Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 807 Editor's Choice: 2
-
"defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This (erroneously) assumed part of the president's oath of office beautifully illustrates just how transparently so-called top "experts" or "insiders" simply recite false, layman's misunderstandings in exactly the same way as their own readers and watchers might.
By and large, the people with the loudest voices in the national discourse don't know anything more than the audiences to whom they speak. Despite their illustrious academic pedigrees, they operate with embarrassingly low levels of subject-matter knowledge. Whatever erudition and talent they exercised during those periods of growth and learning have long since atrophied and withered from memory due to chronic disuse.
Instead, they have simply compounded layer upon layer of presumption and conventional wisdom, operating in solipsistic circles where all members of the inner circle simply validate each others' false assumptions, often with glib, popular phrases that have been rattling around in the mass culture.
This mentality is uniquely elite. That is, it can be afforded only by those who have reached a particularly privileged station in life, because people actually struggling to earn respect and authority must usually be unerringly correct in their spheres of expertise (or at least promptly admit and learn from their failings). Thus, what we end up with is a perverse and backwards system in which those with the most influence in fact know the least, but nevertheless fancy themselves uniquely informed.
Such sickness.
-
zack
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The function of our establishment media, at this point, is government. That’s how they govern - by convincing "consumers" (at one time known as citizens) that their government (and their media) is supplying what they demand.
Right up until a Democrat (most likely) takes the presidency. Just watch.
The donkeys will have "kick me" stickers on their backs until they finally kick the bastards back.
-
CNN debate
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Damn, the GOP lizard brain is on display tonight.
-
lastnamechosen
[Read the article: The Chicago Tribune vs. Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties
Glenn on slashdot.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/11/29/1946227.shtml
I don't think Glenn was saying this, but I think it's important for people not to get the impression that the same mechanism (the Freedom of Information Act) that was available to EFF to compel the DNI to release lobbying documents is available to compel any Member of Congress to release similar records.
The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a statutory mechanism through which one can compel executive agencies to disclose documents not subject to one of its specific exemptions. It does not apply to Congress.
Currently, it remains very difficult (if not impossible) in most instances to legally compel Congress to release information related to its deliberations. If any such information is ever to be disgorged by a Member of Congress, it will most likely have to be by political or public pressure. Even then, Members of Congress can be remarkably intransigent -- especially a powerful and largely unaccountable Senator like Feinstein.
Also, the court order in the EFF case only compelled the DCI to release records that are (1) responsive to EFF's request and (2) not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. FOIA exemptions include the ability to withhold or redact information that is deemed potentially dangerous to national security if released, and information that falls within executive privilege of some kind.
As we all know, this administration's interpretations of those two standards are incredibly broad. We can expect much of the information released by the DNI (if it fully and promptly complies with the court order) to be heavily redacted, and much of it not released at all, under these FOIA exemptions. This will most likely result in an appeal by EFF. The final result of that challenge could potentially put us past the point when new FISA legislation is enacted.
I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, I just want everyone to realize that the fight for information is far from over, even if the DNI "responds" as ordered.
-
follow-up
[Read the article: The Chicago Tribune vs. Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't want anyone to construe my last comment as saying that there isn't still a compelling argument to be made that, if the DNI should be required to release FISA lobbying information according to the principles set forth in the EFF court decision, so should Congress, according to those same principles.
This, even though Congress cannot be compelled to release information under FOIA. The underlying principle of the public's need to know the reasons for a given piece of legislation has its own force.
-
Speaking of Giuliani,
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]did anyone catch the (entire) GOP debate this week? More entertaining than watching five monkeys run around throwing water balloons at each other. Not as intelligent though.
"Sanctuary Mansion!" Ah, well if Giuliani goes down in flames, he can at least be remembered as an outstanding comedian.
-
Sinnard
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think there are enough bits on the net to list the names ... that surround your Goldwater Girl, Mrs. Hillary Clinton.
Damn that Goldwater Girl and her names!!!
-
say it again, SusanMC
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This bears adamant repeating:
Many folks in our industry like to think that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect objective news reporting with the First Amendment. But Larson's history illustrates the partisan newspapers of Jefferson's time looked a lot more like today's DailyKos than today's Washington Post. So maybe a more aggressive, even partisan, press isn't such a radical idea, after all.
(And before anyone accuses me of longing for more organizations like Fox News, let me be clear that I think people ought to let their discovery of the truth drive their partisanship -- and not, as Fox News does, let their partisanship drive their discovery for the truth.)
As the public re-evaluates who to trust for news and information, the real journalists are going to shine like diamonds. I'm glad there are instructors like Niles to guide the next wave.