> Asking if a story is in the “national security” interest rather than the public interest turns the media into self-appointed counterintelligence officers, an army of paranoid James Jesus Angletons seeing Russians around every corner. Goldberg’s reference to “harm” to American military and intelligence personnel is the exact same excuse wielded by the national security agencies to evade transparency. (In this week’s revelation of the Kennedy assassination papers, what struck me most is how, more than 60 years later, the CIA was still using the national security harm argument to control what the public can know.)
> Goldberg makes clear in his article that his standard for publication isn’t newsworthiness, but the mere possibility that the information “could conceivably” be used by adversaries of the United States. The media isn’t or shouldn’t be in the business of helping the government. Like an attorney, the media are supposed to have a duty to their client, the public.
Juggerginge on
I’ll give Ken credit for the fact if he was accidentally added to that chat he would’ve published the texts before he even really published an article explaining them.
SharkSymphony on
I get that there’s a danger here of a too-compliant media, but I have some modest counterpoints:
– They’re not Trump’s texts. They’re his administration’s.
– Making a this-case-only call to withhold certain details on an absolutely insane case is not the same as “the government is your client.”
– National security and public interests frequently coincide. If Goldberg publishes something that gets troops and operatives killed, well, they are presumably American citizens and members of the public too, as are their families – to say nothing of the merchants operating in that area.
– It’s possible that a wrong move here would not just disinvite the Atlantic from White House soirées, but completely destroy Goldberg and the Atlantic. I still haven’t ruled out in my mind that that wasn’t an intention behind his addition to the thread. In any case, I’m not convinced that would be in the public interest either.
3 Comments
> Asking if a story is in the “national security” interest rather than the public interest turns the media into self-appointed counterintelligence officers, an army of paranoid James Jesus Angletons seeing Russians around every corner. Goldberg’s reference to “harm” to American military and intelligence personnel is the exact same excuse wielded by the national security agencies to evade transparency. (In this week’s revelation of the Kennedy assassination papers, what struck me most is how, more than 60 years later, the CIA was still using the national security harm argument to control what the public can know.)
> Goldberg makes clear in his article that his standard for publication isn’t newsworthiness, but the mere possibility that the information “could conceivably” be used by adversaries of the United States. The media isn’t or shouldn’t be in the business of helping the government. Like an attorney, the media are supposed to have a duty to their client, the public.
I’ll give Ken credit for the fact if he was accidentally added to that chat he would’ve published the texts before he even really published an article explaining them.
I get that there’s a danger here of a too-compliant media, but I have some modest counterpoints:
– They’re not Trump’s texts. They’re his administration’s.
– Making a this-case-only call to withhold certain details on an absolutely insane case is not the same as “the government is your client.”
– National security and public interests frequently coincide. If Goldberg publishes something that gets troops and operatives killed, well, they are presumably American citizens and members of the public too, as are their families – to say nothing of the merchants operating in that area.
– It’s possible that a wrong move here would not just disinvite the Atlantic from White House soirées, but completely destroy Goldberg and the Atlantic. I still haven’t ruled out in my mind that that wasn’t an intention behind his addition to the thread. In any case, I’m not convinced that would be in the public interest either.