From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 10:32:52 MDT
At 09:00 PM 4/9/2002 -0700, Damien wrote:
> > Justification aside, the press -- particularly big-name American press --
> > act like they have an absolute right to go anywhere and write about
> > anything. And by and large they get away with it. The consequences are
> > all-too-often deaths or ruined lives.
>
>The consequences of military action without public/press supervision is
>also all-too-often deaths or ruined lives.
I'm not just talking about military action; I gave a long list of other
groups who are engaged in vital work that is often stymied or disrupted by
press.
I'm a big fan of the First Amendment but it shouldn't be blanket immunity.
How many private citizens have had their lives tossed upside-down because
of a press story? Your right to privacy is trampled, and your remedies for
libel are virtually non-existent.
And how many lives have been lost, in war, in intelligence, in hostage
situations, in undercover investigations, etc., because the press revealed
something that got people killed.
I'm a big believer in the power of feedback. My father argued in his book
_Why Washington Is Always Wrong_ that if you look at something that's not
working properly, it's usually because the feedback mechanism is screwed
up. Either there's no feedback, or the feedback acts to amplify the
problem, or the wrong signal is amplified or suppressed, or feedback is
delayed.
A reasonable approach to reining in both government and press run amuck is
to hold everyone to the same standard that we hold private citizens. Do
not shield bureaucrats, politicians, or press from the consequences of
their actions. If *my* interference delayed an accident victim from
getting medical attention or compromised a rescue operation, I would be
held criminally liable. Why should people with a badge, press pass, or
title be granted ex officio immunity?
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:22 MST