I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Either journalists are neutral ("adj. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest, Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground," according to Dictionary.com) or they aren't. If you want neutral journalists who don't tell the other side what we're doing, then it's fairly hypocritical to expect them to tell us what the other guy is doing.

There are also a couple policy reasons why your one-sided neutrality would be a bad idea:

First, if journalists suddenly start taking sides that way, then they become targets. It's true that they've been kidnapped/killed/etc, but it could be a lot worse.

Second, we wouldn't want the other side sending reporters over to us and then reveaing our location to the enemy. Not that al Jazeera seems likely to send reporters over - but it's a bad precedent to set.

Upon reading this, I am reminded of how a fair number of reporters knew during the '36 election that FDR had polio and could not walk, yet kept this from the American people.

The problem with journalism is that the whole estate is ruined with the idea of modern materialism - if it can be done, it should be done. Thus, if it is possible to obtain an interview with or take the picture of an Islamofacist, by all means write and snap away.

Never is there any thought that loyalty to a higher power, in this case the sovereignty of the US and the lives of his fellow Americans, must always prevail. I think we should take a collection on ITA, send one of us to wherever fecal specimens live, and strangle them with piano wire - and the thinner wire, at least two octaves above middle C.

I think there is a duty to keep military operations under wrap. The photo is a different matter. If journalists inject themselves into war as combatants, we will first have a lot of dead journalists, followed by the inability of our journalists to gain access to newsworthy events.

It seems to me that one of our biggest objections to the Arab press is its lack of neutrality. How can we complain of them if our journalists are to be actively engaged in the taking up of arms?

Do you think publishing the Pentagon Papers was wrong? The purpose of publishing wasn't to reveal government secrets but to let the American people know that the government was lying to the public about Vietnam.

Of course, I'm one of those disdained j-school graduates.

Thus, if it is possible to obtain an interview with or take the picture of an Islamofacist, by all means write and snap away.

I fail to see how this is a problem. Educate me.

I certainly don't advocate turning American journalists in a war zone into spies, but they shouldn't be getting cozy with the enemy, either.

By being in the same room with the "Mahdi army" sniper, the photographer created a very problematic situation. Obviously, he is standing by taking pictures while the sniper fires at his fellow Americans--goulish, to say the least. Now, what if the American troops saw the sniper, but also saw that there was an American photographer in the room with him? The photographer becomes a de facto human shield.

The conclusion to be reached, therefore, is that even a journalist has higher responsibilities than getting the story or the picture at any cost.

This also applies to the publishing of classified information about anti-terrorist efforts. Even if journalists believed the programs were unconstitutional, that's not their call to make, and revealing that information clearly harms efforts to stop terrorists. The responsible thing to do would be to take the matter to a court of law, where it could be kept confidential.

I am a journalism student myself and have had to sit through some ridiculous lectures from professors who believe that journalist are high and mighty and shoudln't be subjected to certain ethical standards like other citizens. While American journalists are journalists and have the loyalty to their profession I think many forget the fact that are American as well. While I think this photo is intriguing and a very different point of view then we are used to, it upsets me that it was an American who took it. I don't believe that journalism should be a "one-sided neutrality" but I think this photographer, like other journalists, has crossed the line.

Joao Silva is not an American, he is South African. So, because he does not hail from a country that is part of the coalition, does he owe any duty not to provide a different perspective?

It seems like the running assumption is that the photographer is alone in the room. That strikes me as rather silly to do, unless the point is mere demonization.

Whether or not a telephoto lens could sufficiently subdue the sniper is irrelevant if there is a man with a gun behind the photographer.

Even if German journalists considered concentration camps illegal or immoral, it wasn't their call to tell the German people? Yes, that's far out, but how far do we go? I think it must be a case-by-case matter as to whether or not it is proper for journalists to reveal government operations that may be unconstitutional. I think the threat to rights must be compared to the dangers posed by revealing government secrets such that it isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Granting that there was some slopping reporting on the U.S.A. Today story, I think the government sifting through private phone records is of great enough importance to warrant the spilling of a secret.

Journalists: the new lawyers (in terms of how much they are despised)? It didn't help the profession when the NYT disclosed a reasonable, legal weapon in the struggle against terrorist groups. On this photographer, though, let's be reasonable. It does appear shameless, but were here were no photographs of Nazi soldiers in battle against the Americans during World War II? And, at the same time, the sniper has a gun and presumably is a trained fighter. Does J-school offer combat training? Do reporters carry side arms (perhaps they should)?

By the way, I think Seth meant "relativism" where he said "materialism", right?

I'm of the opinion that journalists don't belong in combat unless they are trained military. I also fail to see the point of televising every minute detail on the war for the folks back home.

Why in the world do journalists need to be right there, anyway, and is the American public's insatiable voyeurism a proper reason for putting civilians in harm's way?

i think it has to do with 3 24hr news networks. each are looking to improve ratings so they need to up it a notch.

if you watch those channels, the news doesn't change, the way they present it changes. so you think you are watching something new, but it is really just different spin (depending on the organization, it favors either the left or right). therefore, when something happens that would seem to be mundane or par for the course, the 3 networks blow it out of proportion.

take natalie holloway for example. how many people disappear in the us everyday? or the duke rape case. the news is driven by the media due to the competition for your attention.

"if you watch those channels, the news doesn't change, the way they present it changes. so you think you are watching something new, but it is really just different spin (depending on the organization, it favors either the left or right)."

I KNEW it!! ;)

Even if German journalists considered concentration camps illegal or immoral, it wasn't their call to tell the German people?

The Nazi concentration camps were hardly a secret. Nevertheless, I'd agree with you that if there were a clear-cut violation of the law and/or of human rights, that would justify uncovering classified information.

But the government's monitoring of international telephone calls where one party is a terror suspect is far from a clear-cut case. Despite some people's strongly held beliefs that such activity is wrong, they should recognize that the legality is uncertain and disclosing the information could greatly hamper the effort to stop terrorist plots against the US. Furthermore, there are other avenues for concerned individuals to pursue, rather than leaking information to the press. I think any reasonable person can see there is some political motivation behind the leaks.

... and there seems to be political motivation to go after some leakers and not others.

although i don't agree with the times publishing some of their stories, the real anger should be directed to the individual(s) who provided the information. the attack on the times appears to be political.

I'm not convinced that the average German knew the Holocaust was occuring, and that is what I am referring to rather than the camps per se.

I don't grant that the government has the right to sift through every phone number I dial, when I am not even making any international calls.

President Bush's claim is that he may do absolutely anything in fighting the war on terrorism and that he is the sole judge of the legality of his actions.

Various military computers are scanning my computer ports dozens to hundreds of times daily, at least according to my McAfee firewall program. How do I know that they are doing so for merely defensive purposes and not for the purposes of trying to figure out how they might examine computer files on a widespread basis? I don't consider myself a conpiracy nut, but I might note that my elected representatives have declined to respond to my inquiries except to say "thank you for bringing this issue to my attention."

Anon wrote:

... and there seems to be political motivation to go after some leakers and not others.

I agree. There's been a great deal of effort and outcry to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name, but little effort and outcry (as far as I've seen) to find out who leaked details of anti-terror programs.

Joel wrote:

I don't grant that the government has the right to sift through every phone number I dial, when I am not even making any international calls.

Oh, you are referring to the NSA database of phone numbers dialed, not to actual wiretaps. Personally, that doesn't bother me at all, and I'm hardly alone in that assessment. I simply have nothing to hide regarding which people I've called and how often, etc., and I've yet to hear any concrete description of the harm to law-abiding individuals from such a program, beyond a vague sense that it's an invasion of privacy. I certainly don't think that it justifies the potential damage to anti-terror efforts from disclosing the program.

President Bush's claim is that he may do absolutely anything in fighting the war on terrorism and that he is the sole judge of the legality of his actions.

Wow, Joel. I'm not used to reading that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric from you. That claim is obviously untrue. The Justice Department, the courts, and select members of Congress have all been involved in shaping the Bush administration's anti-terror strategies.

Nick's initial comment is exactly right: it is only by being non-participants in the conflicts that allows there to be any journalists in the field at all. And we're all better off having journalists our there than we are if they aren't. It _is_ brave, Goldstein's typically moronic drivel to the side.

I would also note that Eric's response to Joel rather misses the point: the DOJ takes its marching orders from the WH (as is being made more and more evident everyday; see, e.g.,
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/tales-from-unitary-executive-part-ii.html ). And he's explicitly committed to the claims that neither the courts nor Congress can restrain his power as wartime executive. If he happens to feel like listening to some other folks in various other parts of the government, that's just his prerogative.

From the Associated Press on July 18:

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected."

I didn't say Bush didn't consult anyone or draw others into formulating policy. A case can be made, though, that Bush regards himself as having the right to declare any anti-terrorism program legal. That is not to say that I believe Bush would defy any Supreme Court ruling that goes against him.

I simply have nothing to hide regarding which people I've called and how often, etc., and I've yet to hear any concrete description of the harm to law-abiding individuals from such a program, beyond a vague sense that it's an invasion of privacy. I certainly don't think that it justifies the potential damage to anti-terror efforts from disclosing the program.

This may be off topic, but I see a huge problem with this argument. I don't do anything illegal - I mean, sometimes I speed in my car, sure, that sort of thing - but nothing that I'm afraid of getting caught doing. Even so, I wouldn't want, say, government cameras in every room of my house. I've got nothing to hide - but I don't see why anyone else has a right to see that for themselves.

Ditto for the phonecall monitoring. There are bigger fish to fry out there, to be sure, but it rankles me that someone would watch such things specifically because I've got nothing to hide.

Seen Mionrity Report lately?

I was tempted to respond to that, but I knew that Nick would take care of it. Someone should begin work on "Nick Blesch, The Movie." (This is a reference to this post, not to "government cameras in every room.")

Nick,

There's clearly a difference between the government installing cameras in every room of your house versus your phone records being in a government database. And it's very easy to identify the harm from the former--the thought that someone might literally be watching what you're doing in the privacy of your home is extremely bothersome.

But seriously, what harm comes from your phone records being in an NSA database--presumably subject to data mining techniques? How does it hurt you that someone can tell that (123)555-1234 called (321)555-4321 twelve times in September 2005? As I understand it, your name wouldn't even be seen unless a pattern came up that they wanted to investigate further.

I would honestly like someone to explain to me how this is harmful to the average person, because if it is I would definitely oppose it. I'd also oppose it if it could be shown to be ineffective at detecting terrorist activity--though in general I think the people actually working on the program are in the best position to judge that.

Joshua --

I'm not convinced that the 1999 paper you link really speaks to your hypothetical question that, "if [a journalist] was covering D-Day and knew of the coming battle[,] should he report it to the world, or was he duty-bound to keep it under wraps to ensure the Allies had the benefit of secrecy?"

It seems that the article deals with objectivity, not with secrecy. There will unfortunately be gray areas, however, in both these domains.

(Generally speaking, I stand in the "third camp," whose position is summed up in that piece as follows: "Objectivity, that great journalistic buzzword, means giving all sides a fair hearing - not treating all sides the same - particularly when all sides are not the same. When you are in a situation like Bosnia, you are an accomplice - an accomplice to genocide.")

Karl: I'm not sure what you're saying. Am I supposed to be offended? Are you saying that I'm predictable - something which I don't think is the case, I might add. Are you saying I like Ayn Rand? I loathe her. Objectivists, like mimes, should be shot on sight.

Either way, I miss the point.

Eric: It's not that this program in particular harms anyone. I don't really think it does. But I think it sets a very poor precedent, and given the fact that 4th Amendment protections in general are waning, I'm irritated by anything that contributes to the trend.

Especially when it's a program that, from everything I've read, apears to be pretty useless anyway. For god's sake, if you're going to violate my privacy, at least catch some terrorist when you do!

And yes, I'm aware that there's a big difference between 1984-style spycams being strewn through my house and someone keeping track of all the phone numbers I've called. My point was simply that the argument "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care if the government watches" falls apart prett fast. This particular program may well be pretty insignificant and uninvasive, but it seems to be part of a larger, more significant and invasive trend.

My point was simply that the argument "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care if the government watches" falls apart prett fast.

I agree that's a weak argument, but that is not what I said. I was very specifically addressing the case of phone records, not making a general endorsement of any and all government surveillance of citizens. What I said was: "I simply have nothing to hide regarding which people I've called and how often, etc., and I've yet to hear any concrete description of the harm to law-abiding individuals from such a program..."

Fair enough. :D

I'm not convinced that the 1999 paper you link really speaks to your hypothetical question that, "if [a journalist] was covering D-Day and knew of the coming battle[,] should he report it to the world, or was he duty-bound to keep it under wraps to ensure the Allies had the benefit of secrecy?"

My apologies for not being clearer. I shouldn't have typed "this very issue." What I meant by that was the schools discussed reporting during war time. Sorry 'bout that.

" And we're all better off having journalists our there than we are if they aren't."

How?

Am I supposed to be offended?

No. At the end of that post, Zach suggested making something about Bastiat instead of a Rand character. I assumed that Zach meant to suggest that Bastiat is better than Rand. Since you responded to Eric's "I have nothing to hide" argument, as I wanted to do, I was saying that someone should make a movie about you, instead.

Of course, this exaggerates the significance of your response to Eric, which was nice to see, but couldn't really be the subject of a movie. This was probably the source of the confusion.

How?

This way, we do not have to rely on information that has filtered through both the military and the journalists.

Ahhh, okay. :D

I got dumped on this morning at work (I have 7 hearings today instead of 3), and my funny filter just wasn't working.

And don't write off Nick Blesch: The Movie just yet. I've got (on average) about 55 more years to do something impressive. Heh.

"This way, we do not have to rely on information that has filtered through both the military and the journalists."

What difference does it make? Don't you agree that the military has a valid objective of making sure its every move isn't broadcasted to its enemies? Photos of the military's equipment/ personnel and documentation of its patterns and habits are as important as its plans and strategy in successfully accomplishing its objectives.

Providing enemies with identifying markings, silhouettes, and other definitional criteria help the enemy assess the objects and people around them. Multiple transmissions from non-secure sources gives the enemy signals to triangulate the position of troops and other resources.

We've already seen what the terrorists do when they capture journalists - they use them as fodder for their own propaganda, they exert pressure on sympathizers in the U.S. to try to force our government to withdraw, and then they kill them in front of cameras so that they can transmit those pictures to news services, ensuring that the images of their "success" are repeatedly before the eyes of their own soldiers (as encouragement and rallying points) and before U.S. citizens to continue the psychological warfare of demoralization.

How, exactly, does the continued presence of civilian journalists serve any legitimate wartime purpose?

what comes to my mind is ensuring the military adheres to the rule / law of war.

without journalists, you will only get one side of the story, the story the military wants you to hear.

but, it was the bush government that brought the journalists into this war. the first gulf war, journalists did not have the same access and a much more limited role.

"what comes to my mind is ensuring the military adheres to the rule / law of war."

That is not the job of civilian journalists, who have neither been appointed to such supervisory role nor commissioned to perform any such tasks.

The underlying assumption of such a comment is that (without civilian supervision) there is no boundary holding the military to the rule of war, which is an invalid assumption and reflects a lack of understanding of the UCMJ, duties of JAG corps officers, or the integrity of the military members themselves.

"...without journalists, you will only get one side of the story, the story the military wants you to hear."

Your assumption is that "the story the military wants you to hear" would not be the truth - are you suggesting that all members of each and every branch of the military would lie unless the "ethical" watchdogs of civilian journalism were present?

"are you suggesting that all members of each and every branch of the military would lie unless the "ethical" watchdogs of civilian journalism were present?"

No, he's not, and you know it, so stop being malicious and get to the point he's making.

You're right, there are good watchdog groups built into the military system itself, and one could argue that the presence of civilian media disempowers those safeguards in a way. That said, the opposite of your accusation is also untrue: we can't always rely on the military to sufficiently report the news in warzones.

The trick, then, and it's an impossible one, is to ask where the balance falls. You're right to say that oversaturation of civilian journalists risks compromising military interests (which is just a fancy way of saying, "I don't want American soldiers to die because of a sloppy embedded cameraman accidentally gave away troop locations"), but I'd be curious to know to what extent that has been the case in Iraq.

"No, he's not, and you know it, so stop being malicious and get to the point he's making."

In what way was that malicious? Positing that journalists are the proper guardians of whether the military adheres to the rule/law of war is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. If you don't like the answers then stop making and supporting stupid proposals. See? Now THAT was malicious!! :)

lawyerchik1:

To your first part: what MP said.

As for your second:

"Your assumption is that 'the story the military wants you to hear' would not be the truth - are you suggesting that all members of each and every branch of the military would lie unless the 'ethical' watchdogs of civilian journalism were present?"

I never said the military would lie nor assumed it. If it was up to the military to disseminate all information, they would probably just give us the good and not the bad. Please name an organization that will voluntarily expose their faults? They may punish internally, via court martial or some other matter, but unless pressed to do so by a third, nongovernmental party, do you really think they would tell you the bad?

I personally support the war in Iraq and think we need to plan to be there for the long haul (years if not a decade), and leaving any time soon would be wrong. But, I would like to know why the other side fights and why others perceive us as being in the wrong (instead of the right wing notion they are terrorists hell bent on killing everyone of us because we are great Americans). We won't find that out by relying on the government to give us all the information, especially this government.

I would say you are right on your analysis that journalists have the potential to give away troop positions during large scale, initial combat operations, which is why at the beginning of the war there were many rules they had to follow (or not follow as in the case of Geraldo). But now, it is a different type of conflict.

"Please name an organization that will voluntarily expose their faults? They may punish internally, via court martial or some other matter, but unless pressed to do so by a third, nongovernmental party, do you really think they would tell you the bad?"

Just out of curiosity, why does it matter whether the information is published, particularly published in a national forum? Is it necessary to erode or destroy the public's trust in any organization just because it is made up of human beings that make mistakes?

Isn't it more appropriate for an organization to identify problems internally and act to correct them? Is there some real and valuable purpose served by shaming those who happened to be caught in a mistake?

I'm not talking about those who lie when caught and continue to attack and cast aspersions on the character of their accusers, all the while refusing to acknowledge they've done anything wrong (such as Mr. and Mrs. Clinton and their coterie of sycophants). I'm talking about ordinary human beings whose internal moral compass is still in good working order.

As far as your direct question, though, the legal profession publishes the name of every attorney whose license is suspended or revoked, as well as every instance in which an attorney is disciplined. It works pretty well.

Other organizations routinely explore their level of compliance with internal and national standards of conduct. Within the military, those who observe acts or situations that conflict with their code of honor or with the UCMJ or with the Geneva convention, just to name a few, report those violations through the chain of command - as they should.

"If it was up to the military to disseminate all information, they would probably just give us the good and not the bad."

On what basis do you make that assumption? Aside That's a figment of the Hollywood machine and too many viewings of "Good Morning, Vietnam" - with a little dose of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone thrown in for good measure.

The lovely part about the military is that there is a chain of command that includes Congress and the President - and we all know just how closely the President's actions are scrutinized - and the military's legendary reports "in triplicate" are available for the appropriate parties to review.

They have to make reports about everything they do. And by "appropriate parties" I mean those with Congressional supervisory authority - not some erstwhile Lois Lane and her trusty photographer.

How many of us would be able to function in our jobs if some reporter were dogging our every step? How many of us scream bloody murder when we find out our employer is monitoring our email, phone calls (sometimes even the actual conversations), the contents of our desks, etc., and those discoveries aren't being published in the company newsletters?

Don't you agree that the military has a valid objective of making sure its every move isn't broadcasted to its enemies?

I doubt that journalists could ever realistically broadcast its "every move" or the non-hyperbolic equivalent, and I am certain that significant interference with the efforts of the military is not an inherent cost of allowing journalists to operate in Iraq.

I'm not sure what the point is in debating it, anyway, unless you think there is something that we can actually do (that is not otherwise unwise or unjust) to remove journalists from Iraq.

How, exactly, does the continued presence of civilian journalists serve any legitimate wartime purpose?

Why does it have to serve a wartime purpose? There are other purposes to be served. Democratic countries need much of the information on the activities of their government to come from outside the government. Otherwise, the use of democratic power over the government would depend on information from the existing government. In some cases, it is not necessary for the information to come from journalists (not from professional journalists, anyway), but when the events are taking place in another country, the information will come from either journalists or the government (or rumors, possibly).

The sniper is resting his barrell on the window sill and letting the tip extend past the plan of the window - combined effect is to make you MUCH easier to see. The Journalist is very exposed to return fire if he is in the same room as this guy.

Big bet says that photo was a pose and was NOT taken during combat.

It's all about controlling the message. The right has kept news organizations under assault for three decades---the current attacks on the NY Times are just more of the same, just kicked up a notch. Photojournalists make ripe targets too. After all, it makes it tougher to sell a war to people when they can see the results for themselves.

"On what basis do you make that assumption? Aside That's a figment of the Hollywood machine and too many viewings of "Good Morning, Vietnam" - with a little dose of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone thrown in for good measure."

How about Fox News? If you watched that station without tuning into any other news program, you would think the President was doing a swell job.

"Just out of curiosity, why does it matter whether the information is published, particularly published in a national forum? Is it necessary to erode or destroy the public's trust in any organization just because it is made up of human beings that make mistakes?"

Personally, I would like to know where my tax dollars are going, don't you? I would also like to know how things are actually going rather than being told everything is peachy. I don't see how this erodes trust in what the soldiers do. But, it does provide oversight as to what our leaders do and say to us.

"How many of us would be able to function in our jobs if some reporter were dogging our every step? How many of us scream bloody murder when we find out our employer is monitoring our email, phone calls (sometimes even the actual conversations), the contents of our desks, etc., and those discoveries aren't being published in the company newsletters?"

First, the military invited the press as part of a public relations campaign. There is a stark contrast as to what the first gulf war press had access to and what the press has access to now. But, the overall goal was for PR purposes. You seem to be attacking the press for being there as opposed to blaming the entity that actually invited them to the event in the first place. Second, this is government, not a private company, hence the need for transparency (or public desire for it). Third, this war, unlike most jobs in America, has a tremendous impact on the world and people want to know about it.

"How about Fox News? If you watched that station without tuning into any other news program, you would think the President was doing a swell job."

Fox News is a bad guy for pointing out good things the President has done? Considering that Fox News is the only news station that regularly broadcasts conservatives in addition to liberals, instead of focusing only on liberal opinions and their proponents, I find it hard to reconcile the claim of bias with what is actually more balanced reporting.

"Personally, I would like to know where my tax dollars are going, don't you? I would also like to know how things are actually going rather than being told everything is peachy. I don't see how this erodes trust in what the soldiers do. But, it does provide oversight as to what our leaders do and say to us."

As far as knowing where my tax dollars go, there are ample resources available that provide an accurate report of where my tax dollars go without the news media telling me whether those tax dollars are going where they or others think they should go, so that's a bit of a non sequiter.

And it isn't the media's responsibility to oversee what our leaders are doing - it's ours. If we spent more of our time really listening to and watching what those people we elect to various political positions are actually doing at the expense of our tax dollars, we would realize that the media is not telling us even a quarter of the real story. We'd be more involved in the political process ourselves, and we would actually be participants instead of part-time spectators.

"First, the military invited the press as part of a public relations campaign. There is a stark contrast as to what the first gulf war press had access to and what the press has access to now. But, the overall goal was for PR purposes. You seem to be attacking the press for being there as opposed to blaming the entity that actually invited them to the event in the first place."

I'm not blaming them for being there. I'm blaming them for not realizing that their presence there is not license for them to publish/broadcast statements or other items (photos, etc.) that threaten national security and hinder the effort to win this war.

And it isn't the media's responsibility to oversee what our leaders are doing - it's ours. If we spent more of our time really listening to and watching what those people we elect to various political positions are actually doing at the expense of our tax dollars, we would realize that the media is not telling us even a quarter of the real story. We'd be more involved in the political process ourselves, and we would actually be participants instead of part-time spectators.

How are we supposed to keep an eye on things except through the media?

Perhaps you're in a different boat than be, but I have a job I have to get up and go to every morning (or school, starting in several weeks), and I just don't have teh time to go watch the legislature (state or national) in action. And if I send someone else to watch and have them report back to me... well, isn't that what you're arguing against?

This doesn't make any sense.

"How are we supposed to keep an eye on things except through the media?"

Each arm of congress and the senate posts copies of the results of their days' work online. For all of the other extraneous research we all do online, how is something this important at the bottom of the list?

And worse, when it's been established already that the news media does not have American citizens' best interests in mind when they select what they will print and then tell their readers/viewers what those things mean (in isolation from the other information they thought was not relevant, we're setting ourselves up to be deceived.

I have to ask, what liberals are on Fox News?

First of all, the media doesn't collectively work together. They all report on different things. In fact, they are in fierce competition to get the news right and get it to you fast. Sure, all media are a little slanted. That's why, if you're smart, you'll check more than one source to avoid being being deceived. The media has sort of become an additional check-and-balance for our government. I think it's a bit idealistic to assume that the government and the military will tell you exactly what's going on. They DO want you to think everything's peachy for a very good reason: they want to get re-elected.

Isn't that really the point of this country? To check the government to make sure it's doing it's job? We have to know what is going on because this government is for us. The media is essential to providing that information to the common people who don't have the time or the vocabulary to check the docket and see how congress is voting.

Why doesn't everyone just ignore lc, during lc's frequent fits of drivel? The evidence is completely overwhelming, in thread after thread after thread, that there's just no one home with any capacity for rational cognition, or any even minimal grounding in relevant facts. Arguing with lc isn't going to change anyone's mind, and their 'arguments' aren't even wrong in a smart enough way to be a useful device for setting up an interesting point. Just let the inanities lie dead on the page, people.

I expect citations to obscure sources on the meaning of "drivel."

But, yeah. It's just fun to do. :D