Commentary: , Patterns in the White Noise:

Forgetting fundamentals amidst the uproar from the partisan noise machines

A reporter at Newsweek makes an error in trusting sources, the editors make another error in underestimating the fallout of reporting the anonymously-sourced story that has implications for the overly-sensitive Muslim community in world hot spots who have many members looking for an excuse to rouse the crowds in anti-US riots, and yet again out come the tired applications of "liberal bias" and the even more overworked cries of "traitors" by some bloggers.

Sadly enough, at least one of the criers of havoc regarding the motives of those at Newsweek is someone who claims to despise "motive-based" arguments.

Given how readily the media bought the line that the Democrats supposedly made up the term "nuclear option" to describe the attempt to end the filibuster of judicial nominations when the term had been coined by a Republican gives lie to many of the bias accusations and instead brings to my mind a question of competence.

Did Newsweek screw up?

Yes, in a big way, and that should not be overlooked.

However (and you knew, reading me, there was going to be a "however").

Let's look at two fundamentals.

First, the news media itself.

There are cries from both the right AND the left about bias in the media. I have read from big bloggers on both sides of the spectrum call CNN a shill for their opposites.

Odd, that. I don't see the right calling Fox News biased towards the left, but then, I can't read everything.

This is beside the point. The extremists on both sides are prepared to see any inaccuracies, poor wording, or thoughtless headlines as "proof" of bias.

Sorry, folks, that ain't the case.

Let's take a subject that I can reasonably say I am an expert in, science.

Reporting on science is frequently inaccurate, with poor wording, thoughtless headlines, and conclusions in stories that do not represent at all what the sources told the reporters.

I know this from personal experience, in more than one case.

Does this mean the news media has an agenda?

Nope.

It means they add "drama" to the stories by giving screaming headlines and the most extreme conclusions that they pressed out of the people they interviewed who gave huge hedges against drawing any firm conclusions. You could say there is an agenda, but it is driven by getting eyeballs to read the stories, not based on ideology or philosophy other than what will get the public to read.

Does this mean the news media is biased against science?

Nope.

It means that reporters make mistakes. Often. Even when they are trying to get it right and work hard to report accurately.

Does this mean we should give them a free pass when they make mistakes?

Nope.

It DOES mean that we should be careful in crying havoc and screaming "traitors!" or making motivation-based arguments.

One of my favorite "laws" of nature, akin to Murphy's Law, is Hanlon's Razor:

Do not attribute to malevolence what can be ascribed to simple incompetence.

The second, more important point about this whole matter is one that is not pleasant, but must be addressed.

I have written often on the dangers of having an extra-legal prison set up at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay. The dangers I spoke of were mainly internal, as in a precedent of secrecy with respect to incarceration that is a very bad precedent for a democratic society that depends on both governmental openness along with free discussion by the citizens for its lifeblood.

It is now apparent that this secret prison also has implications outside of our nation beyond the black eye given to a nation that preaches freedom and democracy abroad while holding prisoners in a location deliberately chosen to be outside the reach of the judicial system. The implications have been shown by the reaction to the report of supposed desecration of the Koran.

If the prison was truly open, then the reports would not be as credible, and neither would the reports of torture perpetrated there which continue to trickle out.

In other words, the veil of secrecy over this extra-legal prison is doing more harm than good, to our foreign policy, to our reputation in the world, and in the end, to our democracy itself.

We have established the President can declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" with no judicial review.

We have established an extra-legal prison beyond the reach of judicial review.

We have passed the Real ID act, a law that has provisions enabling the Secretary of Homeland Security to make decisions that are exempt from judicial review.

Are actions taken out under a dark cloak of secrecy really good for democracy, which depends upon examination of governmental actions in the light of day?

Are exemptions of decisions and actions by one branch of government from review by another branch of government really in the spirit of the separation of powers and associated, vital checks and balances that the founders incorporated to prevent tyranny?

Don't react, think about this for a while.

There are broader implications than the partisan politics of the day. Unfortunately, our so-called "leaders" can't see beyond their next election, beyond the next opportunity to increase their own power.

Is this the path we really want to be traveling?