New York Times Hypocrits

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

X might lead to unsafety.

Therefore, no one may ever do X again.


You must lead a fun life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[VTDuffman]

[ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Constitutionally protected freedoms to be +EV in life. I consider it -EV to give those up to the government after our founding fathers expressly forbade it.

If you disagree, that's cool. We place different values on freedom.

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

X might lead to unsafety.

Therefore, no one may ever do X again.


You must lead a fun life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Working for government should be goddamned hard. What's wrong with holding our government to the highest of standards? Clearly there must be a balance, but I don't see how there can be much of a comparison in the standards we hold to society (with respect to laws) and that which we hold to government.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Constitutionally protected freedoms to be +EV in life. I consider it -EV to give those up to the government after our founding fathers expressly forbade it.

If you disagree, that's cool. We place different values on freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the probability portion of EV calculations. We may value freedom identically, but the probability that anything thats been revealed by the NYT will actually impact my freedom is infinitesimal compared to the probability that they will save lives, possibly including mine or someone close to me.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good for you. You can contemplate that value while reading a NYT issue with the next (and possibly preventible with some restraint by the press) terrorist attack that kills someone you care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

X might lead to unsafety.

Therefore, no one may ever do X again.


You must lead a fun life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people entrusted to protect the country might use technology that has been proven tostop terrorists to monitor my phone calls to my girlfriend and banking transactions, so lets dismantle the whole thing.

asinine life you lead. try reading about EV in life instead of poker for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Working for government should be goddamned hard. What's wrong with holding our government to the highest of standards? Clearly there must be a balance, but I don't see how there can be much of a comparison in the standards we hold to society (with respect to laws) and that which we hold to government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with holding the government to high standards, and also agree there needs to be balance. But I also agree that the media needs to be held to high standards as well. Their sources should not be protected when their sources have committed serious crimes (including those that endanger the welfare of the country).

Everyone b!tches and moans about the press being the watchdog on government. That presumes a measure of restraint and balance, which the press apparently has become incapable of on either side. When that happens everyone loses except the stockholders in the media companies.

[Machinehead]

So at what point do we draw the line on how many of our freedoms we sacrifice? Do we let them monitor everything we do, everything we say? Give up our rights to free speech, free press, privacy rights. What about our judicial rights? At what point do republicans say enough is enough?

[BillUCF]

Free press only exists because we have people like our U.S. service men and current president willing to fight those who will destroy us.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
So at what point do we draw the line on how many of our freedoms we sacrifice? Do we let them monitor everything we do, everything we say? Give up our rights to free speech, free press, privacy rights. What about our judicial rights? At what point do republicans say enough is enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont we wait till some freedom has actually been diminished before we say its too much?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The NYT does not deny that the govt can have secrets. It just stands by its right to publish whatever it finds out about. THe two are not the same.

The govt cannot and must not be able to gag a private news enterprise.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with this statement, it seems pointless to print everything simply because they found out about it and it was a government secret. Surely some discretion should be used on each story they discover, no? How does this help the American people in any way? How were we being harmed by not knowing this information? Is more good done by releasing this story or moving on to the next one? I doubt the NYT had any good answers for these questions when they decided to go with the story. The NYT's main agenda is not to exercise a free press in order to help the public. It wants to do whatever it can to break down the Bush administration and the right. *(Note: I'm not a Republican or a Bush supporter)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that newspapers should employ good judgement in what the print and generally they do (not always).

The biggest issue with this controversy is not whether they should have printed it or not but that the so called purveyors of freedom have decided to come down hard on the printers of the story.

Regarding the story itself, there appears to be a pattern of secret investigations that are (at a minimum) border line infringing on the rights of the individuals from this administration under the guise of national security. This is a very, very disturbing trend.

I strongly think that the government should investigate electronic transfers but have no right to conduct it in secret and certainly have no biz lambasting the NYT. The investigations must be conducted with due process.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Free press only exists because we have people like our U.S. service men and current president willing to fight those who will destroy us.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can play this game too. Those men and women who "fight those who will destroy us" are protecting, in part, the "free press" that has been established in this country and that I consider as an extremely important part of this, or any, democratic system.

I guess I don't see why this is a big deal. If the governmenr doesn't want the NY Times, or any media source, to print sensitive information, it should be more careful about who gets to learn that sensitive information in the first place. If that isn't possible, then the government is simply too large. In my eyes, this is a problem that should be between "the government" and its employees.