By Paul Greenberg
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
It happened years ago in Calgary, Alberta, where the
National Conference of Editorial Writers was holding its convention that year.
Was it in the '70s or '80s, and does it matter? Much has changed since then,
and not for the better. The organization started as a simple meeting of a few
editorial writers to shoot the bull, but by now it's cast its web wider and
vaguer, becoming the Association of Opinion Journalists, whatever "opinion
journalists" are. Anybody who ever started his own blog or wrote a letter
to the editor?
The disappearance of the old-fashioned editorial writer
has pretty much paralleled the disappearance of the old-fashioned newspaper. It
is not a change for the better.
Our annual meetings ought to be as personal and
idiosyncratic as any other anarchists' convention. Ideally, they would be as
gossipy as tea in the servants' quarters after our masters have turned in for
the night and left the household in peace.
But even by the time we met at Calgary, editorial writers
were putting on airs -- just as the once baronial publishers who used to own
American newspapers, generation after generation, were losing theirs. Once
great newspapers began going public or just going under, their editorial voices
growing blander and blander till they weren't there at all.
We should have known what was going to happen once we
started following parliamentary procedure, holding plenary sessions and
adopting sonorous resolutions by the ream. But we just sat there quietly,
listening to professors of journalism address the State of the Profession -- as
if our ragtag bunch were one, and as much a conspiracy against the laity as any
other.
That year at Calgary, one solemn resolution proposed that
we stop talking to the CIA, since a number of journalists abroad had been
assassinated on the pretext that we were all CIA agents, capitalist spies,
tools of imperialism and, well, you know the rest. As if the killers were so
lacking in imagination they couldn't come up with some other excuse to do away
with us if they hadn't invented this one.
So there we were in all too solemn convention assembled,
First Amendment or no, debating whether we should gag ourselves. I dissented,
being an American, and unaccustomed to being told whom I could talk to or not
talk to. Memory grows furtive, but I believe the resolution was defeated. That
it was ever considered was disgraceful enough.
These strange days, the National Security Agency has
succeeded the CIA as the villain du jour in the more respectable reaches of the
Fourth Estate.
It seems the Boardwalk-and-Park Avenue sector of the
press is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that our snoops have discovered
meta-data, and have been keeping tabs on phone calls and emails by the millions
all around the globe, noting their time, origin and duration. Without regard to
race, creed, color or social and political status. A distinguished German
chancellor -- wasn't that Herr Hitler's old title? -- is as likely to have her
cell phone tapped as some scroungy terrorist from one of the indistinguishable
Stans in Central Asia. Like democracy, espionage is a great leveler.
A court's permission may still be needed to peek at the
contents of such messages, but that's not enough for the New York Times-ish
editorialists among us, who profess themselves horrified when they discover
that our national security agency should be so interested in protecting our
national security.
It occurs to some of us that, if the CIA and FBI and NSA
had been allowed to talk even to each other before September 11, 2001, that
date might not have become another one that will live in infamy. If only Big
Data could have been mined back then the way it is now, the country might have
been a lot safer. Along with the thousands of innocent victims who found
themselves in the Twin Towers that fateful day. Not to mention others rushing
to their rescue as firefighters and cops. And the troops who were stationed at
the Pentagon as airliners were turned into flaming engines of destruction,
their passengers and crews wiped out. Including those who, like the ones aboard
valiant United 93, were the first to mount a counterattack against the
terrorists in this still continuing war.
How soon we forget. Now our chattering class can be
counted on to object, vociferously and repetitiously, to snooping on our
enemies. It's an old reflex, an echo of the genteel distaste embodied in Henry
Stimson's remark when, as secretary of state in 1929, he disbanded the
department's code-breaking office because "gentlemen don't read each
other's mail."
But even Mr. Stimson, a gentleman of the old school,
learned better as the threats to the nation's security mounted in the '30s, and
changed his mind. It remains to be seen whether our current crop of
respectables are as educable.
By now dozens of New York Times editorials have denounced
the use of meta-data merely to protect the country. To hear the Times tell it,
that new kind of intelligence-gathering isn't just a prudent precaution. It's
part of the process of creating a "national surveillance state."
We're all supposed to shudder at that point. Those of us without so finely
developed a suicidal instinct can only respond: Surveil away!
But a funny thing happened on the way to the next
outraged editorial in the no longer so good or gray New York Times: The Times
itself realized it had been the object of "a malicious external
attack," to quote one of its executives. An attack not by the CIA or NSA
or FBI but by sophisticated hackers who called themselves the Syrian Electronic
Army, a euphemism for what appears to be an arm of Bashar al-Assad's ruthless
regime in Syria.
Months before that computerized attack, the Times had
complained that hackers had stolen the corporate passwords of all its
employees, gained access to 53 of its computers, and snuck into the email
accounts of a couple of its reporters who cover China.
Shocking. Suddenly the Times had use for the FBI, which
it called in to investigate this wholesale breach of its electronic walls. It
may have won a Pulitzer Prize or two for undermining national security itself
by revealing how our snoops traced the communications and finances of
terrorists, but this was different: Its own security had been compromised.
The rest of cyber-America will prove just as vulnerable
if our intelligence agencies aren't allowed to mine enough data to track and
prevent such hacker invasions. But it may take a while before that realization
filters down to the Times' own editorial writers. There's always got to be
somebody who's the last to catch on.
No comments:
Post a Comment