QUESTION UNANSWER SESSION

What newspapers say can be frustrating, but I’m more frequently frustrated by what they don’t say. And the realization that I’m frustrated has grown recently, if not the problem itself.

This was thrown into sharp relief today while reading New York Times coverage of the trial of U.S. Army Capt. James J. Yee, which was put on hold as prosecutors “asked for extra time to determine whether documents that were found in Captain Yee’s luggage ... were, in fact, classified.”

This is incredible. First, it’s incredible because Yee was held in solitary confinement for three months on charges of espionage, and is now on trial on far lesser charges, since the espionage charges have essentially been dropped. Considering these facts, how is it possible prosecutors still need to find out whether those documents are classified? What have they been doing? On what information did they base their initial charges? On what information did they drop those charges?

The story does not let this angle go unaddressed. Indeed, much of the article discusses it.

Obvious, right? But that’s the second reason it’s incredible: the degree of relief I felt that a question arising as I read actually gets addressed.

But compare that with yesterday’s Times coverage of criticism of the United States by Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, which hews to our journalism’s “objectivity” by uncritically running quotes or paraphrases from U.S. officials to get “the other side.” Here’s our officials’ response:

“American officials said Mr. Wirajuda’s criticism of the United States for acting unilaterally neglected history and the fact that several administrations had worked in the United Nations for resolutions to get Iraq to allow weapons inspections and give up any illegal weapons.

“If the United States had waited for the multilateral approach that Indonesia, and many other countries, wanted, Ralph L. Boyce, the American ambassador here, told the conference, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and they would not be discussing how to achieve a stable, democratic Iraq.”

Effective -- but utterly ridiculous. Our rules of objectivity, or other unknown factors, allow the officials to respond to an ally’s harsh criticism and obvious fears with bland and misleading half-truths, as though they’ve actually given answers. So the piece goes through with no one pointing out not only that Iraq was allowing inspections and was willing to give up illegal weapons, but the apples-and-oranges nature of the response itself.

Wirajuda’s point was that U.S. actions, its “arbitrary pre-emptive war,” has made the world a more dangerous place. Letting an official answer that by saying “Saddam Hussein would still be in power” is intellectually dishonest.

Just as alarming, although in a different way, is a piece appearing in tomorrow’s Boston Herald, in which a Harvard University student sneaks a Tibetan flag into a speech by China’s premier and uses it for a one-person “Free Tibet” protest.

The student “said she does not expect to face criminal charges,” writes Hub Blogger and Herald writer Jay Fitzgerald.

Good God! Why should she? What country is this?

I’m left shocked by the suggestion of criminal charges and wishing I knew how it came up: Was it brought up by the student? By Fitzgerald?

The fact that the article leaves it hanging bothers me in any number of ways, including the thought that the student actually fears criminal charges for exercising her First Amendment rights, or that Herald readers think she may, or that they might if they ever wanted to protest in the future ... or that something horrible has happened here and that criminal charges may actually loom.