Defending the state’s interest?

The press is charged with acting in the public interest. So if, hypothetically, the United States government is, say, spying on its citizens it should probably be reported.

Not so, according to the National Review, which, for some reason argues in its latest editorial that the White House should revoke the White House press credentials of the NYT. Strange that the National Review should all of a sudden care about the PUBLIC interest, considering their latest issue is only interested in saving the Republican majority in the House.

Say, National Review, what would your country become if the government started dictating to the press


  1. It’s a common sentiment among like-minded ‘mericans. Bush called the report “disgraceful” and said it could prevent the US from winning the war on terrorism (yea, that’s why they’re losing).

    I prefer Cheney’s response though:

    “The New York Times has now twice— two separate occasions— disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway.” (From Reuters).

    Oh, and Republican Congressman Peter King called it treason and asked that the Times be prosecuted.

  2. Alright all of the obvious objections to the idea aside, I’ve got another one.

    Why would you consider pulling the White House credentials when it would appear this story required little to no reporting inside the White House?

    The reporting for this story appears to have involved talking to government and industry officials, probably the bank in Europe and perhaps seeking comment from the White House.
    Comment that was not given.
    So even if you overlook the sabre rattling directed at America’s largest newspapers for reporting something secretive and potentially criminal that the president authorized.
    And really why wouldn’t you?
    But if you do over look that, then the next question is why take away their White House credintials for something their White House reporter probably had limited involvement with?
    Oh right, They’re dicks

  3. If you thought they were being dicks by considering revoking the NYT’s press credentials, what would you consider this?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *