A contrary view on the Pulitzers
WASHINGTON — On Monday, my Washington Post colleagues celebrated winning the Pulitzer Prize for public service along with the Guardian newspaper for their reporting on Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency.
On Wednesday, Post columnist Marc Thiessen hosted a counterdemonstration.
Thiessen, who writes a weekly online column for The Post, hosted an event at the American Enterprise Institute devoted in large part to denouncing the Guardian, The Post and the Pulitzer committee for their actions. Thiessen, also an AEI fellow, said journalists at The Post — “my newspaper,” as he put it — should not have published the articles and did something “incredibly damaging” to national security.
Thiessen had already written that The Post’s actions broke the law, and there has been healthy debate about the Pulitzer board’s decision. But Thiessen’s guest, British member of Parliament Liam Fox, went further.
“What sort of world do we live in where that gets a Pulitzer Prize for public service?” he asked the AEI audience. “An award for public service for possibly the greatest betrayal of our national secrets of all time strikes me as quite bizarre.”
The two kicked around the idea journalists might be to blame for future terrorist attacks.
“If there is another 9/11, another London subway bombing, how is this debate going to look in retrospect?” Thiessen asked.
“You could take a very politically tempting route to say, well, thank you to the newspapers who have helped Mr. Snowden. Thank you to those who have given awards to those who have helped betray our national secrets,” Fox said, before proposing it’s not time to “get into pointing the finger.”
But minutes earlier, Fox said: “The next time when you get a bomb going off in a subway or a marathon, when someone’s child is abducted by a pedophile ring, you might want to thank those who made it easier for those people to do those things.”
Fox didn’t seem to know much about the Snowden dispute on this side of the Atlantic — at one point, he confused The Washington Post and the New York Times — and, in any event, he was much more aggrieved by what Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian did than anything else. But it took some gall for the MP to cross the pond to deliver a lecture on what’s wrong with the public discourse in America.
“Just as I think there is a smug, self-congratulatory element inside the media, which lives in a very limited bubble,” he said, “I think the same applies to Beltway politicians who are obsessed with the internal mechanics of politics and with, let’s face it, abstract political issues.”
The American emphasis on these abstract issues — namely, civil liberties — means “the penny has not dropped” for Americans the way it has for Britons, who are more tolerant of their spies. Fox said there has been a “Beltway discussion where the media is congratulating itself,” and he asked: “Has anyone shown that any of the surveillance activity has been illegal under the oversight that is set up in the United States under a system that is overseen by Congress? … It seems to me that the argument has always been hijacked by libertarian elements in United States politics.”
Thiessen raised the possibility American conservatives were “duped” by a “left-wing cabal that is trying to undermine American diplomacy and American intelligence.”
I respect Thiessen’s passion, but I think the explanation might be simpler. Unlike Fox’s constituents, Americans have a Bill of Rights, drafted by our forebears in reaction to the rule of Fox’s forebears. It protects, among other things, our free speech and privacy.
Certainly, many of the Snowden-fueled disclosures following the original NSA revelation have been gratuitous and harmful; those, and his sheltering in Russia rather than arguing his case in a U.S. court, raise doubts about his motives. But the original NSA leaks were justified because U.S. intelligence officials misled the public and members of Congress about the program. There’s no value of “oversight” if the overseers are fed lies.
Fox went on, about the “ultra-narcissistic” Snowden committing “treason” and the Guardian’s “incompetence, arrogance, all added to a perverse anti-Western ideology.”
“I am outraged,” the Briton said. “I hope you’re outraged.”
“I’m outraged,” Thiessen assured him.
This hadn’t been in doubt.
Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post whose work appears Mondays and Fridays. Email him at email@example.com.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.