Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Presidential intimidation of the press
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,443
in Tug Tavern
In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP) and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.
On May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced telephone records for 20 of their reporters during a two-month period in 2012 had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department. AP reported the Justice Department would not say why it sought the records, but news sources noted the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012 Associated Press story about a CIA operation which prevented the Yemeni terrorist Fahd al-Quso's plot to detonate an explosive device on a commercial flight.[1] The DOJ did not direct subpoenas to the Associated Press; instead, the subpoenas were issued to their telephone providers, including Verizon Wireless.[2]
The AP claimed these acts were a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.[3][4] Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated Press stated: "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."[5][6]
The US Attorney's office in Washington responded that federal investigators seek records from news outlets only after making "every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means."[5] Verizon neither challenged the subpoena nor did it try to alert the journalists whose records were being requested. Debra Lewis, Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, said the company "complies with legal processes for requests for information by law enforcement."[7]
James Rosen[edit]
On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the Justice Department had monitored reporter Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails in a probe regarding possible news leaks of classified information in 2009 about North Korea.[8] In obtaining the warrants, they labeled Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" with Stephen Kim.[9] Rosen was also described as a "flight-risk" to keep him from being informed of the ongoing surveillance.[10]
In a written statement, the Justice Department said it had followed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”[8]
Some analysts have described the Justice Department's actions as "aggressive investigative methods"[11][12] that have a chilling effect on news organizations' ability to play a watchdog role. Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano commented: "This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior."[13]
An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]
Department of Justice[edit]
Days prior on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder had testified under oath in front of the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the leak investigations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Holder said his Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, was in charge of the AP investigation and would have ordered the subpoenas.[16] When questioning turned to the possibility of journalists being charged under the Espionage Act for reporting classified material, Holder stated: "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy."[17]
On May 23, 2013, NBC confirmed with the Justice Department that Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen case. The Justice Department defended their decision and spoke about a balance between protecting national secrets and the 1st Amendment, stating: "After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act."[18] The revelation brought into question whether Holder was being intentionally misleading during his previous testimony when he denied knowing of, or being part of possible prosecutions of journalists. House Committee members sent an open letter to Holder, saying: "It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement."[19]
I blame TRUMP
On May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced telephone records for 20 of their reporters during a two-month period in 2012 had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department. AP reported the Justice Department would not say why it sought the records, but news sources noted the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012 Associated Press story about a CIA operation which prevented the Yemeni terrorist Fahd al-Quso's plot to detonate an explosive device on a commercial flight.[1] The DOJ did not direct subpoenas to the Associated Press; instead, the subpoenas were issued to their telephone providers, including Verizon Wireless.[2]
The AP claimed these acts were a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.[3][4] Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated Press stated: "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."[5][6]
The US Attorney's office in Washington responded that federal investigators seek records from news outlets only after making "every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means."[5] Verizon neither challenged the subpoena nor did it try to alert the journalists whose records were being requested. Debra Lewis, Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, said the company "complies with legal processes for requests for information by law enforcement."[7]
James Rosen[edit]
On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the Justice Department had monitored reporter Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails in a probe regarding possible news leaks of classified information in 2009 about North Korea.[8] In obtaining the warrants, they labeled Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" with Stephen Kim.[9] Rosen was also described as a "flight-risk" to keep him from being informed of the ongoing surveillance.[10]
In a written statement, the Justice Department said it had followed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”[8]
Some analysts have described the Justice Department's actions as "aggressive investigative methods"[11][12] that have a chilling effect on news organizations' ability to play a watchdog role. Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano commented: "This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior."[13]
An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]
Department of Justice[edit]
Days prior on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder had testified under oath in front of the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the leak investigations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Holder said his Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, was in charge of the AP investigation and would have ordered the subpoenas.[16] When questioning turned to the possibility of journalists being charged under the Espionage Act for reporting classified material, Holder stated: "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy."[17]
On May 23, 2013, NBC confirmed with the Justice Department that Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen case. The Justice Department defended their decision and spoke about a balance between protecting national secrets and the 1st Amendment, stating: "After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act."[18] The revelation brought into question whether Holder was being intentionally misleading during his previous testimony when he denied knowing of, or being part of possible prosecutions of journalists. House Committee members sent an open letter to Holder, saying: "It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement."[19]
I blame TRUMP
Comments
This has raised red flags among defenders of the media. In a vigorous exchange on CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper asserted to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post that "the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined."
On one level, a simple tally would address Tapper’s claim and -- spoiler alert -- the raw numbers back him up. But a scrupulous vetting of the record uncovers important ambiguities in the entire business of talking about leaks in Washington.
Obama's Attacks on Journalists are Worst Since Nixon
The Committee to Protect Journalists issues a scathing report on Obama administration.
By Glenn Greenwald / The Guardian October 11, 2013
1.1K61
Print
115 COMMENTS
Photo Credit: AFP
It's hardly news that the Obama administration is intensely and, in many respects, unprecedentedly hostile toward the news-gathering process. Even the most Obama-friendly journals have warned of what they call "Obama's war on whistleblowers". James Goodale, the former general counsel of the New York Times during its epic fights with the Nixon administration, recently observed that "President Obama wants to criminalize the reporting of national security information" and added: "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom."
Still, a new report released today by the highly respected Committee to Protect Journalists - its first-ever on press freedoms in the US - powerfully underscores just how extreme is the threat to press freedom posed by this administration. Written by former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., the report offers a comprehensive survey of the multiple ways that the Obama presidency has ushered in a paralyzing climate of fear for journalists and sources alike, one that severely threatens the news-gathering process.
The first sentence: "In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press." Among the most shameful aspects of the Obama record:
Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. Reporters' phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being 'an aider, abettor and/or conspirator' of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail."
HTH
But its executive director, Joel Simon, says the committee is now diverting a lot more of its efforts onto media freedom within the US.
Mr Simon joined me a short time ago from a rural property in upstate New York, and apologies for the state of the line.
Joel Simon, welcome to The World Today.
JOEL SIMON: Thank you so much.
ELEANOR HALL: What was your reaction when you heard the President of the United States call the US news media ‘the enemy of the American people’?
JOEL SIMON: Well at this point he's already said that he's at war with the press, so these insults are just coming fast and furious.
But this really took it to a new level. It's really just one degree away from traitor, and it also echoes the kinds of expressions you hear in authoritarian states.
So I think journalists and people like me who defend the rights of journalists, we were all really taken aback by this; this really frankly was a new low.
ELEANOR HALL: So did the comment scare you?
JOEL SIMON: Well, scare - I think what it does is, it's a test. It's a test of the strength of our institutions, the strength of our media.
I mean, for the moment these are words. They're words that are shocking, but the question is: what will he do?
And if he tries to do something, how will our institutions respond, how will the media respond, how will our society respond?
ELEANOR HALL: Senator John McCain is one Republican voice speaking out against this. Do you agree with him when he says this is how dictatorships start?
JOEL SIMON: So I think we're at a very dangerous moment.
There's one thing that's absolutely clear: that there's a strategy, and it's been employed by many repressive leaders around the world, in which you declare war on the media.
You say the media is the opposition and that actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the media and journalists feel so threatened they start acting more like the opposition and then that opens the door for governments to introduce restrictions on the media and there isn't a response from the public.
There are so many countries where you see this pattern.
That doesn't mean that it's a dictatorship or that it's authoritarian, but it does mean that an essential function, an essential institution within any healthy democracy, is weakened, and that has significant consequences.
So we're very concerned about that possibility. I don't want to compare the United States necessarily with anywhere else. We have very strong institutions. We have the First Amendment, which is unique.
But it's certainly a very challenging and dangerous moment and we recognise that, and realise that we as an organisation that defends the rights of journalists, we have our work cut out for us.
ELEANOR HALL: You've said that you're worried about the next step that the President may take.
I mean, what do you think it could be?
JOEL SIMON: I really don't want to speculate. I think, like everybody else, I've been wrong about every prediction I've made about Trump, so I've stopped making predictions.
He's got some options that he could take, but we don't really know. We don't know what he will try and do or if he will try and do something or if it's just going to be a war of words.
ELEANOR HALL: It's curious how he's managed to turn fake news into an attack on those mainstream media organisations that are actually challenging the actual fake news stories.
JOEL SIMON: Yeah, I think that was kind of brilliant. I mean, we have to give him credit.
I mean, people have forgotten now that fake news originally referred to news that was actually fake, and now he's co-opted that expression and he uses it to apply to news that's critical of him.
It's really, the term has now been flipped 180 degrees. It's a term that he's appropriated, and journalists are really on the defensive.
ELEANOR HALL: How effective do you think President Trump's campaign against the media will be?
I mean, it's not as though journalists are held in high public regard in the first place.
JOEL SIMON: The thing about the Committee to Protect Journalists, what we do is we defend journalists in - you know, this is what we do every day, defend them in the places around the world where journalists are truly under threat, the most repressive and dangerous places.
So people don't always value the media in societies where they're not restricted. They kind of take it for granted, because when you have freedom, the media engages in all sorts of things, some of the which the public supports and some of which it doesn't support.
But when those rights are threatened, people really react. People understand what's at stake. At least that's what we hope.
Certainly his supporters feel that the media is the enemy and he's playing to those supporters.
But I think there's a large segment of the American population that understands what's at stake, values the role of the media, and I think will stand up to defend the media itself, but more importantly, the Constitution and the First Amendment.
ELEANOR HALL: It's interesting that you say that your organisation is normally focused on threats to journalists outside the United States.
To what extent are you now refocusing your efforts on freedom of the press inside the US?
JOEL SIMON: We are putting some substantial energy into responding to the changing environment here.
And I think there are two things at stake. There's a lot of attention has been focused on the US media, understandably, about what might happen to journalists in this country.
But the other thing that we're concerned about is by making these kinds of statements, not only is President Trump, in our view, emboldening autocrats around the world, we're very concerned about the waning US influence around the world and the impact that will have on journalists working in some of the most dangerous places.
ELEANOR HALL: How damaging do you think it would be for US democracy were President Trump to succeed in significantly undermining trust in the independent media?
JOEL SIMON: I think a significant proportion of the population clearly, Trump's most ardent supporters, don't trust the media.
That is very alarming, and if that percentage grows, then I think you create an environment in which legal restrictions could come down the road, and that's where I really get scared.
ELEANOR HALL: Joel Simon, thanks so much for joining us.
JOEL SIMON: It's a pleasure.
ELEANOR HALL: That's the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon.
I am not surprised in the least that the left side here is completely in the dark on this rather obvious fact
A lot of the new media outlets left and right were the only ones who gave a fuck
https://cpj.org/2016/10/cpj-chairman-says-trump-is-threat-to-press-freedom.php
"Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.
Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ's board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ's ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.
Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.
He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.
Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom. At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." In September, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."
While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.
A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists.
When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country's history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country... Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too."
Through his words and actions, Trump has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the role of the press beyond offering publicity to him and advancing his interests.
For this reason CPJ is taking the unprecedented step of speaking out now. This is not about picking sides in an election. This is recognizing that a Trump presidency represents a threat to press freedom unknown in modern history.
We call on Trump to ensure that journalists are able to cover his campaign and his rallies without interference or impediment; to condemn threats against journalists made by his supporters; and to ensure that his statements and actions in the balance of this campaign are consistent with America's First Amendment tradition.
CPJ is a nonpartisan advocacy organization that does not take a position on this or any election. At the same time, we cannot be silent when we believe the conduct of the campaign does damage to America's standing on free press issues around the world, and to CPJ's ability to protect global press freedom.
We hold all candidates and political leaders to the same standard. In 2013, CPJ published a critical report on President Obama's press freedom record. No matter who is elected president, CPJ will hold the administration accountable for the highest standards at home and for strong advocacy for the rights of journalists around the world."
Looks like your source disagrees with you Race. Unprecedented, they say. Unknown in modern history.
You sure you want to keep playing it this way???
Way to wagon jump, Bitchzervik.
But still.
But Bitchzervik is super hilarious.
Pretty clear I said his actions are worse than words you're crying about
APAG is rite
So yeah, I have a nice sensible chuckle whenever you pull up some article comparing Obama's presidency to current events as defense for the Trump shit show.
Carry on...