Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Michael Fields is saying President Bush ‘is known for ‘pre-emotively engaging nations’? So he engages them before he gets emotional about it? Is that what you’re trying to say? And operating ‘outside the view of the public’ and secretively would be the same thing, yes? So withholding certain stories as a potential national security risk should be determined by whom? You? The press? How absurd?

As a broadcast television network, ABC is many things but ‘good guy’ is not what first comes to mind. A recent example would be the leading questions of George Stephanopolous to Rep Jack Murtha as the pair offered viewers their opinion as newsworthy. That opinion was ‘home grown’ terrorism is the result of our troops being in Iraq. As this was timed with the failed terror plot at JFK airport, home grown seems an odd description with three of the conspirators originally from Guyana and one from Trinidad. The one referred to as American is a citizen ‘native to Guyana.

Michael Fields also suggests that plans by a President should include informing the public of the plans. Is that his way of saying such things can never be done? For if some actions the government would take are published each and every time, they will fail. Or it makes the discussion moot. That is the reason for having oversight groups such as in Congress that have silly things like security clearance, etc. You can provide the necessary oversight and protect the public interest without telling everyone including your target what’s going on. Does anyone really need this explained to them?

Considering the Scooter Libby case and much of what the NYT has published in recent years, Hewitt’s question was not sarcastic. Freedom of speech and the public’s right to know have limitations like any other freedom. This example even Fields should understand. You don’t get to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. Or get to say ‘hi, jack’ at an airport or on an aircraft. All the classified information that has been leaked over the years without extremely harsh penalties for those responsible is absolutely ludicrous.

Romney’s and Hewitt’s positions are correct. Michael Fields, why haven’t you considered in your writing that ABC’s, as well as the NYT and others, do not have the public’s interest in mind with many of their decisions? Much in the way that other politically motivated decisions at these businesses are packaged to look like news or in the public interest. Constantly reminding people of the obvious on a daily basis with casualty reports and only the morbid side of war ‘emotively’ affects the public while they are rarely given that much coverage on the positive results that also occur.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Relax Romney, ABC is the good guy

This post was written by Michael Fields on 2 June, 2007 (17:33)
Mitt Romney recently scolded the media and ABC specifically for publishing stories potentially detrimental to national security. On May 22 ABC published a story exposing the information that President Bush had authorized the CIA to take non lethal action to destabilize the current regime in Iran. The plan includes “a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions” according to the article.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm and is filed under Iraq, wordpress, News Media, disclosure, ethics, oversight, Afghanistan, United States, Iran, Freedom, Foreign Affairs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.