| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Instapundit: "Bill Keller isn't very bright . . . " |
| 2006-06-26 |
BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't. How else to explain this passage in his apologia for the Times' publication of classified information about the terrorist financial surveillance program:Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them. A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. . . . The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. . . . Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. To quote Keller: "Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements." Or institutional self-importance. As Hugh Hewitt observes, at the conclusion to a much lengthier critique: "He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper." And the Constitution does not permit titles of nobility. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 Works for me. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-06-26 15:11 |
| #14 "Get to know me!" |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-06-26 15:10 |
| #13 I tried again and faile. You must be close to Keller, Sea. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 15:02 |
| #12 And now I clicked it again and it worked! Now I'm getting paranoid... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-06-26 15:01 |
| #11 Odd. It worked for me the first time I clicked it, but not now. Maybe they have a Rantbot filter? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-06-26 15:00 |
| #10 I got the same thing, ed. I figured it was a cost cutting move. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 14:56 |
| #9 I just clicked on the NY Times homes delivery GooooogleAd And the best part: Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-26 14:52 |
| #8 Nothing will be done until Americans die as a direct result of these crimes Not by the government, perhaps ... but the first step is to help shape public opinion about the NYT and LAT on these stories. And that's something we all should be working at IMO. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-26 14:48 |
| #7 Good thinking Sea! |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 14:43 |
| #6 I just clicked on the NY Times homes delivery GooooogleAd over yonder on the sidebar ---> Let the b***ards throw a few shekels in Fred's tip jar. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-06-26 14:40 |
| #5 Nothing will be done until Americans die as a direct result of these crimes, and I doubt it will ever be that clear. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 14:34 |
| #4 The NYT and LAT are trying to lure Bush into prosecuting them. He would be on solid grounds to do so IIUC, but it would be a disastrous move overall. GW is a poker player. They are amateurs. He knows the fight is in the arena of public opinion and he will respond there. But ... we ALL should be making our outrage very very vocal. He's not the only one holding cards here, folks -- if you are fed up with what these papers are doing and with those govt employees who are leaking, MAKE THAT PLAIN. Write to your congress critters, your local paper, everyone you can rally on this issue. If you think it's only GWB's job, it won't get done no matter how articulate he might be. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-26 14:30 |
| #3 Maybe Bush jabbing his finger for emphasis will scare him enough to not publish further secrets. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-06-26 14:16 |
| #2 Oh, so we had it all wrong. Our bad. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-06-26 13:44 |
| #1 arrogant and self-justificatory posturing Wow. At the New York Times? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-06-26 12:55 |