So I'm sure you've all heard that the New York Times reported today that president Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, which was cited by several senators today as one reason they would not renew the patriot act.

Well and good - some checks and balances for an administration that hasn't recognized any. But what confused and frightened me was this statement by the New York Times defending their decision to print the report. Not because of what it says, but because of its very existence. The fact that they felt, in any small way, that they might need to defend the fact that they reported a president breaking the law....

Nikki commented:
Well, perhaps it is just my paranoia, but I had always suspected this was the case even BEFORE 9/11... I'm sure my file it thick with suspect transcripts--ah if only they could break the code. What I think is the most troubling is that the media in this country knew this was going on and spent a year researching it before doing anything at all? That gives the Times a lot of power they should not have had; but then, they are competing with the Washington Post in that regard... They really only probably printed it because Woodward was on the scent and they were afraid of getting scooped. It still amazes me that I ever considered journalism as a serious career... they are the hairdressers of the public arena--you respect them for what they can do and accomplish with relatively little training, but in the end, you are glad when you can leave the insanity behind you but in the back of your mind, you know you have to go back eventually... and no, dearest Dave, I'm not suggesting you cut your hair ;)
on Sat Dec 17 14:34:38 2005

Add a Comment
Back to the Blog