The NY Times is running a story about "highly classified" operation run by Special Forces to hunt down and capture Osama bin Laden. NY Times Story

Here's the question: Should newspapers be running stories that divulge secret military orders? It doesn't take much to figure out these stories make it into the hands of the enemy, thus lessening the effectiveness of the operation. And, more importantly, these stories inevitably put the soldiers at risk of detection and attack.

Of course, the public should be informed and should have access to information. But, do the benefits of informing the public of this kind of secret operation outweigh the drawbacks and risks? I would argue the needs of the soldiers to stay (relatively) safe and covert far outweigh the public interest here.

quote:

But, do the benefits of informing the public of this kind of secret operation outweigh the drawbacks and risks? I would argue the needs of the soldiers to stay (relatively) safe and covert far outweigh the public interest here.

I have had this feeling ever since the beginning of this war, the first in the real high speed information age. This is just like Geraldo (sp) Rivera drawing stick figure maps in the sand. I don't think the media understands that the information they divulge will make it to the enemy. I'm fine with being in the relatively dark until they capture him/achieve whatever mission they are on.

Let me know if a tactic/mission fails, or if you get him, nothing in the midst of.

In Israel they have this kind of law that suppresses free speech at time of war. During the 2006 war, the Israeli authorities banned the media from reporting where exactly the missiles coming from Lebanon striked. Partly to prevent the other side from knowing where exactly they are hitting and partly to avoid panic and fear among the population.

But the media will not and should not care about such laws. A big hit is everything to a journalist's career and he'll do just about anything to get it and report it.

quote:

Originally posted by lawstudent10:
Of course, the public should be informed and should have access to information. But, do the benefits of informing the public of this kind of secret operation outweigh the drawbacks and risks? I would argue the needs of the soldiers to stay (relatively) safe and covert far outweigh the public interest here.

If this leaked to media, I can see 2 options:

1. Pentagon allowed leakage, for reasons we don't know and probably would never know.

2. They did a bad job protecting this info. It is not journalist's fault, but his job to get and report whatever info. If the military didn't want it to go public, then it's their fault that it did. Then probably it was poorly planned/organized anyway, and needs to be fixed.

Treason for the sake of a headline. Disgusting.

quote:

Of course, the public should be informed and should have access to information. But, do the benefits of informing the public of this kind of secret operation outweigh the drawbacks and risks? I would argue the needs of the soldiers to stay (relatively) safe and covert far outweigh the public interest here.

Agree. And with H.O. and Pangea...

The people are informed via their elected representatives on various Congressional committees that are privy to top-secret information...time to shutter the NYT etal...

quote:

I have had this feeling ever since the beginning of this war, the first in the real high speed information age.

I think the information age is only partly to blame. More efficient, high speed channels of communication only means we get word of these stories quicker. You are right in the sense, however, that because communication is so much more efficient than it was years ago, more stories can be published in less time.

quote:

But the media will not and should not care about such laws. A big hit is everything to a journalist's career and he'll do just about anything to get it and report it.

This is the point where you and I disagree, Lucky. It doesn't seem right for one guy to put his career/financial well-being in front of the safety of the people who are ensuring the journalist can report freely.

I watch the History Channel frequently. In all of their documentaries about World War II, not once have I heard of media outlets revealing (pre-battle) military plans. In fact, the headlines generally reflected events that already occurred (e.g. "Allied Forces Liberate Mainland Europe"). Times have certainly changed.

to take such a story at face value is very naive. this is more like very specifically targeted disinformation.

quote:

The people are informed via their elected representatives on various Congressional committees that are privy to top-secret information...

That's a very unusual -- and dangerous -- attitude for an American to take. Since the beginning of the country, a free, open and uncontrolled press has been the way in which we inform ourselves on the issues before us, on what our elected leaders are doing and on how well they're serving us. Without the press doing that job, all we have is "journalism by press release", whatever news the government wants us to have, and only that. That's not being informed.

quote:

It doesn't seem right for one guy to put his career/financial well-being in front of the safety of the people who are ensuring the journalist can report freely.

I can assure you, "one guy" does not make editiorial or policy decisions at the NY Times about whether and how an investigative story will run. There are editorial boards of senior executives that consider and weigh every word, every quote, every source, and in sensitive cases, that kind of decision is often made by the publisher him/herself. It's a decision that's not made lightly, and newspapers today -- as in past generations -- will normally accede to security requests from the administration and the Pentagon.

This particular story, though, seems to have been vetted by both the Pentagon and the intelligence community, from which much of its background comes. There's not a word that reveals any operational details about a new plan to find OBL and other AQ leaders. In fact, to quote the report, "A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.'

I'm guessing the Pentagon was a willing and active partner in putting this story out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
This particular story, though, seems to have been vetted by both the Pentagon and the intelligence community, from which much of its background comes. There's not a word that reveals any operational details about a new plan to find OBL and other AQ leaders. In fact, to quote the report, "A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.'

I'm guessing the Pentagon was a willing and active partner in putting this story out there.

I agree with this. This story doesn't really tell us anything new.

I think V.O. nailed it.

Didn't we do this once already?

NY Times v. US...The Pentagon Papers case?

jag

quote:

Didn't we do this once already?

NY Times v. US...The Pentagon Papers case?

Publishing the Pentagon Papers was very different from printing tactically or strategically sensitive information that would aid the enemy on the battlefield. They contained only a history of the government's military-political policy and planning considerations regarding Vietnam which would be embarrassing to the government if revealed, and, published four years after the period they covered, not anything of assistance militarily to the North Vietnamese. Instead, it revealed hypocrisy and mendacity on the part of Lyndon Johnson and the Defense Department. The actual name of the set of documents was "United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense".

Publishing the Pentagon Papers was one of American journalism's proudest moments, in my view.

In a White House tape made public in 2001, H.R. Haldeman speaks to Nixon in the Oval Office on the afternoon of June 14, 1971 about the NY Times and the Pentagon Papers:

"But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: (unintelligible) you can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment; and the – the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the President can be wrong."

quote:

This is the point where you and I disagree, Lucky. It doesn't seem right for one guy to put his career/financial well-being in front of the safety of the people who are ensuring the journalist can report freely.

It depends on the kind of story the journalist will be publishing. But most of the time, even when the story is supposed to be kept top secret, it always finds it's way to the headlines. It happens a lot in Israel. I always read Israeli head lines about plans to "hit Iran" and "invade Gaza" and similar stories. Could it be leakages on purpose from the governement, a kind of propaganda? Very possible.

quote:

I watch the History Channel frequently. In all of their documentaries about World War II, not once have I heard of media outlets revealing (pre-battle) military plans. In fact, the headlines generally reflected events that already occurred (e.g. "Allied Forces Liberate Mainland Europe"). Times have certainly changed.

This was in the old age. Back then, and even recently, in the 1991 Gulf War for example, most of what the news papers published were the official statements given to them by the governments. Today it's absolutely different. The world has changed. The mass communications and satellites and the internet has changed everything. You don't need to wait for the official story any more. The event happens, the next minute it's on the internet. You can take pictures, in minutes they can be in every major news paper in the world, this wasn't how things were in WWII.

The jump humankind has made in this field is mesmerizing if you look at it back then and compare it with what we have today.

I actually remember a funny story my grandfather told me once. He was sitting one day with a friend of his who has just come from Germany, and this guy was telling my grandfather about faxes. My grandpa back then hadn't heard of faxes, they were totally new, and when the guy told him that you put the paper in the machine and it comes out a few minutes later half way across the world, he just though "oh yeah, this guy is crazy".

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
This particular story, though, seems to have been vetted by both the Pentagon and the intelligence community, from which much of its background comes. There's not a word that reveals any operational details about a new plan to find OBL and other AQ leaders. In fact, to quote the report, "A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.'

I'm guessing the Pentagon was a willing and active partner in putting this story out there.

I agree with Jack, this story doesn't tell the bad guys anything they didn't already know.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Publishing the Pentagon Papers was very different from printing tactically or strategically sensitive information that would aid the enemy on the battlefield.

I should have been more clear...I was speaking more the opinion in the case and it's direct applicability here...

The majority there held that there is a "heavy presumption" in favor of the press, and only in cases of "dire consquences" from the publication of confidential information will the court respond with injunctions and penalites...

That case has been the standard for all cases w/ publication of confidential information...

To get back to the original question...I'd say this story is protected freedom of the press...ethically, well, that's a whole different issue...

jag

All the media ever does is undermine the war effort. They report on secret, and crucial, plans and operations and thereby inform the enemy ahead of time. They also love to report on the failures and setbacks more than all of the successes and victories. It's sickening.

Reading a newspaper does not give the full story of what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they were reporting on EVERYTHING, the public would more than likely have a much different view of current events.

quote:

Originally posted by Raziel66:
If they were reporting on EVERYTHING, the public would more than likely have a much different view of current events.

They certainly would - you are absolutely correct!

quote:

To get back to the original question...I'd say this story is protected freedom of the press...ethically, well, that's a whole different issue...

Are you concerned with the ethics of this particular story because the Pentagon apparently played a role in putting it out there? If so, I'm not too concerned when one hand washes the other like that -- in this case, the NY Times helps the Pentagon vent its frustration in a public forum in return for a pretty good analysis they could publish on page one. Both sides win.

quote:

All the media ever does is undermine the war effort. They report on secret, and crucial, plans and operations and thereby inform the enemy ahead of time.

Give me an example or two in which the media covering the Iraq War has reported on secret plans and operations, or has otherwise given the enemy an advantage as a result of their reporting.