Free Press & Open Government Under Siege For Spin Reasons?

Under Siege

An information war is breaking out on multiple fronts, with journalists caught in the crossfire. Federal investigators are looking into several national security leaks to the press. Government agencies are trying to muzzle staffers who don't toe the official line. Cartoonists are the latest to find their work denounced, with violent results in the Middle East. And it doesn't stop there. Politicians are even trying to creatively edit what's said about them online. All these pressure tactics are being employed in the name of influencing public opinion, which increasingly means manipulating information and controlling how -- and whether -- it is made public. Journalists, who are genetically disposed toward greater openness, are having a harder time fighting these battles because of declining public faith in their profession.

Exactly what is the aim of these efforts? Is it merely spin and PR tactics? Is there really vital national interests being protected, or just the reputations of politicians who are tired of having the egg on their faces exposed?

Why is it that when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in leaking to the press, it takes a whole lot of red tape to get an investigation started and President Bush takes Rove's side (after reversing his stated intent to terminate all those involved), but if it's not in the interest of the administration it is called a crime and executive force is used?

"A small example: The Pentagon, which had been providing its annual budget two or three days in advance with an embargo on the news, refused to release the documents last Monday until Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's 2 p.m. news briefing, making it impossible for reporters to ask him detailed questions."

This sounds like an overt attempt to control and manipulate the free press. Shouldn't our leaders be ready to answer questions regarding government operations and expenditures? Shouldn't military spending be out in the open so that we can identify weaknesses, strengths, red tape and fraud? (After all, isn't there more fraud and waste in defense contracts than in all of the nation's "welfare" programs? YES, there is!) Shouldn't a free society be able to question changes in a budget that seem to neglect areas of concern (i.e. salaries for troops, benefits, body armor, widow compensation, armor kits for Humvees, etc.)? What is there in the Pentagon's budget that is so important that it needs to be kept safe from pre-press conference scrutiny? What is Rumsfeld hiding?

"Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says the practice was changed because of past violations of embargoes, and he defended the withholding of the budget (except for a news release) until Rumsfeld spoke. Otherwise, he says, 'someone hits the 'send' key at the commencement of the briefing without any opportunity for the secretary to be able to talk about the budget and the bigger picture.'"

But it isn't the job of the Secretary of Defense to block the press from asking questions. It is the job of all government officials to be accountable to the public. Having a free and unencumbered press is one of the ways in which a free society gets to questions about the budget, military spending, fraud in the process, contracts (i.e. Halliburton no-bid contracts, pork-barrel projects and the manner in which funds are appropriated and allocated. If it were not for the press, then we would remain largely uninformed and left out of the picture (more so than we are now). What could be Rumsfeld's opposition to answering questions? (HINT: See #4, #6 #9, #11, & #13 at www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)

'A larger example: James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, told the New York Times last month that agency officials tried to "censor" him by insisting on reviewing his lectures, papers and interviews, after he called for a reduction in greenhouse gases tied to global warming."

Could the aim of these policies and procedures possibly be designed to prevent a dissenting voice from being heard? Why would the administration want to prevent a top climate scientist from speaking out on an issue that is intimately involved in our national interests, the environment and a matter of science? Doesn't James Hansen have the right, as an individual and as a government scientist, to speak out on science issues? Shouldn't we be encouraging open exchanges of ideas regarding science, environment and social policy? (Hint: See #2, #3, #10, and #11 at www.rense.com/general37/char.htm)

"The most controversial area by far involves national security. To journalists, the Times story disclosing the domestic surveillance program and The Washington Post report revealing the secret CIA prisons in Europe, are matters of both civil liberties and how taxpayers' dollars are being spent. To detractors, the newspapers are indifferent to whether their scoops undermine the war on terror. (The situation was reversed in the Valerie Plame leak, where some government officials wanted to out a CIA operative and many journalists believe Robert Novak should not have acted as a conduit for their effort.)"

Does the disclosure of the existence of an improper, if not illegal, if not improperly managed surveillance program really fall into the definition of a secret? Does that mean that the Iran-Contra Affairs were also secret? Does this mean that the government is allowed to lie, cheat, steal, kill, fund improper programs, or violate laws if they can manage to keep all these things secret? Wouldn't it be a crime if the leaks reported properly organized, properly authorized or properly managed programs? Wouldn't it be a crime if the exact details of a program--including methods, targets and operatives--were revealed? Are we so silly that we think that the terrorists did nto know we were trying to find them and would be willing to use wiretapping to find them?

Isn't all of this hubbabaloo just an effort to hide the illegal, questionable or incompetent activities of this administration? Is it the Times, the Post or other media outlets that are to blame or the government for running such slip-shod operations and holding to a dual-standard that allows them to promote "favorable leaks" to the press, but deny access to anything that might cause a few eyebrows to furrow or someone to ask a few unwanted questions? (Do we need any more hints?)

"The most extreme forms of media orchestration involve cold cash: The Pentagon paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-U.S. stories. The Education Department paying commentator Armstrong Williams, who backed the president's program. Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy paying a freelancer to submit articles to a Birmingham newspaper that defended him during his fraud trial."

I suppose that buying positive press coverage is SOP for some governments and corporations, but expecting us to sit back and do nothing about it defeats the intent of the Framers when they asserted the right to a free press. Fundamentally, government seeks to always operate out from under scrutiny. Doing so allows for the government to do things that the public might find objectionable. It allows corruption, cronyism, institutionalized prejudices and the implementation of improper policies and practices to go unchecked. Controlling the media, preventing free discourse, and obstructing timely disclosures helps to maintain the "darkest of operations" within our government.

No one is advocating that all military operations and funding be publicly disclosed. We are only advocating for fair and open government to the greatest extent possible. That is the bedrock of our democracy.