Analysis: The Media and the Terror War
Council on Foreign Relations
July 3, 2006
Prepared by: Michael Moran
When should the media keep what it learns about the workings of the American government to itself? To sharpen the horns of this dilemma further, consider the specific context of the debate today: Should the New York Times have published its investigative piece revealing details of the Bush administration's ability to scrutinize many of the world financial transactions? Two other papers, the Wall Street Journal (Subscription Only) and the Los Angeles Times, also published versions of the story. The New York Times, lhowever, led the way, and lays out why it dismissed national security concerns and published. "Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers," the paper's editorial concluded.
Critics see it quite differently. As the National Review Online puts it, "National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won." President Bush termed it "disgraceful" (WashPost). Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) ordered a "damage assessment" on how the story might have set back counterterrorism efforts(CBS), and less sober lawmakers suggested the espionage act be used to charge the Times with treason.
The Journal, whose editorial page is a bastion of support for the Bush administration, agrees with the critics. "Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not."
Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.
Copyright 2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
