National media fail to balance rights, responsibilities

Editor:

I have been watching the kerfuffle regarding the recent decisions related to the "Plame" case with somewhat an amused view. I find it quite pathetic that the major media is beating its breast and whining loudly regarding their "loss of First Amendment" protections. Unfortunately, as many learn, the term "freedom" should be securely linked with the word "responsibility."

Only a short while ago, they stood rather mute as the despicable McCain-Feingold Socialist power grab was inducted. Their avarice for their new position as primary arbiter of political opinion clouded the realization that government rarely takes rights in huge blocks, but rather in a manner similar to the "camel's nose under the tent" process. ...

Another reason I am so apathetic to this challenge is that I feel that the media has lost its position as a "responsible" observer of the news. I am reminded of a story during World War II wherein the information related to the Normandy Invasion (D-Day as it is now known) was inadvertently released to some reporters in England. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower called the various reporters together and quietly briefed them on the upcoming invasion. He then implored them to keep this information highly confidential because so many of our young soldiers lives would be lost were the Germans to discover the information. The major media of that day kept the information quiet.

Sadly, today I am pretty certain that we would see the major media talking heads and other "citizens of the world" standing on the cliffs of Normandy relating that in a few days young Allied soldiers would be throwing themselves against the defenses of this portion of Hitler's Europe. I can even imagine some of the major media reporters relating that from "this" or "that" position the "Germans could wipe out the landing craft as they hit the beach in the early hours of the invasion in the next few weeks."

Recent history is replete with the media's decision to release sensitive information in the interest of sensationalism and a marked refusal to police its own reporters when the interests of our nation or responsibility stand challenged by the information. Releases of sensitive information, and major journalistic organizations abuse of the "confidential source" moniker, in cases where we later learned that the entire story was a hoax (ala CBS and Dan Rather), have damaged the major media's credibility. The major media's refusal to properly punish violators has created a position where the government is stepping in as they have done on other occasions. And as we are seeing, the government tends to make its own decision "when" they need to step in.

Yes, this is a challenge to the rights enumerated in the Constitution, but it is justifiable desserts for an organization that has remained relatively docile as other groups have had their rights restricted. Hopefully they will learn from this example - but I seriously doubt it.

Daniel Gwinn

Martinez