Who Elected Bill Keller to Ultimately Decide Matters Pertaining to National Security?

Tuesday, May 02, 2006
The Wall Street Journal has opened it op-ed section to Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times.

“The role of journalism on our side of the news/opinion divide, at least as we aspire to perform it, is not to be advocates for or against any president or any party or any cause,” asserts Keller. What world does this man inhabit? This is humanly impossible. Try imagining a journalist writing an “objective and dispassionate” piece regarding Nazi Joseph Mengele. The New York Times and the rest of the MSM have been living a lie. It is time to return to reality and demand that these media outlets unabashedly inform us of their biases. This is what I candidly do all of the time. Why should one expect any less of them?

Bill Keller also complains that the WSJ’s “editorial posits a conspiracy between journalists and "a cabal of partisan bureaucrats" to undermine President Bush by sabotaging the war on terror.” Oh my goodness, here we go again. The main thing that Keller forgets is this: we did not elect him to decide which secrets are ultimately to be released to the general public. I do not remember seeing Keller’s name on the ballot the last time I voted. The U.S. Constitution recognizes the legitimate role of the media. Nonetheless, at the end of the day---the majority of the voters place their trust in the executive branch. Does Keller disagree? In that case, we should encourage him to run for public office.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt weighs in with undeniable logic.


Rick Ballard said...

The seditionist hack Keller is replying to this WSJ editorial. I note that Keller's dislike for felon orange has him referring to the President's legitimate declassification of the NIE as a 'leak'. The pathetic examples Keller offers - Clinton and Mollohan - to substantiate his claim of 'non-partisan' reporting are risible. There are things that not even Pravda on 43rd St. can ignore.

The justice system is the appropriate place to for a decision on whether the First Amendment encompasses sedition and subversion to be made. The DoJ cannot let fear of a negative press keep it from enforcing the law. If the DoJ cannot uphold the Constitution that it exists to defend then it needs to publicly redefine its purpose.

The First Amendment is not a traitor's shield.

Fresh Air said...

I wouldn't trouble me one bit to see Messrs. Keller, Risen and Lichtblau getting the same treatment they would have been afforded in 1780. Though I'm not sure if drawing and quartering is possible in Times Square given the curbs and so on.

And this guy is supposed to be the Times's leading light? The deep-thinking Pulitzer Prize winner? And he can't even muster one principled argument in favor of his treasonous behavior?

His "argument" is exactly the same as the one used to defend judicial activism, namely: "I'm just doing what's good for the country. You people really should appreciate me serving as the arbiter of what's legal. Never mind those laws your representatives enacted--or 225 years of jurisdprudence."

Truly, we are at war in this country already. The media is the enemy, and if Mehlman, Rove & Co. are smart they will go after them hammer and tongs from now until November.

David Thomson said...

"His "argument" is exactly the same as the one used to defend judicial activism..."

Bill Keller simply assumes that his elitist education and alleged virtues are sufficient to justify breaking the law. President Bush and our other elected officials should not be running the county. No, this responsibility belongs solely to the left-wing elite. Keller’s arrogance is mind boggling.

Granddaddy Long Legs said...

I like your post. Here's one of mine that touches on a lot of the same points:

Bill Keller Selectively Forgot He's A Liberal Partisan.

I think you'll like it.