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."

21 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 Xicor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well, your only options are to stick with the two parties who are both the exact same thing and will destroy your rights, or to vote for a third party. is there any reason why you dont want your neighbor to have a panther? panthers are much quieter than dogs.

    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 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. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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."

  6. 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.

  7. 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"
  8. 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.
  9. 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. . .

  10. 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; }
  11. 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 :)

  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Re:You asked for this by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhm. Wait. Sanity check. Obama did NOT nationalize the auto industry or the healthcare industry.

    I know you're refering to the government buying a controlling interest of GM stock. GM was in trouble and needed some money to stay afloat. The government bought a ton of stock (which I happen to think is better than just GIVING them money), it did NOT tell the company how to run, and then it SOLD the stock(I think even at a profit) once GM was on it's feet again. It did all this to prevent GM from folding and causing huge job losses.

    I also know that you're refering to Obamacare, AKA, the ACA. I WISH the government had nationalized the healthcare industry, but mandating that you buy insurance from a NON GOVERNMENT insurance company is a far cry from nationalizing anything.

    So, basically, you're so wrong we can't even talk to you. Obama didn't nationalize squat. Look to Venezeula if you want to see a country nationalizing private industries. There's none of that here. Your belief is a fantasy. Kool-Aide indeed.

  15. Re:You asked for this by ak3ldama · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sanity check: It was sold at a loss. Not even close to a profit. From wikipedia: A White House report sent to Congress in August 2012 estimated the sale of the remaining G.M. stock acquired by the United States Treasury during the company's bankruptcy will result in a loss of $25.1 billion to the American taxpayer. The government is basically selling the stock at half the value we would need to be selling it at. I wish people would pay attention and remember the basic details of this shit. So in review: the GM market cap is ~$48 Billion and we the people are losing about half of that, maybe more.

    --
    "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786