After two years of research, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of hours poring over documents, the Washington Post investigation was unable to determine anything for sure — except, of course, that the security system is massive:
The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work....
After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is [that] the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.
Read more...
6 comments:
Who knows the original intentions for this series, but it is largely half-truths, bad "reporting," and just misleading graphics and statements (whether by accident or not). I personally think that reporting this information if it was truthful would be stupid, but reporting it halfway is stupid for twice as many reasons (although not as severe).
Well, I agree a little, but for a different reason, which is that I trust the Washington Post about as far as I can throw it. Aside from that, why is it stupid to report this?
This is a quote from the editors.
"One government body objected to certain data points on the site and explained why; we removed those items. Another agency objected that the entire Web site could pose a national security risk but declined to offer specific comments.
We made other public safety judgments about how much information to show on the Web site. For instance, we used the addresses of company headquarters buildings, information which, in most cases, is available on companies' own Web sites, but we limited the degree to which readers can use the zoom function on maps to pinpoint those or other locations."
In cases where they were pretty close to being accurate, it proved to be too accurate for security reasons (targeting by foreign counter-intelligence groups, physical attackers, etc.). The average American citizen is not a concern, until you get to the accuracy issue. In many cases, the public is just plainly lied to in maps and text (including timelines). Lying to the public seems to be the opposite of what our "free press" should be aiming for. I suppose the editors feel we should be convinced by their reassurances like, "Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records." I could build a wall of crap with each data point substantiated by two or more public records- all for whatever objective(s) I had personally.
I see what you're saying. But if the norm for citing references is using other verifiable material, then it isn't logical to dismiss the premise without first discrediting the source or the information in the referenced material. If the references (public records) are inaccurate, that's one thing. If the negative reaction to the information is an emotional response to a challenge to secretive government and bureaucratic orthodoxy, that is another. I didn't even read the entire series, much less verify the public records. Either way, the Post is, at the least, several years behind on their reporting (at least with the overall theme), and at worst is manipulating the information under a Operation Mockingbird-type format. I'm sure you'll agree : )
While I have no emotional interests in the matter, I can't discredit the source information in many cases because it is never provided by the Post. That alone seems a bit hypocritical considering the subject matter.
I just don't understand. I just found an area on the top secret america (tsa) map that shows fewer organizations after 9/11 than before 9/11, the organizations are incorrectly labeled by "type", and I can go to public, official, government websites that show that the organizations were either there before and after, or grew/expanded after 9/11. This information is easy to find, helps support the main story (growth of organizations after 9/11, more money, etc.), and yet is completely wrong and not in alignment with the narrative of the report. They can't even support their own story correctly! I don't have an issue with challenging government and bureaucratic orthodoxy, but please do it correctly, Post! Without digressing into an international economical soapbox, I'll just say that in my opinion, half-assedness (its a word) is what will bring a great nation down before most other issues. Red Foreman has a similar opinion if I remember correctly.
Post a Comment