The “Fourth Estate" has always played a major role in influencing U.S. policy and opinion, but like other major institutions, it is not beyond reproach. Widely criticized for its complacency in the run up to the Iraq War, the media has also been criticized more recently for being too ready to publish sensitive information. Modern media is anything but monolithic, and competitive pressures and a rapid news cycle have forced many news agencies to exercise even less restraint.
Latest in Media Criticism
In light of CIA Director Mike Pompeo's criticism of the New York Times' publication of a CIA officer's identity, we are reposting Jack Goldsmith's 2015 interview of Times executive editor Dean Baquet on the paper's publication of sensitive information.
A new episode of the television show Black Mirror brings sextortion to the small screen.
It wasn't okay when the Left drank the Wikileaks KoolAid, and it's not okay when the Trumpist Right does it either.
I have very little sense of what really happened between the government, Yahoo and the FISA court. So I'm going to wait to have an opinion until I actually know something. So should everyone else.
The Washington Post editorial page has no institutional duty whatsoever to defend a source simply because the news side won a Pulitzer based on his criminality. The editorial staff is not tasked with deciding whether or not to publish Snowden documents. The news staff is not tasked with opining on whether Snowden should get a pardon.
An astonishingly bad piece appeared in Politico this week attacking FBI Director James Comey. The thesis is bold. The evidence is shockingly weak. Critical history and information is left out. Quotations are seemingly intentionally distorted. And important information in the story is just wrong.
Since the New York Times editorial page has apparently now decided that I have impeccable judgment on matters of law and national security, I have a bunch of other Lawfare posts for the editorial page staff there to read: my many posts on factual errors in the Times editorial page's Guantanamo coverage.
I have no objection to closing Guantanamo. But the latest New York Times editorial on the subject is a face-palmingly bad argument that will convince nobody who has not already bathed in, let alone drank, the Kool-Aid.
Much of what ought to be said about Sunday’s New York Times Magazine profile of Ben Rhodes has already been said, including by Rhodes himself. But the article’s substantive claims, particularly regarding the Obama administration’s approach to Iran, are serious enough to warrant yet another response.
What is the New York Times saying about Julian Assange?