Rachel damning the government

[COLGATE4]

Just watched the re-run of Rachel's show tonite and was dismayed to find her doing as one-sided a piece of work as has ever appeared on Fox re the Justice Department's investigation of the A.P. leaks regarding Al Queda. Not only did she do a 'hair on fire' pontification on the virtue of the Press and the perfidy of the government (which she also asserts is bound to lose in the final analysis) but also had as her only guest the lawyer for the AP. Needless to say he completely agreed with her 'legal' analysis.

This is far from the clear, cut and dried case she so fervently wants to make it out to be. There are significant legal nuances as to whether the DOJ actually violated its own guidelines which she chose to ignore and, even if they did, what if any remedies there might be. A lot more will have to be determined before fault can be fairly laid at the feet of the government in this instance. But Rachel's totally one-sided exposition falls squarely under the title of "Fair and balanced". I for one expected better than her

[Dawson Leery]

1. I prefer Lawrence O'Donnell.

[COLGATE4]

4. Agreed.

[elleng]

2. The Founders recognized there would be conflict

between government and the people's right and need for information > First Amendment. She stated it well, recognized the problems, and, imo, like it or not, its difficult.

The New York Times wrote:

'The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers. . .

For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html?hp

[COLGATE4]

3. The comments on the tension between Freedom of Speech

and the government's right to protect confidential information were terribly oversimplified by Rachel, very much a la Fox. Although she 'recognizes' that there is an inherent conflict there she was visibly (and doggedly) asserting only the AP's version. And certainly the NY Time's reaction to the story is hardly objective.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will.

"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406