15.12.10

Air Force v. New York Times - Round One.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576019944121568506.html
"ACCESS DENIED. Internet Usage is Logged & Monitored" 
NYT wins notoriety, loses readership and customer loyalty in the military, esp. if the other services follow suit (which I wish they would).

USAF loses respect (most average people will see this as a bit of a bonehead move), gains a little more control of how their employees see the world, emphasize the fact that releasing classified information is a bloody crime.

Bottom line: NYT just squared itself off against the military. Enjoy the little grudge-match. The fact that the information is widely available elsewhere DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of your actions, which - again - is to hurt and prolong U.S. efforts to get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan without leaving behind governments that fall to pieces in a few years.

NYT's decision to spread this stuff more widely was no doubt fueled by the glee and joy of getting a semi-exclusive "scoop" and really sticking it to the U.S. gov't. Good for you. Doing so indiscriminately is A) unpatriotic - and I'm sure you don't care; and B) hurts the troops and the regular cubicle warriors in the Foreign Service and the State Dept and the DEA and the FBI and any U.S. gov't agency trying to get the job done overseas - and while you may not think this is a big deal, it sure as hell seems like a big deal to those of us in the trenches, and you really should at least think about what effect your publication has on the length of these two wars we've got going on.

Shame on you, NYT. With a little luck the other services will follow the USAF's lead and then for the rest of ...dunno how long... you'll be that US news organisation that my bosses won't let me access at work (me being Joe Schmoe the enlisted guy here).

No comments:

Post a Comment