Newsweek has a story on the former federal prosecutor who was one of the whistleblowers involved in the illegal surveillance story that the NYT delayed for so long, including after the 2004 elections. The guy, with little warning (ads during Olberman was more focused on lame shoe throwing visuals), was on Rachel Maddow last night. We learn that he blinks a lot and basically thinks the Bush Administration breaks the law in various ways. This does not diminish what he did, though one comment (John) here suggests that such hatred does just that. It sounds like another "they just hate Bush" whine, ignoring that they dislike the guy for a bloody reason.
Anyway, what do you do when your government is breaking the law? Tricky business, especially when you are in their midst and they do not seem to care. More so when secret information is involved. Some argue -- I find this too high of a standard -- he just didn't try hard enough to work within challenges first. Partially I say this because how exactly do we know what would work, not just some technical show that would be meaningless. I refer back to this comment string, including the comments of "Fraud Guy" to underline how the story here seems mixed. Also, as to what he knew, (1) he is not going to publicly say anything and (2) he was but one source.
Rachel referenced the refusal of his own colleagues to do anything. But, it was a bit vague: we don't learn actually the chain of command here and such. The secrecy issue (overblown, selectively honored and not the highest good, especially when criminality is involved) also wasn't addressed. This is not to say he was wrong because of the secrecy. But, civil disobedience is not black/white simply because it sometimes is justified. This one-sided, woefully incomplete affair was sadly not atypical in the least. Keith Olberman is too much of a clown, especially with his constant FOX News gotchas (oh shut up already), but Rachel too speaks to the choir.
I'm part of the choir. Problem is, I too want a bit more diversity in my music. Maddow, albeit at times is predictable ways, tends to be more level-headed about her side. Playful times with opponents on talking head shows helped there. Sadly, her show is not really so much better than the norms so many criticize on the "MSM," in part because she basically is part of it. Some on comment threads realize the fact. One negatively compared her to Bill Moyers (Glen Greenwald was on both). But, as I have noted in the past, BM is no nirvana. He too seems to speak to the choir. The fact it is an "alternative" choir (see also, Democracy Now!) is relevant, but only so much.*
If anything, this underlines the need for diversity in media, competition ensuring that biases and incomplete coverage in some fashion cancel out and build on each other. This only helps so much, since people tend to view only certain media and the standard line** often is all over the place, even if one disagrees with it in some fashion. But, it helps some.
---
* As I noted, a couple was one the show some months back in part because they were a successful professional black couple who divided between Clinton and Obama. Moyers for some reason didn't ask them about a few of the key things that led many not to like Clinton.
On another show, he had Jeremiah Wright on. It basically gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. Important. But, Moyers (in part claiming "time restraints") failed to ask him to answer for a few of the more controversial things he said. Why the hell not? This underlines, all over the place, talking past each other that avoids core issues. It soon looks mighty hopeless.
** This happens all over the place. I referenced this in my football comments. The SL was that the Giants had a horrible game last Sunday. True. But, the game was clinched by a thirty eight yard run with barely two minutes to play. The score was 7-3 at the end of the Third Quarter. This was not a game where the Giants never had a chance. Not with 14-8 mid-4th and a stop meaning one drive could bring the go ahead score.