Secrets, Responsibility and the Press

The roundtable discussion on MtP yesterday highlighted the basic problem when it comes to press conduct regarding state secrets/national security issues. On one side was Bill Bennett, who argued that the press is behaving irresponsibly in its coverage of the war on terror and needs to be held accountable legally. On the other side were 3 columnists, plus Andrea Mitchell the moderator, who insisted that freedom of the press has to mean a commitment to holding the powerful accountable, in part, by exposing certain newsworthy activities that the government deems secret but that the press feels the public has a right to know about.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I like Bennett more often than I don't. Further, on this issue, I tend to agree with him more than I disagree (though his insistence that Dana Priest should go to jail because of her CIA prisons story is going too far in my estimation). But having said that, this roundtable was not one of Bennett's better performances. He was clearly upset by the lack of balance in the panel, although a 3 and really 4-1 ratio has always been Andrea Mitchell's version of balance. Bennett was also upset by Priest's not-so-subtle jab at Bennett's gambling issues, which actually says more about her than anything else. But beyond the personality issues and the imbalanced panel, let's look at the major points the pro-press side is making regarding the NYT story:

1) The SWIFT program wasn't exactly a secret; therefore, the disclosure of it by the NYT didn't help the terrorists since the terrorists almost certainly knew about it already. This is the pro-press's weakest argument. If the program wasn't a secret, and if there were no serious questions about its legality, then why exactly did the NYT consider the story to be worthy of the front page? Clearly there was something about this allegedly not-so-secret program that the NYT felt was not only newsworthy, but prominently newsworthy. This completely belies the idea that the details of the program were well known, because if this was true, why the front page story now, years after the inception of the program? The entire NYT piece smelled like a news organization going to print with what it felt was a major scoop. How does this reconcile with the idea that there's no 'there there' with regards to the secrecy of the program's details? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't reconcile. The NYT was jumping on the anti-secrecy bandwagon that it helped create, and now that they're getting roasted, they're retreating to the 'it was never really a secret in the first place' mantra. It doesn't add up.

2) The pro-press's better argument is that whether SWIFT was a secret or not, the public has a right to know because the press plays the invaluable role of holding the powerful accountable and submitting the acts of the powerful to the public for open debate, or more. The press is on better ground here. I agree with the press that it has the responsibility and duty to hold the powerful accountable in as non-partisan, non-favoristic way as possible. The fact that the press at large regularly fails in this mission by showing favoritism through what it reports and doesn't report does not change the basic soundness of this virtue. It is indeed a very dangerous area to try and suppress the activities of the press under the guise of national security. This can indeed impair legitimate activities of the press in ways that are very harmful and can result in a dangerous consolidation of power by those in power. Speaking without regard to political party or the political persuasions of the press, this is a dangerous road to go down very far.

However, there is a problem here. If the press sees itself as something of a watchdog over the activities of the powerful, and sees itself as a needed antidote to abuses of power, what then happens when the abuses of power are committed by the press itself? Who's the watchdog holding them accountable? The press's answer is extremely unnerving, and we saw it on teh MtP panel yesterday. Bill Safire and Dana Priest in particular kept disagreeing with Bennett's basic premise that the press is not above the law. Now what they were probably disagreeing with was Bennett's notion that the press has in fact violated the law. But folks, that's a matter of opinion that somebody in authority eventually has to decide. And who does the press think is invested with this authority? Not surprisingly, they appoint themselves as such arbiters and bristle at the notion that anyone else has the right to police them. This, of course, directly contradicts what they believe their own mission is in the world. They uniformly believe that politicians and other people in power cannot and will not effectively police themselves. That's why we need a free press. But when those in power are the press, and when the press arguably abuses its power, the press suddenly sings a very different tune, and insists that they not only can effectively police themselves, but are the only ones who should police their activities.

This demonstrates a number of things. First, it clearly demonstrates that the press is a very long way away from the unbiased, dispassionate, neutral, and objective entity that it claims to be. When accused or attacked, they do what everyone else does - instead of engaging in thoughtful, non-groupthink reflection about their conduct, they circle the wagons and stick up for their own. When this reflects itself in editorial pages, beat columns, and the political talk shows, believing in the objectivity of our press can be seen to be the complete fantasy it clearly is. Second, the press's position raises very disturbing questions about how it sees itself and the world around it. The press, it seems, has so bought into its own mantra of objectivity that it is simply incapable of subjecting this fictional assumption to any rigorous examination. Instead, they merrily go along believing that everyone is motivated by agendas other than what they profess; except them. This is self-evidently absurd, and sadly demonstrates why the press is so completely out of touch with not only the American experience, but the human experience. The press genuinely believes it can and must police itself, because they genuinely believe they are objective and the most conscientious about challenging the accepted 'givens' that people work with. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth, since they are unwilling to subject their own predispositions to the same level of scrutiny to which they scrutinize other things. This reveals not only their favoritism, but also the level of their own self-deception.

Did the NYT act irresponsibly? I think so, but I'm not the final authority in deciding that question. The difference between me and the press is that I know I'm not the needed authority, while the press ASSUMES it is and refuses to submit or seriously consider any other viewpoint. Does this sound neutral and objective to you?