Yep, this cannot be called anything less than MURDER today, for sure.
I was literally a Naval Officer on a ship doing counter drug operations about 10-15 years ago, and it was made very clear to us at the time that we were not to use weapons unless fired upon. The only exception was trained sharpshooters from the Coast Guard who were allowed to shoot outboard motors, though they were extremely careful about not harming the people on the boats. We'd "arrest" them (the Coast Guard would) and then turn them over to one of several partner countries. Once we captured the same person twice in one deployment. Today, I am not proud of what we did back then, as I am sure we caused more harm than good and spent more resources than was worth it to capture those drugs.
To be PERFECTLY CLEAR: we RARELY found fishing boats that had drugs on them, or who were even supporting drug operations. The fact that several fishing boats have been hit now makes it CLEAR to me FROM EXPERIENCE that we've MURDERED INNOCENT FISHERMEN because I KNOW that there is ZERO POSSIBILITY that all of these guys were a threat in any way. AT MOST these fishermen would refuel a drug boat, and I don't think that's worthy of death. Furthermore, those people usually were forced to do these jobs under threat from the gangs in their towns against their families, so killing these folks makes even less sense because they aren't the actual dangerous people who are running the narco-gangs.
It's a FUCKING SHAME what this country is doing to those people now and I am ASHAMED of having "served in the military" when in reality I was obviously just a tool for a fucked up regime that has finally gone mask-off.
Personally, I read it as added-emphasis rather than a retort against the author, but I can see how it could be taken that way depending on assumed verbal delivery.
I also read it that way, I didn't take it as an assault.
Because I was in the military in the past and because I grew up on the US continent, I probably have it ingrained in me to not use the words of violence like "murder" for these things, and instead I use the softer words that don't explicitly call out the death that is inflicted by the "bombing". I should work on that, for sure.
What is the point of being a Journalist (except for easy money and not having to do anything other than copy + paste) if you are only allowed to "write", word for word, the article they give you to publish?
If you identify sufficiently with the people giving you the article to publish, it's not a "they" but an "us". Even if the decisions are taken in rooms you don't have access to.
Maybe they think they'll get access to them eventually if they're loyal.
It might seem cowardly, but it isn't that different to what happens every day in business. Society is full of organisations working on the "make the boss' opinions your own" principle.
You're never heard of biased or militant journalists have you?
In fact the most common form of journalism you will find is what's akin to a Propaganda channel of a Sponsoring Party (Defense, Media Company, Political party, Rich Individual with an agenda, etc). Essentialy a PR employee.
But this is true since always.
The kind of journalism we usually think of though is Investigative journalism, but that's a different beast and usually doesn't really pay.
> if you identify too little with them, you probably don't even get to "sit where you're sitting", as Chomsky said
The people winning White House credentials are political influencers. Chomsky was an interesting linguist. His political observations are about as scientific as our current crop of Silicon Valley elites’.
What he said, and I agree is true and important, is that you won't get to work as a journalist and do things like, say, interview people for BBC, unless you believe most of the things your employer believes.
Chomsky's observations about how the media works may not have been solid science, but from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target.
> from the way you describe the present circumstance it really sounds like Chomsky is still on target
The refutation is there are lots of places to sit. Like, yes, the people at a linguistics conference will predominantly be linguists. That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy.
> "That doesn’t suggest a linguistics conspiracy."
That's Chomsky's point. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky explains how the appearance of collusion can arise without conspiracy. Like-minded people hiring and promoting like-minded people isn't a conspiracy, it only looks like one because people with similar incentives and values will behave in similar ways given similar circumstances.
So you don't have any problem with the Hegseth Pentagon demands then? There are still many places to sit, and who gets access is mostly decided by neutral competence anyway? (That's what your linguistics conference analogy suggests).
Chomsky's whole point is that it doesn't take a conspiracy for journalists to share their superiors' views. Not for those superiors to be very aligned with each other.
What is the point of being a Developer (except for easy money and not having to do anything other than copy + paste) if you are only allowed to "code", word for word, the feature specifications ("user stories") they give you to build?
There’s always a good reason, or good intentioned idea.
It’s why the saying about paver stones on the road to hell is all about.
There were certain norms that America counted on, to hold its governance mechanisms in check. Those checks and balances are being broken.
It is possible, that nothing will happen. People have fallen out of planes and survived. Maybe this will be America’s experience.
The country I knew, that many others used to be angry with, but also respect - would NEVER have left such a thing to simple chance. There used to be many who stepped into the breach.
And perhaps people are. It may simply be that this new information environment - geographically, financially consolidated, but ideologically divided - is ensuring that people who are solving problems and figuring things out, are unable to coordinate or gain traction. Gain traction in a manner that used to cross party lines.
I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon. In general I think this is a good thing but not because I think it's a good idea. Rather, I think that the government, regardless of who happens to be in power, and the press should have an adversarial relationship, but the deep intertwining of the government and the press undermines this, even without corruption. You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness.
I just have this feeling that in modern times if the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the NYTimes - but in the context of Ukraine, and especially if the previous administration was still in power, they very possibly might have instead alerted US intelligence instead of publishing them. WaPo repeatedly pat themselves on the back for playing a key role in tracking down the person who leaked the Pentagon documents in 2023. They mostly ignored what was leaked and instead framed everything as a story of tracking down the source and why he might do such a thing. We have a very broken media system, and this, probably unintentionally, might be a big first step in fixing it.
People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also the Whitehouse banning the AP earlier this year.
> It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon.
Without access it's going to be very hard to do good reporting, adversarial or otherwise. This is the government working to control what is said.
> You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness.
The world is built on relationships. One of the keys of being a good journalist/reporter is being able to have relationships which help to build stories while also staying objective.
The Pentagon Papers are one of the biggest leaks that the corporate media has ever published. Its effect on the military industrial complex and the government in general cannot really be overstated. It was published in 1971. [1] In 1972 the Pentagon created the 'Correspondents' Corridor' where journalists could 'embed' with the Pentagon effectively permanently.
From your worldview, do you not find the timing odd? The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government, and then the government welcomes them in, with privileged access no less, to one of the most sensitive locations in the entirety of the country? And this all happened under Nixon, a man who wasn't exactly known for his benevolence.
There was a time, not that long ago, when embedded war reporters were looked upon negatively. The reason is that it's impossible to remain impartial. This is not only because of the relationships you form in such a location, but also because if "imparial" ends up being negative, you're getting 'unembedded' quite quickly. So it ends up being defacto propaganda.
Think about what "transparency" we've gained from the media being embedded with the Pentagon since 1972. It mostly doesn't exist. Even if somebody wants to leak something it's not like they're going to walk up to a journalist in the Pentagon to do it. On the contrary, the media seems to have become ever more ingrained into the military industrial complex ever since this date, to the point that in 2023 WaPo spent more time trying to track down a leaker and assess his possible motives, than covering what was leaked.
Government and media should be kept separated, and this act is, probably unintentionally, helping to do exactly that.
>> The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government
The Pentagon Papers covered the period from 1945 to 1968. Nixon took office in 1969. If the leaks were embarrassing, they were particularly embarrassing to the JFK/LBJ administrations. Nixon initially didn't intent to do anything about the leak. Henry Kissinger convinced him that allowing the leaking of classified documents in the press would set a bad example:
"President Nixon’s reaction that Sunday morning was that the damage fell mostly on the Johnson Administration and that he should leave it alone. That afternoon, however, security advisor Kissinger convinced Nixon that he had to act on “this wholesale theft and unauthorized disclosure.”
“The massive hemorrhage of state secrets was bound to raise doubts about our reliability in the minds of other governments, friend or foe, and indeed about the stability of our political system,” Kissinger said in his memoirs.
Once energized, Nixon soon became obsessed. Dissatisfied with the FBI’s progress in the case, he organized his own group of investigators in the White House. They styled themselves “the plumbers” because their job was to stop leaks."
If Nixon had ignored Kissinger that day, he would probably close to the top of the typical lists of greatest US Presidents rather than close to the bottom.
It's always amusing to see attempts to cast Nixon as an "otherwise great" president while simultaneously attempting to distribute the blame for his decisions on those around him. Poor Dick somehow found himself surrounded by the untrustworthy, incompetent, and/or craven sycophants he personally chose to surround himself with.
A man is accountable for his own actions. That's true for Nazi grunts and most certainly for a US President. Nixon had already been wiretapping journalists since his first months in office. [1] The guy was paranoid, anti-media, and then invited the media into permanent residence at the Pentagon. It's not hard to see the ulterior motive because the ulterior motive was the only motive.
As for the impact of the papers directly on Nixon, he could have been honest and immediately come forth with the truth when entering office. He chose not to, which made him complicit in the lies of previous administrations. This is also why if you ask somebody who's war was Vietnam? Most of everybody is going to say Nixon.
You can see strong parallels with Trump and Ukraine in modern times. It's obvious the government is not being at all honest about their assessment of the situation over there, yet Trump continues to 'play along' with the lies and indeed this is a big part of the reason why Ukraine will likely go down in history as 'Trump's War.'
If the 'Ukraine Papers' were leaked, Trump would certainly first try to pin it on Biden, but in reality nobody cares about Biden anymore - and instead the papers would mostly just reveal his own lies and complicity.
With the blatant disregard for any rules and decorum, and a proven self-serving track record, I wouldn’t bet on it.
You want to censor in the armed forces? Classify. You don’t tell reporters they can’t publish anything unapproved. Tomorrow the director gets caught stealing and toppling regimes and you can’t publish a word. After a long time of obeying this, you will fear doing so.
Brilliant strategic play on the Trump admin. Win or lose, the pentagon is more opaque. I just wish they would used some of that brilliance on things that improved the world and adhered to why we have governments in the first place.
The rules were updated on Oct6 to allow media outlets to report using any information even if classified and unapproved for release, as long as they didn't solicit it or were given it with the premise that it won't be released.
So if they were to be approached by a whistleblower or happened to hear the right conversation or find the right documents, it'd be fair game.
This is a hyperbolic take. In countries with military censors, articles are submitted, from the newspaper's offices, to the censor's office for approval before publication. Nothing under this arrangement stops an American colonel from walking into the NYT's offices, dropping a folder at reception, and persuading the NYT to publish the contents of that folder. While it does prevent investigative journalism in the military, which is despicable on its own merits, the fact that it turns newspapers solely into PR outlets is neither new (i.e. as a general phenomenon in American media) nor limited to only the officially sanctioned point of view.
I like your reasoning. There’s nothing stopping a news outlet from publishing anything other than the clearly outlined consequences. In a similar vein there’s nothing stopping anybody from finding out what happens if you swallow a D battery but for some reason none of my friends are doing that
> In a similar vein there’s nothing stopping anybody from finding out what happens if you swallow a D battery but for some reason none of my friends are doing that
Nice caveat, noting that none of your friends are doing that. But plenty of people do really dangerous, stupid shit and upload it to YouTube for the advertising dollars. Because news media is usually ultimately financed by advertising or partisan donors pushing a specific viewpoint, they're incentivized to publish dangerous stuff - but only the kind people want to see, which is why outlets like the New York Times didn't host video clips showing the outright gore from Charlie Kirk getting shot. The democratic value of an independent media rests on editorial discretion finding content that shocks its audience but not its advertisers.
This is no different than pretty much any company. Do you think Apple lets reporters wander throughout their campus looking for new hardware, and allow them to ask engineers information about what they are working on? No. Apple does not let them wander around, and they advise all of their employees to never talk to press.
Apple is neither a state nor a democracy.
The journalists and the government are there to aserve the same boss: the people.
Now one of the people's employees sabotages the work the other employee.
If Apple had the ability to deploy military forces on behalf of my democratically elected government I'd actually be pretty concerned with them locking out the press too.
I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answered to me (a US citizen) by its previous policy of letting a bunch of reporters from some mainstream news outlets have offices inside the Pentagon under one set of rules, and I don't think the US DoD meaningfully answers to me by its current policy of putting more rules on those reporters that they don't like and are willing to resign over. I have a healthy amount of mistrust for both the US military and mainstream US journalism operations, and I don't assume that the military-related stories these reporters covered previously were the ones that were actually important for me to know.
This is about not wanting the journalists to even ask for information from e.g. generals. No-one is saying that they want immediate disclosure of all secrets - I'm concerned that you're building a strawman.
>Journalists asking for classified and sensitive information are acting in bad faifth.
How?
>They know that these people are not allowed to give away the information,
Not true, nor is everything is classified.
It appears you've not actually read the article, or what the new restrictions even asked for. You're acting as if journalists were allowed to go rummaging in office drawers and journalists dislike being told they can't do that anymore.
Or they could be trying to uncover malicious acts hidden behind classification. You may be too young or too old to understand, but historically it goes both ways.
I completely disagree. Their job is to uncover truths that may not be immediately obvious and they may not even know the classification status of sensitive information before asking about it. The military should instead say something like "that information is classified".
Why would the public want journalists to not even be able to ask the questions, never mind actually get the information?
You have classified information for that reason. It's not the same as requiring journalists you literally let into public press conferences to shut up and spread propaganda unquestioningly
This is moving the goal posts from your original position. Spend the time to refocus - if your position was erroneous, it was erroneous. Correct it, figure out what that means, then proceed.
Moving on to a new version is to waste your own intelligence in reactionary sentence creation.
no, actually that requires congressional approval, and the government is currently shut down, mostly as a way to defer the release of the Epstein files. nice try, though.
Democrats could have released yhem already. It would have been bipartisan. They didn't, because there's nothing there and it was better politics to let fringe Republicans obsess about it.
