MSM thinks America is the root of most evils around the globe.
"Secrecy Is Difficult"
That's the sub-head for the last four paragraphs of the story. Secrecy is difficult. It sure is. Especially when the NYT runs a story that outs your company. Aero might have been a secret before this story ran today, but not anymore.
So I ask again. Does the press have too much freedom when they potentially compromise national security? You know where I stand.
posted by Kent at 4:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home