Posted on 07/21/2006 8:00:11 PM PDT by LdSentinal
Toward the end of 1979, hundreds of American and Canadian journalists and news organizations got hold of a dynamite news story that would have made personal reputations and careers and sent circulation or broadcast ratings soaring. The facts were confirmed, unassailably. Any one of these reporters could have had the scoop of a lifetime.
And yet not one reporter, newspaper, network or newsletter ran with the story until given permission to do so (all at once) by the governments involved. No court or governmental threat of retribution forced them to do so. It was all voluntary.
For more than two months the news industry did not even hint at an adventure that the public would have been eager to know about, a tale complete with heroes, victims, villains and hair-raising suspense. Today, as news media have revealed secret programs of the Bush administration, the questions are being asked: Can journalists keep a secret? Should they? Are news media capable of drawing the line between revelations that would be too damaging to national security interests and those necessary to safeguard American democracy and constitutionally protected rights?
The government has raised the possibility of prosecuting on espionage charges not only those who leaked this information but the journalists and media organizations that revealed it.
It was very different back in 1979.
On Nov. 4 of that year, Islamic militants stormed and occupied the U.S. Embassy compound in Tehran and took hostage the more than 70 Americans there.
But six American officials happened to be outside the compound, elsewhere in the Iranian capital, at the time of the takeover. The militants never realized that some Americans were missing; they were being sheltered by Canadian diplomats in Tehran, who were risking their own safety to protect them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In '79 there was another liberal Democrat president so the common denominator is ...... ?? The press loves liberal Democrats and hates Republicans.
Keep in mind that back in '79 the press was mainly focused on covering for the Soviets and the rest of the international Communists. It wasn't until years later that Islamofascists popped up on the radar as a new anti-American threat for the MSM to pander to and appease.
Turn your head to the right.
Good point.
Wonder if there has been another example in the last 27 years?
A single result does not prove a fact. For something to be a fact, it must be provable every time.
In today's journalism world, I fear that some blogger or counterculture ideologue using journalism as a political tool rather than as a mechanism for dispensing straight information, would make the wrong call. I hope I'm wrong about that.
You already reached the wrong conclusion upon which your entire article was based so there's no reason to think you're correct about this.
Journalists. Are they all stupid?
"Wonder if there has been another example in the last 27 years?"
Yeah, my thoughts too. They had to dig pretty deep for an example.
Most are. I remember when President Bush made his surprise visit to Baghdad some one posted alluding to it on FR.
It was yanked so fast there weren't even any skid mark. Not because they were threatened but because it was the right thing to do. The thread was restored later when it was safe.
As a scoop for FR it was beyond belief and clearly showed how a large group of amateurs can beat the professionals. But it was yanked. Because the management here at FR are Pro-USA and our people's safety trumps scooping the MSN by a mile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.