Censored news topic censored ...

[Ernest Hua]

> > Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like
> > to explain just what happened here?
>
> I'll take a stab: milk spills, people trip, shit happens.
>
> They probably didn't mean it.
>
> But who knows.


My best guess is shit happens, but my criticism was aimed
at the rather ironic situation where a topic about a topic
being censored was, itself, censored.  Now, I wouldn't
necessarily have taken that second "censored" quite as
seriously as Mr Suarez has in his E-Mails, but I suppose
"censor" might have a very serious connotation in the news
business (deliberateness, conspiracy, etc.).  It is clear
that he is, at least, aware of the fact that the bill
passed under questionable circumstances.  He probably took
my pre-screen literally as "he wants to talk about this
wire tap thing again, but I've already covered it in a
previous show".  In any case, the point is precisely what
Dan Gillmor in San Jose Mercury (and also in the interview
with Market Place) said:  It's not what was passed; it's
how it was passed and when it was passed, and the deliberate
attempt to keep the public from knowing much about it.

Notice that all the news talk today about the FCC discussing
the new mobile wire tap provision has pretty much assumed
that the 1994 $500M Digital Telephony (a.k.a. CALEA) bill
was passed matter of fact.  No one mentioned that it was
passed also at the last minute under questionable
circumstances during 11th hour budget deals.  No one even
questions the fact that Louis Freeh and Janet Reno claimed
that civil libertarians and phone companies were exaggerating
the >$2B price and were absolutely sure the $500M was more
than adequate.  Does anyone believe that a >$2B CALEA would
have passed?  Even in the dark of night?

The lesson here to the FBI is, go ahead ... exaggerate ...
lie if you have to ... no one is going to call you on it.

Ern