Infinite MonkeysSo the New York Times supports the use of eminent domain to condemn private property for millionaires. Could that be because the NYT building was built on property seized by New York just so their palace could be built? No, that would make them hypocrites.
The NYT is against random searches on subways to screen for explosives or other threats. But try and enter the NYT publicly provided building? You're searched. Does that make them hypocrites? Probably not.
Now the Times again publishes sensitive national security information because the "people have a right to know." (never mind that the majority of people know better). But who leaked them these stories? Who from inside the government betrayed our trust and gave this info to the Times? Don't we have a right to know? Or is this something they are struggling with? Probably not.
I guess we just have to trust the Times to do the right thing. No accountability, just trust in their judgment.
I am reminded of an incident from years ago when Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings said that if, as reporters, they knew of a potential ambush of U.S. troops in the field, they would not tell them. Rather, they would allow them to be killed in the ambush, because of their higher calling as journalists.
I'm not sure why, but I'm not comfortable trusting the judgment of the Times/media. But I'm sure that's just me.
I should think the "free market" answer to this question is fairly obvious.
Of course the media are hypocrites. That's why our marketplace supports multple news outlets with differing policies and viewpoints, and the public is allowed to consume and respond to the information as they see fit. No "Pravda" here.
That's why we don't HAVE to trust the judgment of the Times/media - we have an obligation to evaluate the information on its merits and make our own judgments. Note that the SWIFT story was being investigated independently by (at least) three major media outlets: The NY and LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal. All three believed the information was newsworthy, but the NY Times was the first to decide to publish.
But why, in an arena with NO competition allowed, would you trust the judgment of the government, which holds your very life in its hands?
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at June 27, 2006 09:53 AM"Free markets"? When the news media is almost stampeding to undermine our security? I'm not sure I see the connection. The fact that there might be competition for the NYT or LAT (there isn't, of course) does not undo the damage that they have done.
Posted by: JamesPh. at June 27, 2006 09:37 PMWell, this is almost a case study in what's wrong with libertarian ideologues. They construct a fantasy world of free markets, perfect information exchange, and rational economic actors, then try to blame government for everything. Islamofacists are not rational economic actors (nor is the New York Times, as TimesSelect shows) and terrorism (like organized crime and organized financial fraud) does require a government response.
Posted by: Monkey David at June 28, 2006 06:02 PM