Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The NSA wiretap cases: Asymmetrical journalism?
Captain Ed notes that the government's supposedly "illegal" NSA surveillance program -- the one exposed by the New York Times -- has been litigated in front of 18 federal judges. Seventeen of those judges have upheld the program or otherwise found against the plaintiffs. One, Anna Diggs Taylor, struck down the program. Ed is fascinated by the disparity in news coverage:
I find it fascinating that Taylor's decision drew so much attention, but that the 17 decisions that went the other way have barely cracked the national press. One might suppose that these cases are also under appeal, but we have heard nothing about their existence nor their progress.
I wish I could be "fascinated." I would have been "fascinated" if it had been otherwise.
The truth is, a ruling that humiliates the mainstream media is not interesting. One that vindicates them warrants extended press coverage. Now matter how asinine the opinion.
3 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Dec 26, 11:53:00 PM:
Apples and oranges?
The 17 cases discussed in the New York Sun's article were all criminal cases in which judges "have ruled against requests to force the government to tell defendants, most accused of terrorism-related crimes, whether the NSA eavesdropped on them without a court warrant."
The single case is a civil action challenging the law itself, not asking to be told whether one has been surveilled.
I'm not being obtuse here. It pretty much just looks like an inept comparison.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Dec 27, 08:45:00 AM:
I'm not sure you're right, Screwy, that it is apples and oranges. The NSA surveillance is an activity under color of law, and Judge Taylor's decision struck down the activity, not any particular statute or regulation. My guess -- and it is extremely ill-informed -- is that there is a somewhat different standing requirement in the civil case than in the criminal case. However, Judge Taylor's unwillingness to consider the government's standing defense was one of the big criticisms of her opinion. You may be right that it isn't a perfect comparison, but it is more like lemons-to-limes than apples-to-oranges, I think.
In any case, the disparity in press coverage remains interesting. The press is usually very interested when a criminal is denied the right to see evidence against him (the other recent exception to that rule relating to Duke lacrosse players).
By ScurvyOaks, at
Wed Dec 27, 03:51:00 PM:
The real test of the press coverage will come if Judge Taylor's opinion -- which is of exceedingly poor judicial quality -- is reversed. Of course, a lot will turn on exactly what the court of appeals says. I'm betting that the appeals court's opinion and the subsequent press coverage (or relative lack of coverage) will set up TH for a post that links back to this one.
