Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

A free media wants to protect state secrets: Huh?

This one really caught my eye.

The problem with the American media is that it is confusing the Constitution and the State.

The problem that is going on is the media doesn't realize that the State is pretending to be an individual, thereby asking the media to agree that the "State" should enjoy protections.

What a load of non-sense.

The media doesn't have a job, it has the freedom.

Whether the media chooses to exercise those freedoms, or protect the state from accountability is a separate issue.

But I find this ridiculous argument about "we need to protect sources" as being utter non-sense.

There's nothing preventing the media from simply reporting what it finds. There's nothing that mandates that the media get any cooperation; nor is there a requirement that failing to cooperate is somehow a privilege that the State is going to enjoy.

Rather, if the media was truly serious about reporting it would report not agree to be silent about misconduct.

The American media needs to choose: Do you want to keep silent about corruption in government; or do you want a Constitution?

The longer you allow government to "enjoy the privileges of citizens" [which is not what a government is], the longer the media is falling into the trap of putting it's loyalty to the government over its self-interest in preserving the Constitution.

In short, the media when it whines about the "need to protect sources" does little to inspire confidence that it is going to serve the constitution. Rather, protecting sources does more to send a government-message at the time when the customer [public, reader, consumer of information] would like to know more about the sources in order to evaluate the credibility.

If the source wants to remain anonymous, then that's the source's choice. But the source cannot expect the media to provide a platform. The source will have to find another outlet.

  • What's stopping the source from resigning?

  • What's stopping the source from opening up a blog?

  • What's stopping the source from going to law enforcement?

    Those are the real questions that need to be answered. Whatever is "getting in the way" of ensuring problems are solved and issues resolved needs to be the first order of business.

    Again, the media needs to throw the responsibility back on government: Fix this cess pool of poor management and get rid of the retribution against those who dare attempt to solve problems.

    If the media is more concerned about protect sources of what we already know [that government is corrupt] than it is in ensuring the government faces no pressure to reform; thus, the media really have things backwards.

    It appears the media favors reporting dramatic conflict, than solutions. It wants to ensure there is inaction and stonewalls so that people will come forward to talk about their struggle.

    Thus, it's clear that the media isn't really about reporting about solutions, but in spreading more entertainment and discussion about the human struggle with the hopes that the struggle continue.

    Fire that media! They're useless as a catalyst for reform.

    But if you want to be entertained by gossip and inactions and rumor, then by all means continue with what we already have: Gossip, inaction, and rumor.

    But quit using sources as why the media "can or cannot" exercise their freedom.

    The real issue is what does the media want to do: Does it want to remain a service; does it want to be a commercial product; or does it want to be an advocate for change; or does it want to be entertainment.

    Each media outlet needs to answer that for themselves.

    But if they're going to pretend to be an information source, all the wile actually doing nothing but reporting in an entertainment style, then the issue isn't the source. It's the continued public consumption of entertainment as if it were information.

    Brilliant. The media has successfully confused the issue: Diverting attention from the media's failure to decide whether it wants a constitution or a tyrant; and the media's indecision over whether it wants to be for government oversight or government protection.

    The problem isn't with sources. It's with a system that talks out of both sides of its mouth.

    It talks about "listening" and "reforming" and "being open to inputs." It's actions say otherwise.

    What those media outlets need to do if they want to advocate for change is work with those who do want to go no the record, and follow people through the system as they get the runaround.

    Again, it is up to the media to decide what role, if any, they want to play.

    They could choose to increase the drumbeat on the defective government process that require government employee's to walk outside the system; and talk about why people who "see what is going on" still stay there, despite the corruption.

    That's what I want to know: Why would someone who has "such a problem' with the corruption continue to justify in their own mind, "I want to continue getting a paycheck from a system that is this messed up."

    Those people who continue to support such a system with their labor in exchange for a paycheck deserve to be silenced for their stupidity.

    Maybe when government "figures out" that the reason they can't find anybody to do the job has nothing to do with advertising and everything to do with the public's refusal to continue to support a lawless government.

    Will that be the catalyst for reform? Self-evidently, given the lack of attention to the US war crimes in the face of military recruitment pressures, there remains a willing labor pool to volunteer to commit war crimes.

    That's the story, and you don't need someone to be "confidential" or "protected" to talk about the contrast between what the laws of the land are, versus what people are actually doing.

    Read the laws, open your eyes, notice the disconnect, and talk about what people do to cover up the disconnect. It's not that tough.

    The evidence will eventually become public, so print it all.

    At this juncture, I don't turn to the media for assistance. They remain part of the combined government-media problem: A cess pool of unreliable people, unresponsive, and not all that helpful.

    In the end, as with all institutions, it takes alot of work simply to remind the government and media what they are required to do.

    In the end, it's simply easier not to bother with them: They cause more problems than they solve; they're not reliable; they waste your time; and you're better off if you do it on your own:

  • Answer your own questions

  • Make your own decisions

  • Solve your own problems

  • Figure out what is going on

    I am glad the media has shown its full colors: That's why I know more about why they're not reliable and what additional work I have to do no thanks to those who have the freedom of inquiry but refuse to exercise it to the full extent of the law.

    Freedom does have it's limits, especially when you've made a pact with the devil to "not exercise" your rights.

    Dumb agreements made by dumb people.

    Quite a problem you've got. What are you going to do to get out of it?

    They have no answer. Thus, we know they're not all that reliable when sharing insights on "how to solve problems."

    They can't solve their own mess, why should I believe they can do anything for anyone else?

    As if we were to ask a poor man for financial advice.

    Why would a wise man share his secrets?

    Perhaps they enjoy taunting others with games and riddles.

    They know the sound of one hand clapping. It's the sound of you.

    There are many tones inside of you: As you know more of yourself, you will hear more tones.

    They're always there. With time, you will hear more of the tones.

    It's called you.

    And that's where the answers really are: Ultimately, it's up to you. The world is full of non-sense, ready to muck up the most simple task.

    Surprise them: Do it anyway!


    * Does the media have freedoms or does it have a job?

    It has the freedom; whether it does or doesn't do anything is a separate issue.

    * What gets in the way of exercising freedoms?>

    Fear of illusions, of exercising freedom, and fear of walking away from something that is toxic. People put their financial interests before the rule of law.

    * Is the media there to do something or is it confused?

    It is confused. It cannot decide whether it wants to put the Constitution before profits; or whether the Constitution can be selectively applied in order to justify entertainment. Also, the media cannot decide whether it is for entertainment, rule of law, information, or problem solving.

    * Where do we go for reliable information?

    You have to figure that out on your own. You have to judge it for yourself. There's alot of non-sense out there, especially from "experts" and "professionals."

    * What are credible checks on government corruption, lawlessness, and misconduct?

    Credible consequences for failing to assert the rule of law: Jail time, refusal to cooperate with unlawful entities, and non cooperation with those entities who assert the rule of non-law over the Constitution.

    In short, it's a decision to no longer interact, recognize, or respect that which deserves to be thrown to the waste heap of history.

    If the entity becomes a threat to the constitution, then the people must decide: Do they want a constitution or do they want a tyrant.

    If they agree to do nothing, they assent to tyranny. If they want a Constitution, then that is what they will get.

    Either way, they're going to have to work: Either in serving the tyrant, or in preserving the Constitution.

    Translation: Don't let the "possibility of future work" be a deterrent toward your acting to assert the rule of law; for either way, you're going to have to work. Thus, "the possibility that you will have to work" is irrelevant to which choice you make.

    The real issue is: What do you want: Tyranny or A constitution. A tyrant will make it appear that tyranny is less work.

    But we have seen in the wake of the lawlessness, inaction, and lack of government accountability in the wake of 9-11 and the unlawful invasion of Iraq, that tyranny makes a mess of things. And the consequences come home.

    Thus, we see the consequences of failing to debate, discuss, and exercise our rights to freely exchange ideas: We have tyranny, which makes such an interaction that much more difficult.

    Thus, the media have chosen tyranny over the constitution, and now they know they have neither security nor freedom.

    They ignored Ben Franklin. And the media is finding out too late the consequences of putting confidential sources before the Constitution.

    It's up to us to solve this mess. No thanks to the media that continues to have its priorities screwed up.

    The people will have to fix this mess and impose consequences on both the media and the government. It remains a matter for history to decide whether either freely chooses to reform on its own, or whether the public chooses to impose discipline through other methods.

    Freedom is good if you allowed to exercise it; but when it is taken away, it surely does become something much longed for. And far more difficult to recover.

    We learn this lesson once again, no thanks to the cess pool called the stupid American media.

    It's up to us. And be prepared to give credit to those who did the least to help: To the media, for they remain a formidable foe, especially during a time when they want scapegoats not real solutions, progress, or accountability.

    The media may have to be placated all the while you get on and do the real work yourself. As with all things, it's up to you and nobody is coming.

    Except those who want to take credit for convincing you otherwise.