By Tom Shoop | Monday, September 10, 2007 | 12:17 PM
In a speech Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said he has "very deep respect for journalists and for their profession." But then he devoted a healthy chunk of his address to critiquing media coverage of the agency.
"Just as they report on the terrorists, it’s the job of journalists to report on the how the war against terrorism is being fought," Hayden said. "And when their spotlight is cast on intelligence activities, sound judgment and a thorough understanding of all the equities at play are critically important. Revelations of sources and methods -- and an impulse to drag anything CIA does to the darkest corner of the room -- can make it very difficult for us to do our vital work."
"Journalists, on their own, simply don’t have all the facts needed to make the call on whether [intelligence] information can be released without harm," Hayden said. But then he went on to set up something of a Catch-22. The agency, he said, often can't give them that information, either.
"When the media claims an oversight role on our clandestine operations, it does so in an arena where we cannot clarify, explain, or defend our actions without doing further damage to our sources and methods."
The agency's true overseers, Hayden said, are in Congress, which has "full access to our operations and takes our security requirements into account."
For what it's worth, here's my two cents on this issue: I think Hayden has a point that more than a few journalists have a knee-jerk tendency to drag what the CIA or other federal agencies do to the "darkest corner of the room." But let's be honest: The agency has played a role in fostering such cynicism through its own performance historically. And I don't think that journalists should cede their role in overseeing what the CIA does to Congress or anyone else. Because it's simply not unheard of that the people's representatives on Capitol Hill would be complicit in an effort to keep vital information about the agency from the public without valid reason.
Obviously, this is an area that cries out for responsible journalism -- and the agency can help in that effort by doing everything in its power to work with journalists to explain why certain activities must be kept under wraps.
Comments
I've found Hayden to be an honest advocate over the years. I can't say the same about some of the journalist I've know. It's a matter of trust. "We" the public don't need to know each detail - we may "want" to know, but to jeopardize our lives for the sake of a front story headline is just plain wrong.
Denny | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 02:05 AMABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
SEARCH THIS BLOG
ARCHIVES
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace










