Infinite Monkeys

It's possible that Hugh is excepting the WSJ from blame because the Journal has done two things that neither of the other rags has done: they have claimed that Treasury officials did not caution them against printing the Swift story, and they have stated for the record that, had they been so cautioned, they would likely not have published the story.

Or, it's possible that Hugh is commiting his usual sins of omission in the service of whatever party-approved viewpoint he's running blinkeredly towards this week. Quite likely, really. Almost certainly, in fact.

Regardless, I think the Journal's admissions warrant cutting the generally more level-headed publication a little slack.

Oh, I think the WSJ position is correct. It's a subtle point, but a crucial one: I agree with Robb that a free press is critical to freedom. We need the press watching the government, so the government knows that if they abuse power, it will be revealed, and if if they don't abuse power, their actions will someday be revealed and judged by history.
The key point here is that in order for this to work, the press needs to be smart about what and when they publish information. This case is such a clear-cut revelation of a program that was not being abused, was not common knowledge, and was very effective (until it was revealed). I respect those news organizations who knew about it, and didn't publish until the story had already been broken (and even then, the Wall Street Journal was more careful than the LA Times).

It's like my old Uncle Ben used to tell me: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Although, to be honest with you, I always wondered to myself what the hell a man who sold parboiled rice for a living knew about either power or responsibility. Still, you gotta respect a guy who can pull off the bowtie.

And he was a wise old coot, there's no denying that. Must've been all that time he spent out on the paddies, ministerin' to the little grains about how they should abandon their Shintoist beliefs and turn to Judaism. He converted more than a few of 'em, too. Not sure what it bought 'em, though; they all ended up in a box, just the same.

I've had that Hitchens interview since back in the good 'ole days when you could get mp3's from RadioBloger. It's been on my ipod and has ben listened to on more than one bike ride. Hitchens does more than gives scraps. Perhaps it doesn't sound like it. But having listened to nearly every Hitchens segment on HH's show, this one showed a more acquiescence than I've heard CH give while still acknowledging his prejudiced positions against any government's (and this CIA's) account of things. There are some things that CH simply seems to have his mind made up about, details be damned.

What I think also played into Hitchens's sense of being hard to budge on this topic was that it took him until near the end of the interview to bring up that he was under the impression that Hambali was caught through a "cell phone mistake" in Jakarta rather than through the SWIFT surveillance. Not seeing the peices of the puzzle fit together until that point in the conversation, I would expect Hitchens to be slow to give any ground. But the conversation ended thusly:

HH: Well, don't they need to go Angleton, and poison every disclosure with misinformation, and protect every real source, and that when the real sources come out, we get hurt?

CH: Bodyguard of Lies?

HH: Yes.

CH: I can't think of a good pragmatic argument against that.

By the way, in case you missed it, you can read the Wall Street Journal Editorial section's defense of their news section here.

Just listened to this week's Hugh-Hitch podcast, and again I would contend that the five-word summary of these interactions has been, "Hugh fishes, Hitch doesn't bite."

That said, Hitch has some VERY interesting analysis of the collective neuroses of the mainstream papers, and how their behavior now has a very strong connection to their earlier experiences and actions in covering the war in Iraq. Specifically, the feeling of getting "duped" by the administration on the WMD issue combined with their misguided support for Patrick Fitzgerald and overall poor handling of the Plamegate stories have backed them into a corner.

It's all definitely worth listening to, if you're lucky enough to get the stupid Townhall podcasts to work.