If the Only News Is Good News and There Is No News …?
Tara McKelvey, the woman who wrote one of the most detailed stories on drone targeting (which has subsequently gotten John Rizzo into some trouble), has a CJR piece on the problems of reporting on drones. The whole thing is worth reading, but I want to take a number of quotes McKelvey includes out of order, starting with David Ignatius, noting the Administration’s flexibility in secrecy rules.
Ignatius, of the Post, explained that Obama administration officials are sometimes willing to discuss drone operations in an attempt to promote the White House’s counterterrorism strategy. In February 2010, for instance, Ignatius was able to write a detailed account of the escalation of drone strikes because officials were eager to demonstrate that Obama was more aggressive in his pursuit of al Qaeda than Bush was.
“These rules about covert activities can be bent when it becomes politically advantageous,” Ignatius said. “When it suits them, you get quite a detailed readout.”
That’s a sentiment Jonathan Landay echoes.
Journalists know that finding non-official sources is crucial in covering the drone war, especially under the tight-lipped Obama administration. “The only time I’m allowed to talk to senior staff or the nsc is for stories that make the administration look good,” McClatchy’s Landay said.
In other words, an experienced journalist reputed to be a mouthpiece, and an experienced journalists known for bucking the Administration propaganda leading up to the Iraq War. Both in agreement that the Administration won’t tell you anything unless it puts the Administration and its drone program in the best light.
Which is why I love this bit, which McKelvey puts right after a discussion about the clouded legality of the program.
A spokesman for the White House National Security Council, who spoke only on condition he not be named, rebuffed questions about why the administration refuses to speak with reporters on the record about the program. “You’re going to have a lot of people on the outside, and they all love to talk,” he said. “We can’t do that.” And, the official added, if outsiders are talking about the drone war, “that means they don’t know very much.”
This NSC spokesperson may or may not be Tommy Vietor, who is, after all, the NSC spokesperson.
For McKelvey, this Tommy Vietor sound-alike basically claims he cannot comment. Both Ignatius (who ought to know) and Landay make it clear they would have comment if there were good news to share.
Which further adds to the evidence that where they refuse to give us evidence–as they have with Anwar al-Awlaki’s assassination–it’s because they have no good news to give.
That kind of says it all, doesn’t it.
Honest to God, I’d love to see reporters refuse to print this nonsense. Instead, say “I approached XXX, the official spokesman for the WH NSC, who refused to give a reaction if his/her name were attached to it. XXX did provide me with the official WH spin on this, but unless XXX is willing to put his/her name to it, they can spin their spin through someone else.”
Why can’t whistleblowers have the same cover? Huh? Just what is it with journalist and dictation transcribers?
I’m telling you, if you are American and do not search out news outside of the tv rambling heads you are lost. Colbert tells more news in his joke news show than American media does.
Thanks Marcy. Telling us that official news will only come out if it is good news is no longer a suspicion.
Earlier this week, Steve Aftergood over at Secrecy News published some new Congressional Research Service reports. One of the reports was this:
U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems (55 page PDF), January 3, 2011
When I read it at the time, I noted to myself that nowhere in the entire 55 page report was any discussion of the legal issues regarding the US government’s drone usage. Furthermore, nowhere was there any discussion of the ethical or moral issues involved in the US government’s use of drones.
Both points underline something that Jane Mayer stated in the CJR piece:
(My Bold)
While I have a high opinion of Jane Mayer, the part of her statement that I bolded troubles me.
It says to me that our government either never considered whether our drone warfare was “good” or “bad”, or if such consideration did take place, it was far from the eyes of the American public, in secret, and without our blessing.
Sound familiar?
@MadDog: The point I’m trying to make (successfully or not), and with all due regard to the fine, upstanding Legal Eagles who comment here, and whom I generally hold in high regard, is that our government, and yea, even our society and culture, seems to have devolved (yes, the opposite of evolved) into something that only considers whether the legal fine print is being adhered to.
Funny, but I’ve always thought that prior to consideration of the legality of something, one is supposed to first consider the moral or ethical implications.
You know, first consider whether something is right or wrong. Not whether there is some legal fine point that provides cover for one’s actions.
Silly me.
@MadDog: TWOOPH! As a matter of fact, the reprocussions of anything US are always withheld. The only reason that I could come up with after years of thinking about it is so NOBODY will have to finger point or be responsible.
@MadDog: “drone warfare good or bad”
Evidently it is HORRIBLY bad. Civilian deaths must be on the rise, but then we wouldn’t know because they don’t report that either.
do you think that anything has changed since that CJR piece was published – May / June 2011 ?
You mean I’ve had it wrong all these years when I simply assumed that only a third of any government mouthpiece utterance is based in reality? With respect to drones in particular, it’s precisely the absence of discussion of the questions raised by Jane Mayer which is disconcerting. One would’ve thought that the separation of powers argument alone would be enough for Congress to step up and restrain the Executive. No such luck.
O/T
Well,here’s oneAmerican mouthpiece that will sorely be missed. The one and only Etta James passed today….
RIP,my dearest darling…(Wonder if Dark Black will do a tribute?)
@MadDog:
“… Jane Mayer stated in the CJR piece…”, etc.
you may have “the highest regard” for jane meyer, but, as your gentle comment suggests, that regard probably isn’t based on this statement.
this statement of jane meyer’s accepts as status quo a nascent situation in which there was no national discussion or citizen input before that status quo was alleged into existence – by jane meyer.
some columnists and reporters seem to be shadow “realpolitik” practitioners who seek to convince us of their understanding of the insight and practical wisdom of realpolitik.
there were jane meyers in the past, many, many of them; always oh so accepting of contemporary social and political power – of “reality”
they told us, for example, with respect to nuclear power in the u.s., :
“… [nuclear power is] here to stay,” explained the New Yorker’s Mayer. “So being for or against [its] use isn’t really where the interesting controversy is at this point…”
in addition to the wisdom of meyers’ statement on drones, note how she refers to “…where the interesting controversy is at this point…”.
reporters love controversy.
their editors and publishers love controversy.
hell, i love controversy.
but where the controversy is should not be confused with what is fixed social and political reality, especially where that reality involves a potentially unwise, illegal, possibly corrupt realpolitik.
@PeasantParty: Like many here, I’ve wondered whether we will ever see the OLC’s legal opinion on the US government’s usage of drones.
But I can guarantee we will never see a Moral or Ethical opinion because neither exists.
When you really think about it, there isn’t much space between a David Addington/ John Yoo mindset and a Harold Koh/Jeh Johnson mindset. Both have been entirely focused on the legal nuances of US government policies without word one on the moral and ethical implications of those policies.
And as I indicated in my thoughts about Jane Mayer’s comments, the state of our public discourse on the US government’s drone policies is such that there is no apparent “controversy” about things such as the lack of moral and ethical considerations.
Friday night palate cleanser: for the super geeks in teh crowd, the “Star Wars Uncut: Director’s Cut” is up on Youtube for your viewing pleasure. this is the full-length crowd sourced scene for scene replication of the film, in all manner of styles (live action, animated).
it is really an amazing feat, and incredibly watchable. the opening crawl alone is frackin’ hilarious.
the comments so far tend to a single theme: if SOPA passes, kiss this sort of achievement good-bye.
@orionATL: Yah, so the question for me is how did we get this way where moral and ethical considerations are so untethered from our decision-making and so easily dismissed from the public discourse?
@rosalind: Aye matey, tis jolly pirates we are.
@MadDog:
Well, if you don’t mind me butting in,maybe its because there is such a lack of skin in the game.
Ever since the draft was dissolved, it seems honor and accountability have disappeared also;strangely enough,right about the time unions were being dismantled ,too.
Jmho.
And speaking of drones, via Fox News (Ugh!):
@Gitcheegumee: Your butt needs no permission here. *g*
The “lack of skin in the game” seems to be a perfect metaphor for our drone warfare policies.
@MadDog: And I hope I don’t stretch Fair Use to its breaking point, but I just had to include this additional tidbit from the Fox News piece:
@MadDog:
that is a truly excellent question; really the fundamental question of our times.
my (glib, unthoughtthrough (that’s german) ) answer:
democratic legislators (and presidential candidate obama) have not been held in the last decade any standard of performanc or honesty, especially not held to a “perform or lose officet” standard.
ordinary dems have been so terrified both of the right-wing bogeyman and of creating any kind of political rowe,
that their dem congressscoundrels have been able to get away with anything – “what? you don’t want to support us based on our “accomplishments” for the powerful? well, wait until your failure to support us no matter what legislation we support lets the republicans get into power again.”
at that “scary” prospect, ordinary dems bow, and kowtow, and forget their morality.
@GKJames:
Congress would have to find out about it from a public source before they’d officially notice that they’re unemployed. /s
Congress is apparently paid to NOT do their job these days – with a few, very few, exceptions. And those aren’t completely reliable.
@rosalind: That’s fabulous! Thanks ros : ) Oh, and go Niners ; )
@MadDog: I see your larger (and very important point), but I would parse Meyer’s passage a little differently. Drones are here to stay, in the same way that steel, guns, land mines, atomic bombs, etc., etc., etc., are here to stay. In that sense she is right that the real issue is how we decide to use them whether in warfare or for peaceful purposes of various sorts.
And that is the conversation that the administration and their enablers seem to work night and day to prevent. To me, that is the more crucial issue, now that the technology exists we are to pretend that we cannot decide to ban specific uses of them (e.g., as we have banned things like mustard gas and such). Rubbish. We can choose not to wage drone warfare if we wish.
Of course, allowing the public to make such a choice (instead of the purveyors of the devices and their purchased public servants who buy and deploy them) requires the restoration of our democracy. So I don’t anticipate any progress on drones until we solve our larger political existential crisis.
@phred: There will be Trash tomorrow for Championship Sunday.
And there will be a big announcement made.
@bmaz:
Tim Tebow has converted to Cheesianity?
@phred:
a very thoughtful comment.
tx
@Peterr: BIGGER than that!
@bmaz:
He’s going to marry his kicker?
@bmaz:
ew’s going to work for mcclatchey?
for the manchester guardian?
for salon?
@orionATL: Heh, after my books weren’t banned post the other day, neither one of us are likely going to be welcomed by Salon anytime soon.
BIGGER than all that!
@P J Evans
Congress caters to, and reflects, the mob. Which is why progressives are at a perpetual disadvantage and the law suffers.
@phred: While I’ll grant you the possibility that Jane Mayer was not dismissing the the moral or ethical issues regarding drone usage, I’ll still maintain that reading myself.
In any event, courtesy of the folks over at the Lawfare blog, a review by journalist Shane Harris of the US drone usage and future that is right on point:
Out of the Loop: The Human-Free Future of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (16 page PDF)
Dogs than don’t bark.
And more drone news via Reuters:
@MadDog: And even more drone news from Reuters: