The Fourth Estate and the First Amendment

Shame on you, Newsweek; not because of your use of anonymous sources, but because of how easily you caved in to those who successfully coerced you into a premature and unwarranted “mea culpa” with regard to your inability (or unwillingness) to put a name and face on the person or persons who predicted that a government report would contain acknowledgement of reports of Qurans being flushed down toilets by U.S. personnel involved in the detention and interrogation of suspected Islamic terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo.

Is a report necessarily less correct because it can’t be confirmed by three or more sources? Is a report necessarily more correct if it is confirmed by three or more sources? The answer to both questions is no. A factual event observed by one individual is a factual event, whether or not two others observe it. (Think of anything you have done in private.) A non factual event is still without objective basis even if many sources agree that it is factual. (Think Iraqi WMD’s.)

Of course, if Newsweek or any other journalistic organization needs to admit having made a mistake, then it should do so. On the other hand, no institution representative of any form of “the press” should feel obligated to alter journalistic stances to please any branch of the government. The United States Constitution prohibits the government from abridgement of the press’s freedom.

The Newsweek fiasco is redolent with signs of capitulation to an aggressive Presidential Administration pressing onward in its so far successful attempt to gather unto itself powers not granted by the Constitution it claims should be “strictly interpreted.”

The response of any non-government news gathering organization to any government officials setting themselves up as arbiters of journalistic conduct, reportorial ethics, or arbitration of reported facts in dispute should be a resounding, “Mind your own business!” The government of the United States is responsible to the people of the United States. The press, for the sake of its own credibility, has a tacit responsibility to segments of the people. (Special-interest oriented or biased press is Constitutionally permitted.)

The press is not required to act as a cheering section for the government. It is not prohibited from acting as such a cheering section, either. It has that freedom. That freedom must, however, be defended if it is to be maintained.

The last thing a news organization seeking to remain free and to be viewed as credible should do is to apologize for upsetting members of an administration that has played faster and looser with the truth than the most insipid snake-oil salesman. Apologize if you must if you truly believe that you have been mistaken. Do not, however, apologize in such a way as to aid and abet administration officials who are systematically attempting to present themselves as unquestionable, despite being among the least credible in recent history.

Consider the lack of factual basis behind just a sampling of assertions and policies of the current Administration over the past three years:

The horrible events of 9/11, mostly planned and perpetrated by Saudis, and guided by leaders based in Afghanistan, becomes a “war on terror,” waged in Iraq.

Saddam becomes “Head 9/11-Associated Terrorist,” whose immediately deployable weapons of mass destruction are poised to continue a direct assault by Saddam on the United States. This is despite the fact that an Iraqi attack on the U.S. not only never occurred, but couldn’t continue, since it never started.

Congress is encouraged (or mollified) into abrogating its Constitutionally mandated power to declare war by permitting the Commander in Chief to wage de facto war without de jure sanction. (This, unfortunately, has become a habitual cop-out of timorous Congresses since the 1950’s)

When the WMD assertion and the fraudulent documents of proof of their existence are “slam-dunked” into the dubious reality of, “oops, we – uh -- thought they were there,” the conquest of Iraq is magically morphed into a war for democracy, and to save the Iraqi people from Saddam.

This about-face in stated rationale for the Iraq conflict is then touted as living up to the U.S. President’s responsibility to spread “freedom” and democracy, throughout the world, despite the fact that such a Presidential responsibility is contained nowhere in the text of the United States Constitution, and certainly is no part of the oath taken by this or any other U.S. President when he assumed office.

The Iraq war fails to show any signs of “paying for itself,” as U.S. borne costs of rehabilitating the production and shipping of Iraqi oil continues to exceed revenues returned to the American people.

Iraq, never an important base for Islamic terror organizations prior to the U.S. war of liberation there, starts to attract radical and violent Islamic Jihadists from throughout the Middle East like flies to feces.

The President, reelected by a slim three percent margin garnered mostly from those concerned about issues of terrorism and national security, boldly and fallaciously claims to have been awarded a mandate to aggressively pursue domestically divisive policies largely unrelated to both of those concerns.

Administration spokespersons appoint themselves to be arbiters of how the press ought to conduct itself, and virtually demand that an independent news organization withdraw elements of a report yet to be proven false.

The current administration has consistently been aided in its duplicity by members of the press who are more anxious to curry favor with governmental officials than they are to arrive at truth, no matter how distasteful it might be.

The last thing a news organization that sees itself as an important part of the structure of American society should do is to fail to aggressively question and investigate assertions made by governmental officials. As I have said before, politicians should be expected to vigorously advocate for themselves. (For them, legitimate techniques include “The Big Lie.”) It is not the job of the press to rubber-stamp any aspect of that advocacy. It is the press’s job to monitor events and actions and to ferret out and report on big lies and the strings of little ones that may one day combine to spell the demise of this great republic as we have come to know and love it.

This monitoring process often must begin with information provided by lone, unattributed sources who, to protect themselves and their loved ones, cannot make themselves known to the public. If such sources are quoted accurately, and the fact that their assertions cannot (at the time of publication) be independently confirmed, is clearly stated by the press agencies quoting them, the public can ultimately be served better than if such sources are unheard from. Investigative reporting is an ongoing process, and publications engaging in it have merely to inform their public whether published product is based on investigatory work in progress, or represents final conclusions of completed investigatory processes.

The American people are desirous of doing the right thing for themselves and their country. They want their leaders to reflect this. Neither the public nor its leadership can be expected to make correct and honest choices if they are prevented from access to enough factual information and sufficient pro and con opinions to arrive at well considered and righteous truth.

A fearless, active and conscientious Fourth Estate can and should act as an important visual aid for governmental individuals and agencies too often blinded by the supposed light of their rigidly adhered-to ideological proclivities.