Sometimes, what's behind a story is at least as important as what's in it. Transparency matters; it's the foundation of trust, and sometimes the impetus for good and important debates. Let's look at how these ideas play out in 4 different cases:
The controversy around PFC Jessica Lynch's rescue, begun by the Toronto Star. LaughingWolf talks about the journalistic checks and balances that should be on a story like this, and finds them wanting. That doesn't prove the truth or falsity of the story, but as LaughingWolf points out there were several opportunities not taken here. In the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal at the NY Times, that should at least make us cautious.
UPDATE: The Command Post has more. So does our comments section.
So, exactly how much oil does Iraq have, anyway? The answer matters: to OPEC quotas, to its economic future, to the policy debate. The problem is, we have several figures and they're almost 100 billion barrels apart. Who's right? What are the implications? The Brookings Institution goes behind the story and explains. Another story of transparency & trust.
Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips writes that forgetting what's behind the curtain can have tragic results. Her example is the recent "Road-map to Hell" involving the Israelis and Palestinians.
You know something strange is afoot when the U.S. Justice Department uses tax dollars to pay for a study they say proves that an anti-crime program works, but refuses to make public the data behind the study. It's a bad precendent for Homeland Security and the Patriot Act - citizens need this kind of transparency in order to assess the trade-offs.
The good news is that both the left and the right in America have become active on issues of rights and security. M. Simon believes that it's part of a larger trend, and he notes that it's true on a local level as well. Here in the blogosphere, Liberty Watchtower has set up to become The Command Post for civil rights and Patriot Act related material. Winds of Change.NET has joined as a team, and the post above represents our first contribution.Transparency, and trust. Whom do you trust, and why?
Re: the Lynch story.
Reading all the sources, it sounds like the Good Guys made an entry like one they would have made into a building full of possible bad guys and hostages, and didn't necessarily encounter any Bad Guys.
Flashbangs would have accounted for a lot of the witnesses' confusion about 'live' weapons, and not knowing if there was a relief force (of Bad Guys) on the way, I can well imagine they would have just cut her out of whatever bed/mechanism she was in.
There's really no reason to doubt that both stories are true...and the fact that the building turned out to eb empty in no way compromises the heroism of the teams that walked in assuming that it was full of hostiles. The fact that all the witnesses are alive is testimony to the professionalism of the entry team.
A.L.
I think its a matter of "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst". Could anyone know for sure that the opposing forces were truly gone? ...that it wasn't a set up? Trust is a scarce commodity and a good amount of doubt can keep you alive.
War is not a hollywood movie. But I do think the press treats it as such.