The reporter says federal officials had also been effective at inhibiting follow-up reporting by other journalists on controversial subjects by implying, sometimes falsely, that some of the information reported by their colleagues was wrong. The reporter cited as an example the allegations in Risen’s book regarding the CIA and Iran. “The agency was very successful in convincing other reporters that Risen’s report was wrong,” the reporter says.
What remains unclear is whether the new legal precedents and interpretations established by the Bush Justice Department—which contend that the press has no fundamental privilege to protect the identities of confidential sources in fulfilling its mission to ensure the public’s right to know—will swing back now that the Bush administration’s reign is over. Though there are reasons for optimism on these issues under the Obama administration—from its stated intent to close Guantánamo to signals that it is considering establishing a commission to examine government conduct in the “war on terror”—it is unclear how much can be easily undone; or how much of a priority that will be for the administration.
Given the massive, urgent problems confronting the new administration (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), it could be forgiven for preferring to look forward rather than back. Beyond that, it also isn’t clear that congressional Democrats have an appetite for a thorough excavation of the Bush administration policies.
One congressional staffer, who works on national-security issues and who asked to speak on background, suggests that one reason Congress has not been more aggressive in following up on the domestic wiretapping story, for instance, is that there was a sense, even among many Democrats in Congress who had been briefed on the program, that the administration was pursuing these programs not for “nefarious reasons, but to catch bad guys”—that it was not using the program to spy on domestic political enemies, for instance, as had occurred in the 1970s.
Furthermore, the staffer says, there has not been until now much political incentive or evident public appetite for pursuing these issues. There was an attitude, he says, when Democrats took control of Congress, of “Let’s not be seen as the party that wants to prosecute. And a lot of this stuff has been accepted by the general public.”
In the meantime, the press is finding new ways to fight back, regaining some of its assertiveness that had gone missing in the years following 9/11. Lucy Dalglish, from The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, notes, for instance, that some news organizations have added provisions to their contracts with telecom service providers demanding that they not give the government any of the organization’s records without first informing the company, or unless under subpoena.
It’s a start.
BUSH was Lucy holding the football to the DEMS being Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown always falls for it, and winds up on his back, EVERY TIME. That the thought that Bush/Rove/Cheney wouldnt spy on political enemies is like being "shocked" that gambling is going on in Casablanca...
"One congressional staffer, who works on national-security issues and who asked to speak on background, suggests that one reason Congress has not been more aggressive in following up on the domestic wiretapping story, for instance, is that there was a sense, even among many Democrats in Congress who had been briefed on the program, that the administration was pursuing these programs not for “nefarious reasons, but to catch bad guys”—that it was not using the program to spy on domestic political enemies, for instance, as had occurred in the 1970s."
Posted by Mike on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 02:49 PM
Could be Congress inaction was due to the NSA having the goods on them. When you think of it in the context of Pelosi's "impeachment if off the table" stand, it sort of makes sense.
Posted by WestCoastLiberal on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 03:34 PM
Could it be that since the appropriate congressional committees and leaders was briefed on these and approved them they dont want to dig up the past?
Posted by Horace on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 03:54 PM
I have always, always felt that there was strongarming and blackmail going on - I am so glad to finally see something to validate that suspicion.
Posted by Xtina on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 07:48 PM
The reasons why the “great institutions of our society” said, “Fuck you” are many. I offer but a few.
With a number of exceptions (you know who you are), the news media early on not only allowed the Bush administration to control the message, they also willingly allowed themselves to be used to propagate it. The media allowed themselves to be intimidated too. Rather than be primarily concerned with reporting the news, reporters became overly concerned that reports critical of Bush and Bush policies would get them “kicked off the plane” or frozen out of press conferences.
By their capitulation, the media granted the government weeks, months & years head start to condition public response. A nation gorged on “24”-style terror porn and drunk with patriotism was told “We don’t torture but if we did it was to save American live ‘cuz of a ticking time bomb.” This position was repeated largely unchallenged ad absurdum by the news media. Is it any wonder that when informed of waterboarding 2-3 years later the majority of American public was ambivalent at best?
From Bush on down that administration was dismissive of and disparaging to all reporting outside of Fox News, TNR, Rush Limbaugh, etc. In a time of war, Bush & company’s distrust of the media was palpable and contagious. Later, breaking stories on torture & wiretapping were treated as “unpatriotic” or “treasonous” by the administration and conservative media types. That the NY Times (and possibly others) had previously sat on these stories fueled distrust of the media across the political spectrum.
Is it any wonder we said, “Fuck you”? Because, excepting Dana Priest, James Risen, Eric Lichtblau et al, the mainstream media sure fucked us.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
Posted by Anacher Forester on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 07:50 PM
"...by and large the public didn’t seem terribly interested in the issue." -- and yet the author acknowledges that since 9/11 (and in truth for decades before) the press was in the tank for Bushco and government in general, particularly US intelligence organizations, cf "the Mighty Wurlitzer".
I don't believe that the public "didn't seem terribly interested." I got the impression that the press didn't seem terribly interested and so helped bury the story. How could the public seem to have a voice on the matter if the press was deliberately ignoring issues that were of great importance to the public? In other words: The press is supposed to represent the interests of the public, not be, at best, a weathervane to it.
And when these intrepid reporters finally challenged Bushco, where were their bosses? Where was the Times' management for the (election) year that it sat on the spying scandal? Where has MSM management been in publicly defending its reporters? In the tank for or terrified of Bushco, as good corporate lackeys would be.
Congress may well have been scared to take on these issues for fear of being called weak on terrorism. Congress is mostly invertebrate at the best of times, but perhaps they realized that the MSM would take these allegations and amplify them, not investigate them.
To sum up: Why are these MSM reporters complaining about the weakness of the MSM when the MSM has deliberately weakened itself?
Posted by NoOneYouKnow on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 08:23 PM
Nice analogy but I would say that it was the American People that were playing the role of Charlie Brown, fooled again by the rhetoric of fear and flag waving. Bush took advantage of the war to make any allegation of wrongdoing be treated as treason. That's what you get when you make the bully the king of the school yard.
Posted by Al Budney on Fri 23 Jan 2009 at 08:07 PM
Right, Laura, but don't forget that most of those years the Republicans were the majority in both houses. The Dems (Waxman, Conyers) attempted to hold minority-party hearings, if you will recall. The Republicans of course weren't going to have hearings about their own party; they were in on it. I don't give the Dems a total pass, because they didn't do very much after 2006, out of fear or complicity. But it isn't fair to blame Congress and exempt your profession from responsibility.
People WERE terribly interested. It was Washington that was "not interested"; specifically the mainstream press that was "not terribly interested." We in the public who WERE "terribly interested" formed around the blogosphere in its infancy to get information and form groups to lobby your colleagues to GET terribly interested. You in the mainstream media were our only hope. And how were those others who were no "terribly interested" supposed to know there was something in which they should be "terribly interested", without the mainstream press? That's their job.
I, of course, recognize the work of the courageous few, Priest, Risen, Lichtblau, you, and a few others, with whom we would know less than we do, and I commend you for your work. But don't let your less courageous colleagues off the hook like that.
Posted by James on Sat 24 Jan 2009 at 07:00 PM
You know, one of the good things Obama is doing is not using euphemisms for the word "torture." It's a good lead to follow.
Posted by JayAckroyd on Sun 25 Jan 2009 at 03:04 PM
Interesting that the "public good" was to destroy a presidency in time of war and usher in a new presidency that has openly stated that they will end the war at all costs. The press is to REPORT the news, not CREATE IT. The press has conveniently forgotten what this war on terror is all about and they will sacrifice the men and women that are fighting for the cause. The press is all about selling a story and their biased view of the "truth", not the veracity of their source.
Posted by Dave on Tue 27 Jan 2009 at 10:57 AM
While there were a few fulminations on some liberal blogs that congressional Democrats (including then-Senator Barack Obama) had voted with the majority of Republicans to pass the new foreign intelligence surveillance law that gave retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies, by and large the public didn’t seem terribly interested in the issue.
I am astonished and horrified to read this characterization from someone whom I've regarded as one of the best reporter/bloggers around.
"a few fulminations on some liberal blogs"?
Obama's June 2008 repudiation of his promise in Wisconsin before the primary there to block telcom immunity ignited a political firestorm on _all_ of the biggest liberal blogs and spurred the creation of a 'Get FISA Right' group on the campaign's website that grew quickly to 30,000 members.
As for reporters being the ones for whom the issue hasn't gone away: the 'Get FISA Right' group has stayed organized, continuing to add participants, and recently succeeded in making accountability for the lawbreaking involved and a full investigation into what happened one of the top ten questions at the Obama transition's change.gov.
The supposed lack of interest among the public is inseparable from the way in which reporters covered (or failed to cover) the Bush administration's lawbreaking, Fourth Amendment violations, and Congressional reaction.
Risen, Lichtblau, and a few others have done decent reporting. Most of the rest of the press and media outside blogs: NOT SO MUCH.
Posted by Nell on Tue 27 Jan 2009 at 02:36 PM