I misread and should clarify: He's watching from the NSA headquarters north of DC, not at Guantanamo himself!

www.smh.com.au/world/north-...

"Some, but not all, of Nurjaman’s legal proceedings are open to the public and media. But attending is a logistical minefield. Reporters must apply, pay for a seat on a once-weekly flight to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and stay in tents for the week until a return flight the following weekend."

Lama Deus

The saddest and most portentous thing about Besser's report? No editor would talk to him to defend the practice!

--fin --

That's the way the system should work. Again, it's not the government's fault. Let them extend what conditions they wish. Conditions that are unethical or not in keeping with the paper's responsibility to readers simply need to be called out.

(10/11)

And they can also write an accompany story each time the matter arises, explaining the process and again naming the louche outfits that went along. Flood the zone with detail about it all each time it happens.

(9/11)

The papers that don't go along should make it hurt:

"The SMH [or whoever] does not make deals with the government to limit the information we give to readers.

"The ______, _____, and ______ do things differently. We don't think that is journalism. It's government-approved propaganda."

(8/11)

Yes, it hurts a bit to cite the competition as the source of the news. The paper just has to be patient, explain to its audiences the circumstances, and pointedly include the third-party comment.

(7/11)

But the story should also include the sausage-making behind the scenes — that the info was supplied early to other outlets that agreed not to produce any actual journalism about the news.

(6/11)

But here, the trouble is the media agreeing to it! They should say no. As Besser says, their responsibility is to their readers, not the government.

My contention: Let the competition get the scoop. And then a paper +can+ write about it, including the third-party comment.

(5/11)

It's an arrangement that actually works in some contexts. For example, film critics traditionally get to see movies early, so they have time to write a substantive review, positive or negative. The deal is they can't run the review until the release date.

(4/11)

But, there's nothing wrong with the government doing it. It can release information under whatever conditions it wants. A deal's a deal!

(3/11)

The issue: Canberra releases news, but embargoes it until a specific time and requires journos not to elicit third-party comment when they write about it. It gives the government a free news cycle for potentially controversial news. It's of course wrong and inimical to good journalism.

(2/11)

In one of the DVDs's special features, it's said that Redford was ultimately riding around with them as the pair kept reporting the story ... a factoid not mentioned in any of the books at the time. "As we stood at the doorway getting nowhere with Dean's wife, Redford sat in the car waiting..."

archive.is/U5jSk

(link to a WSJ article)

www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta...