In a statement that sounds a heck of a lot like a prime example of “passing the buck,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a group in Bangladesh Monday that the media needs to tone it down when it comes to covering terrorism.

But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Do us all a service?

People wouldn’t know what’s going on?

Thanks, big government, but keep your hands off my information sources. To even suggest such a thing is absolutely absurd. If the media didn’t cover the negative aspects of the outcome of a terrorist attack, then we would all be left to get our news from Daesh Twitter accounts. The vacuum left by the international media quickly condemning attacks could easily be filled at least partially by extremist propaganda.

Now, if Kerry misspoke, and meant that the media shouldn’t glorify terror suspects, I’m all for that. The less their names come up on the screen and out of people’s mouths, the better. The romanticized image of the Boston Marathon bomber comes to mind as an unnecessary promotion of terrorism by the media. You’d like to suggest we limit that? OK, I can get on board.

But I tend to think that Kerry, the Democratic party nominee for president in 2004, isn’t misspeaking, and means exactly what he says. “People wouldn’t know what’s going on.” So it’s now a bad thing that the public is aware of what is going on in the world? It’s a bad thing that the media can quickly reach out and alert communities of events as they unfold, potentially saving lives in the process? It’s not the right of civilians to be informed of current events?

When asked to clarify his remarks made during the speech, a State Department press official replied, “I’m not able to speak for Secretary Kerry.” No additional comment was available at that time.