The Obama’s Justice Department Ends Reporting as We Know It?

One of my staples when it comes to cable news is the Rachel Maddow Show.  Not because she says everything that I want to hear but because she as well as Lawrence O'Donnell and sometimes Chris Matthews, get a hold of a certain subject and present it so that both sides are plain and it is easy to understand where each is coming from.  Like the rest of cable news, one can also plainly see where their allegiance lies but still is oftentimes seen as equal presentation of the facts.  This makes it quite enjoyable for a political news junkie, like me, to make an educated decision on which side I wish to rest or whether I create a much different view than any provided.

Rachel Maddow was speaking on how the monitoring of the Associated Press (AP) phones were the death of unbiased and investigative journalism.  She seemed to favor the “whistleblower” and seemed annoyed at the fact that the Obama Administration’s Justice Department handling of this matter would now cause “leakers” and “whistleblowers” to not speak to the press for fear that they will be found out and be retaliated against.  Her presentation was quite sound and made quite a few excellent points that anyone wishing to make an educated decision about where they stood needed to hear.  In her usual way, she made it simple to understand and for anyone who might now have a dog in the race, they would quickly and completely side with her.  But allow me, if you will, present you with another side that is not carried by either MSNBC or Fox News.   We all know that when it comes to Fox, nothing this president or his administration does will ever please them and I can see why so may have stopped trying.  I have not heard much coming from them on this subject, probably because the last thing Fox ever want to do is be seen agreeing with any action this president or his administration take.

My points regarding this AP phone mishap is this.  At what point do journalist, commentators and investigators cross the line when what they wish to report will or may endanger the lives of those serving?  At what point does “whistleblowers” and “leakers” cease being the primary source of “breaking news”?  Anyone who provides documents that are not theirs to possess are guilty of larceny after trust and each of their cases should be looked at on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not jail-time is appropriate.  These “leakers” and those who received and sourced these documents should be prepared to take responsibility for the results of their actions without crying foul.  Same can be said for “whistleblowers” except closer attention should be paid to the amount of time that elapsed between the individual knowing of this problem and divulging it.  If you know that a problem exist in a certain company or structure yet you said or did nothing about it for three plus years, you are not a “whistleblower” but a disgruntled employee. 

If “whistleblowers” and “leakers” are like Ms. Maddow makes them out to be, an endangered specie and a hero to the news industry, then by all means, let’s don them in a mask and cape and hail the very earth that they tread, but if they are not, as I claim, then let’s call them out for what they are and make justice equal for all.  A hero does not wait years before going into action and they surely do not do it to advance their own causes except the cause of “right”.  If it takes you three years or more to get your fill of sickening practices, then do not rush to stand under the “whistleblower” umbrella. 

Because no one really knows exactly what the Obama Justice Department was investigating and why they felt the need to subpoena AP’s phone records, we cannot honestly say that it was wrong or right.  Based on what we know today, however, we can clearly see how some may be right when they speak of “ overreach”.  Their ability to get a secret warrant bothers me as well but what bothers me more is the fact that the 1^st Amendment does not give the press the right to aid in the death of anyone, especially those who are already placing their lives in jeopardy so that people like the journalist at the AP can enjoy that 1^st Amendment.