The question is not why this president released information to support his reasons for going to war, which necessarily resulted in Americans dying. Rather, the question is: why would the Media assert that this is an example of this president “leaking” classified information, when clearly this is not the case and the Media knows it.

Why are news headlines buttressed with phrases “leaker in chief”, “Bush leaked”, etc, when mere cursory review of the facts reveals that the president has the authority to “declassify” certain information and this is an instance where he has done so. How is it “hypocritical”, as suggested by the “talking heads” and other “nabobs…”, for the president to allow for the dissemination of certain information to the general public? When the basis for the president’s reasons to commit our forces to war is widely challenged, as has been the case in national publications that have paraphrased each other’s innuendo, why shouldn’t the president allow for the distribution of what information he can safely impart to provide some clarity?

Indeed, it is incumbent upon the president to clarify his objectives, when they have been so challenged by a person of ostensibly “impeccable standing”, who, for partisan gain, politicized his accusations regarding this president’s “call” for war. After such criticism (which spread like a malignant wound) wouldn’t “inquiring minds” want to know, indeed, have the right to know, the basis for the facts the president used in such critical decision-making?

Why does the Media purposely mislead the public with headline misnomers? To what positive end will we come to from “gotcha” journalism? What is the nexus in the media’s implication that since the president declassified certain war-clarifying information, which Scooter Libbey imparted to a journalist, the president also authorized the release of a CIA agent’s identity? There is no evidence to that affect. Since there is no one entity within the media to call his peers attention to these lapses, it is hard to see how this puerile and cliquish and gleeful vindictiveness by news commentary to stop?

However, shouldn’t the “Simon-says” behavior of the national press be called what it is – misleading, dangerous and irresponsible?

Most of the good ones have enough on their plates. Consider what’s going on in a really intense personality who’s trying to a) extract candid facts from sophisticated sources who don’t want to be forthcoming; b) frame those ideas in a compelling story; and c) maneuver the piece past the boss and several other editors who will nit-pick it and summarize what THEY think is its main points for a headline. They do this all the while knowing that if they screw up, they’ll hear about it from somewhere high in the newsroom. Under the circumstances, any response is an effort — consider that a blogger might be one of many taking pot-shots. Considering the general hostility of the comments here, I’m not sure why a writer would want to reply, let alone reply pleasantly.

Of course, you’re not required to sympathize. But by the same token, maybe you’re not entitled to a measured, thoughtful response.

There are plenty of people in journalism who have neither got what they like nor quite grown to like what they get.
They write pieces they do not much enjoy writing, for papers they totally despise.
That in my opinion is where blogging comes into the picture..
The blogging-journalist is partly in the entertainment business and partly in the advertisement business.
Advertising either goods or a cause, or a government.
He just has to make up his mind whom he wants to entertain and what he wants to advertise.
The hypocrisy of the Press begins when newspapers pretend to be “impartial” or “servants of the public”.
This only becomes dangerous as well as laughable when the public is fool enough to believe it, which is very often the case.
Blogging spares the journalist the need to be a slave of hypocrisy, since it spares him the need to make money out of it.

With supreme control of TV in the power either of multi-billionaires or a State Corporation, and the control of fewer and fewer newspapers being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the brain-washing of the public has increased, is going to go on increasing forever, and cannot be diminished.
But it seems to me probable that the ingenious part of the human race still has some surprising cards up its sleeves.

Those who find it hard to imagine that the big are not going to go on and on getting bigger, and the small smaller, and more helpless, that we are condemned, infact, to the “dull calamity” of a continous increasing uniformity, understimate the technical capacities of man.
In terms of “real money” of comparative purchasing power as distinct from the nominal cost in inflated or depreciated currency, a good car today is dirt cheap.

Similarly it is certain that in the near future technicians will find the way to produce cheaper and cheaper hardware.
The “revolutionary change” which may be nearer than most people suppose, consists simply in the technical possibility of a reversal of past trends in the control of the “mass media”, the opening of opportunities for minorities to express their opinions, to show their capabilities.

I can’t imagine not blogging. And as a bonus, I’ve found them to be amazing reporting tools. I can’t tell you how many sources, news tips and story ideas I’ve gotten thanks to my blogs.

The way I see it, as long as journalists blog the truth (i.e. using accurate facts and being honest about your opinions) — I don’t see what the big deal is. That’s what journalism is all about – the truth.

On the other hand, I can also understand why newspapers — and other kinds of companies — have concerns about their employees blogging.

From what I can tell, media companies have two main fears: 1.) they’re afraid of losing credibility and 2.) being vulnerable to lawsuits.

But the thing is, even if my paper had no policy on blogging, I would never post things online with reckless abandon. That’s just how I am…I’m a journalist…I’m wired that way.

let’s say, for example… a journalist posts their opinions in a blog…their newspaper might fear that their stories could lose credibility. but the way I see it, from a reader’s perspective– well, I’d rather know where that reporter stands than not know anything at all.

Hopefully more papers become more comfortable with that notion, trusting that their employees will engage in public discussion in a responsible and truthful way.

Of course they still might be afraid of lawsuits…I’d be interested to know how realistic that fear is…how many libel lawsuits have been filed against writing in blogs, and how much legal protection blog disclaimers can provide. (Any lawyers here? I’d love to find about more about that…)

But I think it’s inevitable — as time marches on, I think all kinds of media companies will evolve and become more and more transparent.

But it may take time, especially for larger companies, which are typically slower to change. And the culture of many newsrooms will take a while to evolve, too….which is understandable, because these issues are relatively new territory…totally different stuff from what we were taught in J-school.

Emily Sweeney
Society of Professional Journalists
New England chapter president

It’s that same control, the same desire to keep the privileged, one-way conversation. Nobody ever denied the Dixie Chicks the right to bloviate about Bush; they (and their supporters) just don’t want other people to have the right to bloviate about *them*. It’s about all about the conversation, until the conversation starts going in the direction you don’t want it to go.

If there was a (real) blog with a senior editor in charge of it – Jason Blair thing would never have happened. It’s rediculous to suggest that blogosphere can’t provide valuable insights and criticism of the NYT journalists’ work. Just the opposite – blogosphere can provide the best critique – definately the most timely and often better-researched than critique through any other medium.

If Keller has no time to read blogs – it’s his business, he’s a busy man (it’s still strange). But, why not create a blog with an upper-level editor supervising it and engaging in honest two-way conversation with readers full-time? They don’t want it for fear of too much feedback?! What a myopic and narrow-minded position.

Good luck convincing the exalted NYT staff that there should be any form of parity or conversation with the lumpen masses.

It will be interesting to see at what point you admit that the NYT’s creed is fundamentally indefensible and can only be articulated in monologue form.