E-Mailbag: "Most Of Us" Don't Always Agree

After PE looked into the decision by CBS News to withhold some information about the FBI's advances in discovering the origins of some Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) being used against U.S. troops in Iraq, we received this e-mail from reader Dan R.:

Dear CBS Public Eye,

In your January 18, 2006, story "CBS News Withholds Details At FBI's Request" the statement is made: "Most of us can agree that we don't want the FBI, or any government agency, deciding what we should and shouldn't know."

I definitely do not agree. And I believe your assumption that "most of us" do is simply wrong. I believe it's more likely that "most of us" are just fine not knowing many things that individuals in the media decide that we should know. Concerning the common welfare of our country, and our people around the world, I would much rather that those employed by the citizens to maintain a safe, orderly society actually make such decisions. We pay them to do just that.

Be it the FBI or any other government ("citizen's") agency, their training and activities are specifically defined and focused on various activities for the common good. That's why we've created and continue to fund and rely upon them. They are not always perfect -- and the media rightly informs the public anytime there is even suspicion such may be the case. But because these agencies – comprised, by the way, of our own individual neighbors, friends and relatives -- perform very well overall, we continue to enjoy a way of life that is the envy of the world.

I believe that it's individuals in the media who are obsessed with deciding what the public should and shouldn't know. I believe that "most of us" see it that way. I believe that "most of us" don't care to know many of the items of information put before us by the media. "Most of us" are stuck with the information the media decides we should know. "Most of us" often ask the questions, "How is that news?"; "Why are they telling us that?"; "And the reason I need to (or would want to) know that is...?"

I believe that some individuals in the media have the perspective noted above because "most of us" simply don't take the time to correct you. We're busy working hard and playing hard, enjoying the life preserved for us by those government agencies that don't tell us every detail of their activities which keep us safe. It's not a matter of ignorance is bliss. Rather, that all information is not worth sharing simply because you have it.

Information may be helpful, meaningless or harmful. Some harmful information needs to be restricted to prevent it from causing even greater harm. "Most of us" call that a no-brainer. I believe I speak for "most of us" when I say that I applaud CBS for doing the right thing in that regard for this story.

Finally, I believe that "most of us" understand all of this and simply go about daily life, forced to ingore the endless pieces of minutia someone in the media has decided that we all should know.

I do think it is safe to say that "most of us" -- at one time or another and depending on our interests, worldview and beliefs – do not want the government or its institutions to solely decide what information the public should or should not receive. For every individual that may trust a particular administration or agency, there is another who does not and those views may certainly change depending on who is controlling the levers of power.

Also, information certainly "may be helpful, meaningless or harmful." Judgments about that, however, also differ depending on the view of the individual. Take the NSA wire-tapping story, for instance. Many view the publication of that information by The New York Times as harmful to the national interest, as President Bush has claimed. Others see it as a service alerting Americans to a possible violation of citizens' rights. Those issues can be, and are, fiercely debated, but in the end individuals will make their own judgments on it.

In the case of the CBS story, reported by correspondent Jim Stewart, it certainly appears that the network made a reasoned decision, based on a case made by the FBI. Not knowing precisely the information left out of the story makes an ultimate verdict difficult, but it's understandable to exercise caution when dealing with devices that have killed and maimed so many American soldiers.

It's not always that easy, though, and given the disparate views of many in the country, isn't it important to have a vibrant and responsible press to dig out information that some may want to keep secret? While you may have a different view of what "responsible" means, why should we have more faith in government entities to disseminate information than the media? In most cases, shouldn't individuals be left to decide what is and is not meaningful information? Isn't that what a free press is all about?