When Propaganda Postures As Honest Journalism
Posted on January 24, 2007
Sarah Olson calls herself an independent journalist. Ehren Watada is a U.S. Army Officer who refuses to deploy to Iraq, for which the Army has proffered charges against him. In August of last year, Sarah Olson conducted an interview with 1LT Watada. She was then subpoenaed by LT Watada’s military prosecutors to testify as one of their witnesses. Sarah Olson, however, is acting like a kid who doesn’t want to go to the doctor’s because she’s afraid of needles.
As an element of their prosecution, the U.S. Army has cobbled together portions of my interview with Lieutenant Watada and, together, these statements comprise the foundation of one charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. To substantiate this alleged crime, the U.S. Army has subpoenaed me to testify on behalf of the prosecution against my source. The dynamics of the situation are clear. When the military chooses to prosecute a soldier for expressing dissenting political positions to a member of the press, that journalist is unwittingly and inevitably forced into the middle of the conflict.
When a journalist records and publicizes the views of a certain individual within the framework of an interview, even when those views and opinions can be prosecutable, then said journalist has the professional and moral duty to vouch for the veracity of the contents of said interview. Such a truth can not be covered by the screeching and unjustified use of words such as “unwittingly and inevitably forced into the middle of the conflict.†Dissent is not a specific form of particularly protected speech, as opposed to speech that opposes the dissenting point of view, and that would therefore benefit from less protection. Furthermore, Sarah Olson conveniently fails to acknowledge one painfully obvious point: she made herself a part of what she disingenuously calls “the conflict†when she conducted LT Watada’s interview, and then made it available to be read by anyone interested.
Doesn’t it fly in the face of the First Amendment to compel a journalist to participate in a government prosecution against a source, particularly in matters related to personal political speech?
Actually, no, it doesn’t. Again, Sarah Olson does not, in her own article, point to any circumstance that would lead anyone to believe that she is being subpoenaed to reveal either a confidential source or confidential information. It does, however, fly in the face of the fair and equitable exercise of military justice to refuse to testify for no good reason.
What could be more hostile to the idea of a free press than a journalist participating in the suppression of newsworthy speech?
Unless the statements made by LT Watada during the course of his interview were edited, modified or changed in any way, shape or form, the question is 100% irrelevant. What is relevant is that Sarah Olson’s subpoena for testimony actually protects her right to propagate what she calls “newsworthy speech†by giving her a chance to confirm that the publicized text of the interview is true to 1LT Watada’s original statements.
As a journalist, if the government has a free hand to destroy my credibility and prevent me from doing my job, what incentive do I have to cover unpopular topics?
“Ms. Olson, did LT Watada make the statements that are related in your interview transcript?†How on God’s green earth is such a question a destruction of her credibility or an obstacle to her doing her job? Her job was already done, for crying out loud!
So what is wrong with this woman? Just one thing. She isn’t really a journalist. She is a propagandist. She doesn’t want to go testify because she agrees with LT Watada, and those common beliefs are more important to her than what she sees as feeding ammo to the “evil-baby-killers-who-are-going-to-throw-this-beautiful-man-of-conscience-in jailâ€. She is just running around, projecting the image of a lone woman fighting for the truth and the soul of this country while being held in the clutches of the maniacal military-industrial complex. She’s a left-wing politically biased advocate hiding behind a grotesquely built shield of pseudo-journalism; for proof, just look at the titles of some articles she wrote in the past. She has only 2 choices: obey the law or go to jail. Personally, if she took option 2, I wouldn’t shed a tear.
(Crossposted at Veni, Vidi, Bloggi)
» Filed Under Illegal Activities
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “When Propaganda Postures As Honest Journalism”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
Sure, it doesn’t sound like her legal arguments have any basis. She doesn’t want to testify and she’s whining about it. How do you make the leap to “propagandist”?
If being wrong makes one a propagandist, we have a few hundred million of them in this country.
Re Jeff Molby’s comment
I don’t think you really understand the situation. Watada gave her an interview and she turned it into a glowing piece on “this beautiful man of conscience in jail.” She took his quotes and reproduced them in her piece. The question she will be asked in court is to verify that she represented his words accurately. That’s it. When you ask how she could be called a “propagandist,” the general definition of that word is someone who writes a story from a pre-determined point of view and dismisses any contrary facts that veer from that POV. We do have a lot of “propagandists” here in this country and most are employed at our nation’s newsrooms. And by the way, it is possible to be both malicious and stupid.
It also appears that she feels guilty for having to help convict the defendant by verifying
the accuracy of her account of the interview.