The Laughing Wolf

Sites, Old Media, And Treachery

Yesterday’s post contained what some see as a harsh statement or three that may have touched a nerve in some. I guarantee it will touch a nerve in some media types, as I dare question what Sites did. I wish to make one thing clear: I have no problem with the work done by Sites before this point. Simply because I have never read it.

If you go search this catalog and this catalog, you are going to find a number of posts that deal with the media and the rules of media engagement. I term it that way as a lot of what is done in regards journalists and journalism is not enshrined in law, but in precedent. Other than libel and the broad brush of the Constitution, there is little formally on the books in regards the big J. Under the American system, precedent can be as powerful (or even more so) than formal statute. It can also change rapidly, which is why the Old Media has long been cautious of pushing the envelope because a single adverse decision can and does reverse decades of precedent. It can also lead to changes in statute, which is something to avoid as well.

What has happened over the years is that general freedom of the press, which at one point meant almost literally the actual press, is that a special class has been born. I’ve written before on this being a result of technology, and the limitations thereof. Technology is changing, and with it the way business is done.

Under the law, all Citizens are equal. Yet, for the entire life of the Republic, those reporting the news have been in effect a special class. This is particularly true for last century, when that class truly emerged as a force with protection of precedent. The reason for this was simple: the good of the Republic, and the limitations of communications technology.

Corruption in politics, business, and elsewhere is – alas – a continuing condition of mankind. Small amounts can be tolerated, but large amounts can have a severe adverse effect on both localities and the Republic as a whole. Exposing such, fomenting debate, and preventing/rectifying harm to those affected is in the best interest of all. Freedom of the press was intended to allow presses and publishers to print and communicate as many points of view as possible, so that discourse could take place and informed decisions made as a part of the Great Experiment. Reporters, who became known as press because of their affiliation with an actual printing press (and publisher), became a part of this because they spread news far and wide. In many ways, they were the only method of spreading news and diverse viewpoints as broadsheets and then papers could be mailed, carried, or otherwise distributed widely.

Reporters also began to serve another function. They reported on events, and in the process uncovered things. These ranged from conflicts of interest to outright criminal activity, and the result was that problems began to get attention and changes made. It was last century when this hit its peak, and might could be said to start with the meat industry scandal and end with Watergate. The mythology of this era is enshrined in the media pantheon, and the reality was that much good was done, along with a certain amount of bad. One undeniable reality, however, is that the judiciary issued rulings that stated that journalists had in effect rights not granted to ordinary Citizens because doing so served the greater public good.

This had the good effect of exposing problems which the Republic needed to face and surmount. It also had the bad effect of further enshrining journalists as, in effect, a special priesthood above the law. This is a mythos that has been embraced by the Old Media, and taken to considerable extremes. You will find many a member of the Old Media who feels that they answer not to America or American law, but a higher calling. Transnationalism has a strong following in members of the Old Media for this very reason.

What journalism claims to follow is presenting the truth, and doing so for the greater good. You expose what is wrong, get it taken care of, and everyone benefits. This is the intent of law and precedent, and in many cases it does actually work that way.

Towards this end, the American form of journalism does go beyond the law. The special status given by the courts is pushed for all it is worth, and such pushing is generally tolerated. That said, however, the practitioners of journalism are subject to the law and are specifically bound to various laws without exception. Eminent harm and major felonies are two such examples. If you know someone is in peril, you have an obligation to warn them and/or the authorities. If you have evidence about a major crime, you are supposed to provide that evidence as well.

Certain parts of this are obvious, but there is also a large amount of gray area below these two extremes and that is where precedent and other considerations normally move. It is also a subject of discussion in better journalism schools. One area so discussed is dealing with sensitive information. I have taken part in several such theoretical discussions, and know of many more real discussions.

The goal of any media outlet, in particular the Old Media, is to get the news out. You are to ensure that the story makes it out to the public no matter what. For when you are uncovering corruption or problems, you may find yourself facing anything from official blocking by the police or others, to unofficial blocking by knee breakers. Most of the time, things are less than that, but it is what you have to consider. You have to get the story past any roadblocks, and you use almost any means to do so. It used to be that reporters and photographers were good at palming and exchanging rolls of film, pads, and such so that what was confiscated, here and abroad, was not the story or the real evidence. If there were problems, you were to get creative and get the evidence and story to your organization.

Now a corollary to that centered on what was acceptable as a story, and how far could you go with any given story. This is the topic of many a theoretical discussion in school and in the workplace, and it is also the subject of much contention. I myself caught a certain amount of flack because I stated that I would not publish some things, especially if it might reveal critical information to our national enemies. I was told flat out that such was wrong, and that I had a higher duty to publish all, damn the consequences. I demurred.

An even better example is one I remember from growing up. At our local paper, an employee pulled a gun, put it to his head, and threatened to commit suicide on the spot. One of the photographers for the paper, one of the best in fact, had a choice to make: he could take pictures of the event as it happened, or he could try to talk the man out of it. He made the decision of a Man and did the latter, and succeeded. He also was apparently heavily castigated by some for failing his higher duty to journalism, and for failing to let the man kill himself and photographing same. This reached a point that he was allowed to write a column in the paper explaining and defending his decision, and word is that some at the paper still were not satisfied and felt he was not a real journalist.

I bring these tales up for a reason: to show some of the thought process behind journalistic practice, and to emphasize the technological aspect. Most of what is journalism law and precedent is based on technology a century or more out of date. Things have changed, and that also plays into things. The Old Media has refused to get involved with a number of “Freedom of the Press” issues of late, in my opinion because doing so would have “diluted” the definition of what is a journalist. That is most likely a post for another day, but is something to keep in mind while reviewing this particular case.

Mr. Sites saw a story unfold, and he faced a choice. Report or not report, and I am in no way surprised he chose to report it. He had options on reporting, and that is where I have my problems with his decision. The choices he made, to me, show where his head was on things. The number one dictum drilled in a reporter is to get the story out, get it back to your outlet and spread far and wide. This story appears to have reached Al-J and Al-Reuters before it reached his outlet. It also appears to have reached them before he ever provided any information to military commanders, if indeed he ever did. It may well be that they had to come to him. Again, given the undeclared war by the Old Media against the military and the indoctrination against the military in many schools and establishments, I have doubts that going to command ever even entered his head.

If he was worried about censorship, technology today provides many solutions not available to journalists of even a decade ago. I have a low-end version of a current ENG camera, and it plugs right into my laptop. I can download the video, send it out over the net, burn it to CD or DVD, and otherwise ensure that copies get out. I’m willing to bet that a reporter might even have access to satellite or other additional means of uplink in a situation such as this. Besides, today’s HD tapes are palmable in the best journalistic tradition. Therefore, I don’t see this as factor.

Had he gotten the report to his outlet and it run, I could have lived with the decisions made. They might not have been mine, but then again that’s the point. He had the freedom to choose.

No, where I have the problem is with his decision to send the tapes to Al-J and Al-Reuters, who are unabashedly anti-American and/or willing propaganda arms for the enemy. To me, that says that he was more interested in the story, in reaping glory, than in anything else. That he was willing to put those he was with in harms way for his benefit. That is why I ended my post yesterday as I did. Unless he was a pool reporter, that story should not have gone to those outlets as it did.

Based on the information I have at this time, it appears that Mr. Sites failed his duty to his organization, and failed a larger duty as a Citizen. He deliberately withheld information on a possible major crime (and no, I don't believe that it was such) from lawful authority, and provided that information to the enemy. He deliberately chose to put our troops and all other Americans (not to mention allies) in harms way. I find that inexcusable, both as a Citizen and as someone trained in journalism. I just wish that I found it surprising.

LW

Hook has some words on this as well, and Dr. Shackleford has posts here and here. Still love Blackfive’s post.