CPJ Report: the Obama Administration and Press Freedoms 289
dryriver writes "Committee To Protect Journalists reports: U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An 'Insider Threat Program' being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues. 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."
"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
Even South Park made fun of England's libel courts which are absurdly tilted in favor of whomever has the money and the power. Perhaps Obama can start suing them all there. Why not? It's not as if anyone cares whether we live in a tyranny or not.
You asked for this (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot (/.) overwhelming supported Barak Obama's runs for President.
Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected. (In the general news/media arena and here on Slashdot.)
Now the blessed, Slashdot Messiah is screwing you over.
Regrettably, it is a bittersweet truth--the sweet is that President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way and the better is that he is screwing everyone with his Royal Presidency.
Transparency (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise.
Fallen short? Is that's what it's called when it's the most closed administration in recent history? Fallen short? Give me a break!
Today we are the police state that the likes of Obama told us we were under Bush. People really need to wake up.
Oh, but yeah, I know... it's Apple and the "XBone" that we need to worry about, right?
Re:Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.
Grow up.
That isn't even a good troll. Crying 'racism' at any criticism of Obama is actually in and of itself racist. He gets plenty of criticism for his actions, not so much the color of his skin. You're the one who really should consider growing up.
Bread and circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what would be nice? Being able to have a grown-up discussion about issues like TFA without being distracted by whatever bullshit the GOP is using rise the hackles of their Tea Party base this week (death panels? Benghazi? Who can even keep track?). The signal-to-noise ratio is really low when a conversation about press freedoms needs to be overpowered by "No, really, defaulting on national debts would be Bad, you fucking morons."
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be nice. Unfortunately, the American electorate no longer resembles "grown-up discussion", which is why our political system is so fucked right now.
Re:its quite telling really. (Score:1, Insightful)
And that will mark the end of what was once a great country, which has now become everything they've ever opposed.
Congratulations America, you have given up your rights and freedoms in the name of securing your rights and freedoms.
You're no longer the shining example. You're the sad joke whose demands the world is going to start ignoring. Your security and economy don't trump the rest of the world.
And I imagine Americans will continue to believe how awesome and free they are ... all the while becoming as bad as every government you've ever criticized.
Pathetic.
Re:You asked for this (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected.
The problem is that no one better ever had a chance of making it through the primaries. It's not like there was a better viable alternative.
President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way
Everywhere in the wide world, Obama is a conservative moderate right. US does not have a "Left" side.
Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?
Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest on even greater illegal activities like systematic corruption, war crimes, cover-ups etc were actually afforded some protection (Daniel Ellsberg as one example). Journalists reporting on the whistleblower material were also afforded some protection. Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing no matter how egregious the crime they are bringing to the publics attention. Libel laws strengthened and extended laws and new ones are being passed like the US Shield law [wikileaks-press.org] - designed to shield the corrupt from exposure and outlaw any media organization that is not complicit from doing investigative reporting.
Hard not to come to the conclusion that those institutions behind the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers are wholly and irrecoverably corrupted. Guess that is what happens when the population votes in a two headed single party dedicated to serving power and moneydecade after decade...
Re:Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't be that. Because nobody is talking about the color of his skin.
See, being a person who is working against your freedoms and trying to keep government activities a secret isn't an issue of the color of your skin.
It's an issue of your integrity and your campaign promises. If your president isn't working to improve or maintain your liberties, he's working against them.
We're not seeing a whole lot of 'audacity of hope' these days. We're seeing someone who is helping reduce your freedoms and curtail your press from telling people what it is they're actually doing when that might be illegal.
This is very much a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of thing.
Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
And the FIRST step to thoughtful debate is to STOP DEMONIZING YOUR OPPOSITION.
Obama is NOT the anti-Christ (that would be Larry Ellison. . .) and the Tea Party is not the KKK in Izod and Chinos. . .
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You asked for this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You asked for this (Score:3, Insightful)
A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas.
Ah, how noble! Well, on one side the idea is "Maybe we could sort of regulate the banks that, when left unregulated, broke the global economy, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a modern healthcare system while we're at it?" On the other we have "HITLER HITLER HITLER ARGLEBARGLE!" Surely there's an enlightened discussion to be had between such well-reasoned views!
Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed.
You go around natural history museums asking "Were you there?" don't you?
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
But you ARE right about Larry Ellison
Re:You asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Slightly off topic, but I feel the need to push this now more than ever...
The US needs a new voting system [wikipedia.org], one that doesn't favor two-party control. This bickering and extremism in Congress today, and in the White House, starts at campaign time and leaves us with fewer moderates every year.
Imagine what might happen in the US if the Democrats and the Republicans couldn't push their agenda on the American people just because they have a slim majority. What if, heaven forbid, there were a third party with no ties to the other two, and a bill actually were judged on its merits rather than on the party that proposed it?
Re:You asked for this (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, i think Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Oh really?
We have a budget deficit that is literally an order of magnitude larger than it was under your "greater" evil. Your "lesser" evil called those 10-times smaller deficits "unpatriotic". What does that make your "lesser" evil?
We have a workforce participation rate that is lower than it has been for the past six or seven of your "greater" evils.
We have a President who, until he got snookered by Putin, was prepared to actually invade a country unilaterally, unlike the President that you would term your "greatest" evil, where "unilateral" meant 43 other countries involved.
Your "lesser" evil has bombed Libya, helped to turn it into a failed state, then claimed there we no "hostilities".
Your "lesser" evil has turned the IRS into a political attack dog used to harass and silence political opponents.
That's just off the top of my head.
THIS is your "lesser" evil in action:
There is no access to the daily business in the Oval Office, who the president meets with, who he gets advice from,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has been covering presidents since Gerald Ford. She said many of Obama’s important meetings with major figures from outside the administration on issues like health care, immigration, or the economy are not even listed on Obama’s public schedule. This makes it more difficult for the news media to inform citizens about how the president makes decisions and who is influencing them.
“In the past,” Compton told me, “we would often be called into the Roosevelt Room at the beginning of meetings to hear the president’s opening remarks and see who’s in the meeting, and then we could talk to some of them outside on the driveway afterward. This president has wiped all that coverage off the map. He’s the least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.
That's from the very CPJ report that's the subject of this very topic. One you obviously failed to read.
You, sir, are a fool.
At best.
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't vote libertarian because I don't want my neighbor having a pet panther in their back yard.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
...this is what happens when you have a President that makes your leg tingle.
Seriously, though, the press has ALWAYS done a better job covering Republican presidents, as their adversarial role is abundantly clear. Largely, Democratic presidents who ostensibly have the shared outlook, overall sympathies, if not outright vote of reporters (http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp), have been covered much more gently and with (dare I call it) an almost collaborationist approach.
As politics have become more strident and divisive, it seems like the press itself has found itself more stridently taking a side, with Fox on the Right, and everyone else on the Left.
Re:You asked for this (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no recollection of people complaining that Senator Obama would end up being a conservative right wing leader hell bent on attacking our civil liberties at home while exporting undeclared warfare worldwide.
I do remember plenty of idiots rambling about how he is a foreign born Muslim communist. None of those claims panned out, however.
So yes, Obama supporters were misled. They were perhaps naive to think that a candidate supported by one of the two established parties could possibly be a departure from business as usual. However wrong Obama supporters were in their opinion of Obama, the detractors were doubly wrong. None of you asshats was claiming that Obama was a closet conservative, so don't try to spin it like that's what you were saying all along.
Re:You asked for this (Score:4, Insightful)
there are more than two candidates... it is people like you that cause this ridiculous shit to occur. use your brain, vote for a third party. if enough ppl actually vote for who they want instead of "the lesser of two evils", we wouldnt have had to deal with obama in the first place.
There is also the option of getting involved earlier in the process.
On the Democrat side tehre were at least 2 candidates: Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama
On the republican side there were several: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Fred Karger, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Buddy Roemer, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Michele Bachmann according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012 [wikipedia.org]
In my own district, there was even a party meeting the night after the primaries where there was a discussion of what should be on the party platform and a group of representatives were selected to go to the next higher level caucus(State?). There were actually fewer attendees at the meeting I went to than there were slots for representatives from our district, so everyone who wanted to go was selected, plus a few people someone knew who had gone in the past.(I did not go as I had a schedule conflict, but I could have).
If you want to fix things, get involved earlier in the process when there are so few people who care, every voice is magnified.
Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
When I talk about liberty, it's not anarchy. I would just like to see the discussion moved to how little government do we need to live and work together. The current discussion, in the US at least, is always about how much government can we have without fomenting an armed rebellion. How much government control of healthcare, communications, income, etc.
Being opposed to a totalitarian state doesn't presume chaos, unless you're a totalitarian statist which a depressing number of people are. They take umbrage at that description of course and claim they just want to help people. because, you know, if people were allowed to make important decisions, they'd fuck up. Only a vast bureaucracy has the compassion and wisdom to run other peoples lives.
Yes people do fuck up their lives sometimes. God knows I've made bad decisions and will make more. That's called living. And Learning. And not being eternally cast in the role as a child who must always protected by the all knowing state.
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone with a pretty bad smoke allergy I really apreciate that in Ohio and Michigan I can go to bars and restaurants without getting sick now. I do support people's right to put things in their bodies. (tobacco, marijuana, etc... I really don't care) I just don't want to be forced to chose between being a shut-in or having people put their smoke in MY body. Somehow that just doesn't seem like liberty to me.
They can do it at home, in there cars, outside(Not in front of the door where we all have to walk through it).
As far as I can tell the Libertarians want to change things back to how they were, giving people the liberty to make others sick against their will again.
Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect it's just "Oh, wait, the public DOESN'T care that we ruthlessly pursue people who dare to speak out against us?
Add to that the NSA and Alexander couldn't give a rat's ass what you care about. He's going to do it whether you like it or not, Constitution be damned. You stopped the Clipper chip in the nineties, and he just went ahead and did it another way, lieing his ass off all the way to everyone who asked.
You don't live in a democratic republic any more. Caeser has spoken. Enjoy the bread and circuses.
Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (Score:5, Insightful)
That includes protecting kids from fuck-up parents. (hey, nobody choses their own parents why should they be punished for them?)
But.. I also want a government that lets me raise my kids as I see fit. (the state should not be our mother of father)
Once you resolve that internal conflict within your own head, perhaps you will have more luck convincing others.
Re:You asked for this (Score:4, Insightful)
Now THAT is how to do it. Thank you ak3ldama for giving me more information and correcting me. Thank you for the link. I shall correct my thinking and keep that in mind for the future.
It's still better than just GIVING them the money though. /shrug