A lot of words have been used to describe media behavior in revealing government secrets in the war on terror. "Irresponsible," "reprehensible" and "disgraceful" are just a few. How about "criminal"?
Listening to the top editors of America's leading newspapers justify acts of perfidy in recent days has been instructive. Much has been said in defense of the indefensible. But we were aghast at the rationale offered by New York Times Editor Bill Keller: It was, he said, in the "public interest." We rather doubt that. Fact is, the Times has now published three stories in the last year and a half that revealed details of secret programs in the war on terror. In so doing, it has put terrorists on notice they're being watched, thereby giving them an incentive to alter their behavior and become tougher to catch. How's that in the "public interest"?
We'll at least credit Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, for his honesty. Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, he admitted the program to track terrorist bank dealings through SWIFT, a global financial clearing network, was probably legal and effective. He also admitted "it is conceivable" that printing the stories would help terrorists elude capture. So, again, is that in the "public interest?" |