Slashdot Mirror


CPJ Report: the Obama Administration and Press Freedoms

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."

33 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by gelfling · · 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.

    1. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by FriendlyLurker · · 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 - 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...

    2. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Xicor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can blame the people who refuse to vote for a third party because "they cant win"... if people actually voted with their brains and voted for who they ACTUALLY want in power, we might get a libertarian president.

    3. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't vote libertarian because I don't want my neighbor having a pet panther in their back yard.

    4. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by evilRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In our current system, a third party will only tilt the favor against the mainstream party that is the exact opposite politically. A liberal third party would split the vote with the Democrats and put a Republican in power. The modern tea party has the better successful model. You don't enter the general election, you have to work through an existing party and come up in the primary.

    5. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by judoguy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I will never understand the bizarre interpretation of libertarianism with anarchy! Why do statists always scream that if ANY liberty is allowed we will go all Mad Max? Oh, that's right, they're statists and ANY individual freedom/responsibility threatens the state.

      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.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    6. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not fucking up my own life that worries me. It's someone fucking up my life for their own gain. Discriminating against me and leaving me unemployed and hungry without a safety net. Paying me peanuts and forcing me to work ungodly hours to get by or starve. Raiding my retirement savings and leaving me with no hope of retiring without social security. Dumping toxins into my environment and leaving me sick and dying without healthcare. Government has arisen to help with those things because the past has shown that they will be abused otherwise.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    7. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by morgauxo · · Score: 1, 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.

    8. Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by tqk · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    9. Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" by icebike · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  2. You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · 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."

    2. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:You asked for this by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, 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. . .

    5. Re:You asked for this by Megane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's more funny that he only got there because the press had such a hard-on crush for him. ("Sort of a god", "had to step down" to the White House, etc.) Now that he's not living up to their fan-fiction dreams of him, they're not happy.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:You asked for this by Megane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two words: Term limits. No way should someone be a senator for multiple decades, if only to keep them from "going native" to the DC culture. Of course the very people who need the term limits are the ones who would have to vote it in, so it's not likely to happen.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:You asked for this by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, 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?

    8. Re:You asked for this by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Enough. There's a natural human inclination, when listening to two other parties argue, to assume that the sensible position is somewhere in the middle. That's how, in the last 20 years, the Far Right has dragged the goalposts so far into extremest right-wing nutter land that a "moderate Republican" like Barak Obama can be vilified as a wild-eyed socialist. The Tea Party are extremists, plain and simple. The Koch brothers are plutocrats, plain and simple. They are both at war with democracy, the middle class and the very NOTION of government, plain and simple. We can start a thoughtful debate when we start to recognize the facts on the ground.

      But you ARE right about Larry Ellison :)

    9. Re:You asked for this by bondsbw · · 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, 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?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    10. Re:You asked for this by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:You asked for this by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I must've missed that.

      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.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    12. Re:You asked for this by Terwin · · Score: 3, 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

      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.

    13. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, 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

  3. Transparency by blach · · Score: 3, Insightful
  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  5. Re:Right.... by dreamchaser · · 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.

  6. Bread and circuses by Gothmolly · · 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.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  7. its quite telling really. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.
    the government surveillance, crackdown on leaks, and persecution of journalists just shows how desparate america is to maintain the illusion of the land of the free and home of the brave. in reality we kill our own citizens, run torture camps, kidnap people we consider enemies, and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world. we topple foreign governments, install dictators, sabotage existing governments attempts at independence and autonomy, and detain indefinitely without trial anyone we see fit. We had an entire slew of protests across the country called Occupy that ended with nothing but arrests and more surveillance. Nothing changed and nothing will.

    the fastest way to stop the leaks and the leakers is to stop pandering to a minority constituency of plutocrats while paying lipservice to real americans, and get on with some real change. Arrest corrupt wall street bankers, shut down guantanamo, and for fuck sake stop sticking your dick in the middle east every six months for a boost in the opinion polls leading up to an election.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its quite telling really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.

      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.

  8. Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reporters didn't have access to classified documents in the Good Old Days either. And anyone caught leaking papers to the Soviet Union during the Cold War was in serious, serious trouble.

    Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:Right.... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. Well... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    -Styopa