The Base Is Primarily Straw Men

Some useful analysis of NSA wiretapping spin by Glenn Greenwald (an actual lawyer):

If Jonathan Weisman and the Post like warrantless eavesdropping, they can say so. But there is no excuse for depicting the NSA program as some sort of widely popular program which has the backing of “a majority of Americans” and is opposed only by the Democrats’ “liberal base.” That is not reporting. That is factually false political propaganda straight from the mouth of Karl Rove and Ken Melhman. The opposite is true — at best, polls show that Americans are evenly divided, but most polls have shown since the beginning of the NSA scandal that most Americans want aggressive eavesdropping on Al Qaeda but oppose warrantless eavesdropping. Whatever can be done to drum this simple, clear fact into the heads of journalists who write or speak about this story should be done.

Then there is this article from Mark Knoller of CBS News (h/t The Octillion), “reporting” on the administration’s reaction to Judge Taylor’s ruling that the warrantless eavesdropping program is illegal:

“I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. I strongly disagree with this decision,” [President Bush] told reporters at the presidential retreat in Camp David. “We strongly believe it’s constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they’re calling,” he said.

It is journalistically inexcusable for the media to pass along this “argument” without immediately pointing out that it is false — not unpersuasive, not just misleading, but completely false.

If I had one wish, it would be for journalists everywhere to ingest this one extremely simple, undeniable fact — FISA, as written, allows the President to “listen in when Osama bin Laden is calling.” Under the law as it has existed for 28 years, “if al Qaeda is calling into the United States [the President can] know why they’re calling.” The “Terrorist Surveillance Program” doesn’t give the President the power to listen in on those calls because he already has that power under FISA.

The difference between FISA and the warrantless eavesdropping program is not about whether the President can eavesdrop on terrorists. He can eavesdrop on all of the terrorists he wants under FISA as it is written. What is being debated — the only difference — is whether he should be able to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans with judicial oversight (as all Presidents have done for the last 30 years) or whether he can eavesdrop on Americans in secret, without oversight (which led to severe abuses of the eavesdropping powers in the four decades prior to FISA). That is what is being decided, not whether he can eavesdrop on terrorists.

…

If journalists have any responsibility at all beyond being stenographers, it is to make clear the falsity of claims like that. When political officials make false statements as part of their attempt to persuade the public, the role of journalists is to expose the falsity, point out that it is false, not pass it along and treat it like a questionable though legitimate political argument. Journalistic neutrality does not justify — nor does it permit — journalists to repeat the factually false statements of government officials without clearly stating that they are false.

This week’s FISA debate is about whether the President can eavesdrop on Americans in secret, not whether he can eavesdrop on terrorists. And most Americans oppose — not favor — secret, warrantless eavesdropping. Those are two clear, simple facts which every journalist who reports on this story ought to know and make clear to their readers and viewers whenever they “report” on the debate over eavesdropping.

(Emphasis in original.)

It’s worth keeping in mind that the job journalists do is fraught with complexity and strewn with camouflaged assumptions. But as Greenwald points out here, these are pretty basic facts and they shouldn’t be hard to communicate.

See also this quick take (via AmericaBlog) on how the Republican congress pushed back on Clinton’s efforts to expand a legal wiretapping program before 9/11.

It’s like we need some sort of school for journalists.

Explore posts in the same categories: Color Commentary, Misdirection, Phantom News