BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
WHAT THE POST DIDN'T TELL
YOU. Here's an intriguing tidbit from Bob Woodward's new book,
Plan of Attack. In December 2001, the CIA - following up on
information from Britain's MI6 - learned of Pakistan's role in
nuclear proliferation. CIA director George Tenet reportedly had a
meeting with Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, in which
he "peel[ed] back the eyeballs" of his host.
Among other things, the CIA feared
that nuclear technology had fallen into the hands of Al
Qaeda.
The Washington Post learned
of this as well. Woodward explains why you didn't read about
it:
Two reporters at The
Washington Post had got wind of the possible nuclear or dirty
bomb threat and a story was about to be published on Sunday,
December 2, with some of the details. With Tenet out of the
country, a very senior CIA official called me at home hours before
the story was to be printed and urged it be delayed.
Of Musharraf, the official said,
"We leaned on him heavily" and were "turning the screws." The
official said, "We just reached the point where they [the
Pakistanis] will work with us. A story would cause them to
clam up and they would see it as an attempt to pressure them"
through the media. The information was sketchy, he said. "What we
have is more suggestive than conclusive."
Len Downie, the executive editor
of the Post, spoke with the CIA official and decided to
hold the story.
Two days later, Woodward writes,
the Post ran a watered-down version.
This is reminiscent of the New
York Times' decision in 1961, at another time of high national
anxiety, to tone down its story about the pending Bay of Pigs
invasion of Cuba after the White House intervened with legendary
Washington columnist and editor James Reston. The Times and
the Bay of Pigs is as much myth as fact - the truth is that the
Times didn't really change its story all that much - but the
the circumstances are similar.
I think the Post made the
right call on the loose-nuke story, especially coming less than three
months after 9/11. Still, it's interesting to find out what goes on
behind closed doors at our leading news organizations.
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY. The New York Times is at it again. Just three
days after publishing a story about the online-music industry that
was largely based on a
false premise, today the
paper runs an editorial blasting the indecency crusade (good), with
reasoning based on yet another false premise (bad, bad!).
Noting that Congress is now
considering whether to extend indecency standards to pay-TV services
such as HBO, home of The Sopranos, the Times
writes:
"Washington's pro-decency crusade is no excuse to regulate media
that do not use public airwaves. Tony Soprano's foul speech is
constitutionally protected."
My goodness gracious, no, as Donald
Rumsfeld would say, and as Tony Soprano might soon be saying as well.
As I explained
recently, it might very well be possible to extend indecency
standards to cable - including pay TV - because, in fact, those
services do use the public airwaves. Remember, cable used to
be called "community antenna television," and though the name has
changed, the technology hasn't. Your local cable operator has a huge
"head end" antenna somewhere in the vicinity that pulls programming
off a satellite before sending it to your home. The signal travels
from satellite to head-end antenna via - are you paying attention,
Gail Collins? - the public airwaves!
Because of this, there are those
who believe the FCC doesn't even need additional congressional
approval to start regulating cable.
The best legal argument for leaving
pay TV alone is that, unlike over-the-air broadcast channels that
come into your home whether you want them or not, you've got to make
two voluntary choices to get, say, HBO: first, you've got to sign up
for cable or satellite TV; then you've got to make the additional
decision to pay for HBO.
The Times' heart is in the
right place, but it's not going to convince anyone if it can't make a
technologically factual argument.
NEW IN THIS WEEK'S
PHOENIX. What's wrong
with campaign-finance reform. Also, the ghost of Thomas
Jefferson has words with
the Defense Department and the Secret Service.
posted at 7:49 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
