- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
overlander --
Is it really illegal?
TV in particular can't cover this because reporters would be interviewing their bosses' or their own media lawyers about what's legal and illegal. And their own media lawyers would kill the stories because wouldn't it be kind of foolhardy to explain exactly how your own people (analysts) broke the law, right there on TV?
In the world of newspaper journalism, nothing is illegal until a prosecutor says so. That's a knee-jerk formulation designed to avoid getting sued (either successfully or frivolously) for defamation (slander and libel).
1. Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, offense.
2. Defamation is not "prosecuted" by a "prosecutor".
Sure, this military propaganda program could be covered as though it were criminal. But ... the reporter would have to interview a legal expert on each side. One would say it was criminal. Somebody from the Heritage Foundation would offer a contrary view. And the analysts could all put forward lawyers offering explanations for how these analysts broke no laws. And the analysts could sue those journalists who said otherwise and the shaky nature of libel law or the threat of interminable appeals would probably require the journalists' bosses to settle the case and pay their own lawyers.
You make no reference to the law -- which omission makes the false-equivalency scenario you sketch inevitable.
There was a reaslly telling moment during the 2000 battle in FL. I was online throughout, reading the FL elections laws, and on point case decisions.
And I had the TV on. Toobin interviewed Gore's people about the state of the FL elections law. Then he interviewed Bush's (James Baker) about the state of FL elections law.
And, of course, each side -- Gore's and Bush's -- expressed different statements of the FL elections law.
The one thing we didn't get -- and that was Toobin's remiss, was the third relevant element: the actual text of the FL elections law on the points asserted by both sides -- that text being the actual standard of measure as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements of the law made by each side.
So the viewer was left to decide which statement of the law he preferred, and thus chose to believe, without any objective guide from other than those with a direct stake in the outcome.
Those who read the law know which of the two sides, which of the two statements, was the lie.
At least, that's the fearful scenario continuously playing in editors' minds as they decide how fierce to be against uncharged criminals.
I have no idea what goes through the minds of the editors of whom you speak. I've not asked them, and they've not announced such within my hearing.
"In that sense, Glenn's blog isn't journalism. He can declare something is illegal based on his own expertise, knowledge and experience."
Again: you leave out the most important element: THE LAW.
Even here in Glenn's blog, it's hard to gauge what's really wrong with this Pentagon program. Golly, if it's illegal, maybe it shouldn't be. Gosh, the military was just trying to make sure it achieved success. That's what we expect from our military: success. We let them kill people to achieve success. What's wrong with letting them lie as well? What's worse really: killing or lying?
It is ILLEGAL because -- "The informed citizen is the cornerstone of democracy" -- and the information provided the citizen MUST BE FACTUAL, not propaganda, if the citizen is to make WISE decisions about, say, who to believe, and for whom to vote. See above re. FL elections law -- which was so different as to be entirely opposite the statement of it made by one of the two parties interviewed by Toobin.
If one hadn't read the law, one was shit-out-of-luck as to being an informed citizen, because one side lied, one told the truth, and the reporter "neglected" to provide the actual text of the law so that the viewer were fully informed, and thus able to make an INFORMED decision based upon FACT.
