Constant's pations

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

Saturday, December 10, 2005

World media: Contact the Washington Post 'on background'

I'd like the world media to contact the Washington Post "on background" and get the information we want to know:

  • Where, exactly, are the detainees being held in Eastern Europe; and
  • Where were they taken?

    Some are "still trying to figure out" where the detainees are held in Eastern Europe.

    The Washington Post knows, but has claimed "special secrecy" and "cannot divulge information."

    * * *

    What seems odd is that the Washington Post, despite to security clearance, has access to secret information and has "promised not to divulge sources." They argue it is important for the public to know.

    OK, what's stopping the world media from "contacting" the Washington Post "on background" and get the information, without disclosing it was the Washington Post that they got the information from?

    * * *

    Nobody said the Washington Post "couldn't be contacted" on background; nor that the Washington Post "couldn't reveal the information" on a promise of "do not reveal you got this from the Washington Post."

    Or has nobody bothered to ask "on background"?

    DC is the place that likes to share "on background" -- what's stopping the world from getting "the real information we need to know"?

    * * *

    It sure seems strange that the WaPo apparently has a greater loyalty to "protecting information" than do the alleged criminals in the CIA.

    Could the Washington Post be found to be part of a criminal enterprise for failing to disclose information related to ongoing criminal activity?

    It is odd that the WaPo says they "cannot disclose" the information; the CIA has released it on background, why can't the WaPo do the same?

    There's nothing stopping the world media from hounding the Washington Post to go "on background" and get the information.

    * * *

    It appears the Washington Post, by maintaining secrecy over something that is arguably a war crime, is no longer an independent member of the media, but an active participant in not stopping something that should not occur.

    America's constitution has protections for the media. Now we learn that means they can be silent without fear of consequences.

    Wasn't the "big lesson" from WWII that the public "didn't know" or the media "was too afraid" to talk about what was going on?

    How can a nation argue that it has a "free media" when it too is afraid to speak out, even on background, about what is really going on.

    * * *

    A free media only means something if you can use it to get information.

    Yet, neither the media nor the government appear to be responsive. People who don't do their job shouldn't have that job.

    Let's get someone else who can do the job.