The American military has been operating a secret base for drone aircrafts in Saudi Arabia, the New York Times revealed last week.
It turns out that some members of the American media, including the Times, knew about the base for about a year, and they knew about the operations taking place there because they had obtained copies of the document approving activities at the base. According to the Washington Post, the document concludes "the United States can lawfully kill one of its own
citizens overseas if it determines that the person is a 'senior,
operational leader' of al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates and poses an
imminent threat."
The media had an informal agreement with the government not to reveal the details.
Should the Washington Post, New York Times and other news organizations have revealed the information when they first learned about it?
Is there a danger/problem with the media making deals with the government?
7 comments:
The media, first and foremost, has an obligation to the citizens. When obtaining this information it should have been released. Making contracts with the government ruins the true objectivity of media. This story is just one example of how media and journalism are being more and more one sided. If a media organization has ties to the government than stories, especially stories about and concerning the government, will not be told one hundred percent accurately. This is dangerous for the profession of journalism. The citizens are not being told the whole truth and when the whole truth comes out distrust towards journalists arises.
The media should definitely not make deals with the government. It prevents us, the public, from important information. Media was put in place to serve the public and letting the government censor what news they can or cannot share with us is wrong and not giving the public the entire truth on a story could cause further issues once the full truth/story comes out.
Wow. The American government never ceases to surprise me. I believe the media should have not published the information. A deal was made with the government, and the deal should have been kept. Information about drones and the killing of Al-Qaeda members does not directly affect my life and the government does deserve some privacy. I know the media and the government work hand in hand to produce content that keeps the government looking just and fair, although its actions may prove otherwise.
There is a fine moral line that journalists must draw between informing the public by revealing information about the government and endangering the public/diplomatic safety of the nation and its troops. For example, we all cheer for Daniel Ellsberg. Julian Assange gets a little dicier. Geraldo revealing U.S. troop positions was universally denounced. And yet, to a point, they were all doing the same thing: revealing classified information to the public that the government wanted to keep secret. This line between the right to free speech and the duty to responsible speech is something that's important before tackling any issue such as this. That being said this is information that the American people need and have a right to know about. The American people knowing about what sort of tactics its government is using does not endanger the american people or troops to any significant degree. The only thing that it endangers is the President's hip, peace-loving public image.
I think this is an enormous issue, and this kind of nonsense likely goes on day in and day out more than people realize. The media simply cannot be working in the interest of the government, or in the pockets of big business for that matter, if they wish to fulfill their obligation to the citizens. This is how the media also serves as a monitor of power, and if they are censoring certain information that the government does not want made public, they are giving the government immeasurable power and failing that duty. I think an attitude like Brittany's is what scares me because whether you think drones in the Middle East affect your life or not (and I think maybe they do), it's the bigger picture that does affect every single one of us. If this kind of information is kept secret, what else is being kept secret or covered up? Where do you draw the line?
I do think it could cause tension between citizens and journalists because they suppose to remain truthful, objectivity, and loyal. The government can do anything they want now days because money walks. In order for the government to make a deal with the media, they would need to chose an issue and then make some concessions. If the media withholds what the government is doing from the public in order to keep their end of the deal, the public might not find out what was happening and government officials may be able to commit crimes and misuse power. For example, if the media had made a deal with the government and not publicized what Nixon was doing, Nixon probably would not have had to resign.
There is danger in media making deals with the government but I it can also be protection. If too many people know what is going on with our government, other countries, wars and militia they will get scared. These type of issues send America in a panic frenzy that could lead to political strikes, petitions. Making a deal with the government to keep certain things hushed elevates the possibility of chaos in society.
Post a Comment