Way Too Much Information From Media Lapdogs
By Alicia Colon
Ever since the Watergate scandal I've wondered whether journalists are more concerned with making names for themselves rather than ethically pursuing news. Before Woodward and Bernstein did we even have investigative reporters?
I'm sure we've all had moments when we've heard a friend go into details that we just don't want to hear. That also goes for newspaper or online news stories that render up graphic details of horrendous crimes. What used to be taboo or just left up to our imagination is disseminated freely because this sells copies or makes ratings soar. Right now videos of real life cannibals and zombies have gone viral but it's the news detailing our national security that really needs to be plugged up.
Although it was just after 9/11 that I started hearing from readers complaining how they didn't need to know all the particulars about our military plans. Why were we letting our enemies know what we were planning to do? Those readers were complaining about the New York Times and the other media outlets determined to undermine President Bush's war on terror. "Who's side are they on", was the predominant question?
Ever since the Watergate scandal I've wondered whether journalists are more concerned with making names for themselves rather than ethically pursuing news. Before Woodward and Bernstein did we even have investigative reporters? I was still young and uninvolved in politics but I found it disturbing that after the Watergate hearings our intelligence community was targeted so that what was once top secret in the CIA and FBI became fodder for newspaper exposures. In some cases, this was a good thing but opening their files to the public also opened them to our enemies.
During the Bush administration, many U.S, media outlets came very close to treason in aiding and abetting our adversaries by alerting them to government activity after 9/11. The New York Times published this piece in May, 2005, keeping our enemies abreast of our covert activities:
"When the Central Intelligence Agency wants to grab a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas and deliver him to interrogators in another country, an Aero Contractors plane often does the job. If agency experts need to fly overseas in a hurry after the capture of a prized prisoner, a plane will depart Johnston County and stop at Dulles Airport outside Washington to pick up the C.I.A. team on the way."
The article also had a photograph of the alleged spy plane with its ID clearly visible making tracking it an easy task.
Only the New York Sun reported in 2006 that WMDs did exist in Iraq when it interviewed General Georges Sada:
"The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed."
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets continued to belittle the administration's position on the War on Terror.
After 2009 and Barack Obama's elevation to the most powerful position on earth, the media is no longer an adversary but is rather an advocate for this administration, exposing top secret classified information for the sole purpose of making the president look militarily competent. In doing this it has endangered our national security and even Democrat partisans are appalled at the revelations.
It was bad enough when the administration released details of the Bin Laden kill and how the Navy Seals Team Six operated. In so doing it exposed the name of the Pakistani doctor who assisted us with information that led to the success of the mission. Consequently, the Bin Laden informant Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in prison and it is now harder to build ties with other intelligence agencies who don't want to be splashed all over The New York Times.
Remember how the administration crowed about stopping another underwear bombing plot last year? We had nothing to do with this. Jed Babbin at American Spectator wrote about this shameful chutzpah: "In its zeal to claim credit for stopping another underwear bomber attack, the administration revealed the identity of the man who penetrated al Qaeda and posed as a willing bomber - apparently a British operator, not one of ours. The Brits are reportedly furious, as well they should be. Why should they share secrets with America when those secrets are to be used politically, the Obama administration claiming credit for stopping the attack?"
In an attempt to portray President Obama as a warrior crusader against Al Qaeda, the New York Times continued its role as media lapdog by publishing that Obama had a "kill list" targeting al Qaeda operatives. The article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane was titled, "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," and contains details that could only have come from someone deep inside the White House.
That revelation didn't go over as well as planned but didn't stop this administration from breaking the news that we and Israeli intelligence were behind using sophisticated software viruses that would halt the Iranian nuclear facility. President Bush never admitted that he had anything to do with Stuxnet but our narcissistic commander-in-chief couldn't help himself with connecting himself with the "Flame" software. Only problem is this project is an ongoing top secret endeavor which now exposes undercover operatives now in danger of losing their lives. Even Democrats are appalled and have demanded that a Special Prosecutor be assigned to find out who's leaking this breach of national security.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is determined to halt intelligence leaks from the administration, starting down a treacherous political path that could embarrass President Obama at the height of his re-election campaign.
Why all this posturing from the administration to show how tough he is on al Qaeda? Wasn't he the one who has tried for the past three and a half years to diminish the importance of our twin wars? Wasn't he elected with the support of anti-war groups like Code Pink? Didn't he rename the War on Terror to Overseas Contingency Operation? Well the answer is that this is an election year and his weakness on national security looms right behind the poor economy.
Today's mainstream media lapdogs will continue to bolster this hard line image but it's becoming harder to swallow. Everybody likes a hero but not a braggart who takes credit for another's bravery.
Ironically, we just celebrated on June 6th the 68th anniversary of D-Day which owed its success to the cooperation of the press which provided misinformation about the plan to the Germans. National Geographic even published fake photos of a massive Allied army which did not exist. Somehow I can't see today's mainstream media keeping that invasion a secret.
Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at
email@example.com and at www.aliciacolon.com