The First Amendment protects freedom of speech in the U.S., but sometimes the government tries to block the news before it is published through prior restraint. In today's New York Times , the newspaper reports on a secret raid that captured the Taliban's top military commander. Big news, indeed. Even more interesting in terms of our discussion of freedom of information, the newspaper has known about the classified operation since last Thursday. So why didn't it race to get the news to its readers?
No, the government didn't go to the Supreme Court as the Nixon Administration did in 1971 to block publication of the Pentagon Papers about the war in Vietnam (New York Times v United States). The Supreme Court ruled no, by the way.
Obama White House officials asked nicely, arguing that making the news public "would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort." The Times agreed to hold the story but decided to publish after convincing White House officials that the news "was becoming widely known in the region."
What issues do you see behind this story?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
His capture could set off a wave of kidnappings of Westerners that could be held behind demands for his release. It's like getting rid of fleas by picking them out one at a time by hand. These raids, no matter how well executed by the people involved, only serves to make people think things are progressing when they are not, allowing them less incentive to consider the root of this problem. The taliban is just a symptom of what's going on in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the middle east. It's not possible to ever win under the current rules of this game. That's the point, I suppose. It's good for the war business, but not so good for those paying for it.
.
I agree with Fatima AlMarzouqi, but I think that people have the right to know what's happenig in the world. However, taliban is a major issue world wide and knowing about what's happening will comfort the people and give the secure feelings for those who are suffering from the symptoms whether in Afghanistan or any part of the worlds.
And me too, I agree with Fatima and Noura. I think that people have the right to know truth and understand what's going around the world; because we are part of the world also.
I believe that people in the newspapers in some cases need to feel more human than journalists. They need to have humanity and care about the human race. Journalists need to be ethical and to have self censorship. They need to take responsibility of taking care of the public by releasing what will benefit them and not for the money, or the fame, or the thrill of being the first in publishing a certain story. I agree with my classmates that people need to know but sometimes you cannot be sure how they will react. It’s a foggy area. You need to calculate the major influence, and then make the tough choice. Newspapers must put the people’s safety and stability in mind, after all isn’t that the basics of a healthy society? I think prior restraint in this case was justified because it considered the people’s safety. The issues presented in this case are a combination of self censorship, ethics and freedom. I know in U.S. they have freedom of speech, freedom of knowing, and freedom of everything, but people with major effect to the public, like governments and media in general, should always consider the reactions of the people, not only in country where the news is published, but everywhere as it can affects the whole world thanks to Globalization.
Post a Comment