Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Modern journalists expect to be treated differently, even if it means blowing up national security for the scoop, the skinny, the downlow, the whatsit in the ol' labonza   (politico.com) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, Walter Pincus, DOJ, security  
•       •       •

709 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-31 09:41:05 AM  
Actually, Pincus' point is closer to the idea that modern journalists are self-absorbed, navel-gazing ninnies who lack any real understanding of context. And he's absolutely right.
 
2013-05-31 10:14:23 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, Pincus' point is closer to the idea that modern journalists are self-absorbed, navel-gazing ninnies who lack any real understanding of context. And he's absolutely right.


What's with all of the "posting things I agree with" lately? Got sick of your art?
 
2013-05-31 10:15:18 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Pocket Ninja: Actually, Pincus' point is closer to the idea that modern journalists are self-absorbed, navel-gazing ninnies who lack any real understanding of context. And he's absolutely right.

What's with all of the "posting things I agree with" lately? Got sick of your art?


Even Picasso went through a realism phase.
 
2013-05-31 10:16:12 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, Pincus' point is closer to the idea that modern journalists are self-absorbed, navel-gazing ninnies who lack any real understanding of context. And he's absolutely right.


It does get kind of difficult to believe that THIS WEEK we've got a WHOLE NEW SCANDAL of UNPRECEDENTED SCALE.

The 24 hour news cycle has been grating on me for a few years now, and I don't even watch the news.
 
2013-05-31 10:17:50 AM  
But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.
 
2013-05-31 10:19:57 AM  
The media is filled with people like Bob Woodward.  In other words unscrupulous scum.  High ideals are a smokescreen to shape whatever narrative is the most self promoting or profitable.  I'd enjoy a few rotting in prison for putting people's lives in danger.
 
2013-05-31 10:24:40 AM  
Please don't say "blow up" and "journalist" in the same breath.

www.azcentral.com

It makes Don Bolles sad.

www.azcentral.com

/Don Bolles was sitting in that car when dynamite blew the floor and seat into his body.
/His own paper wouldn't run the investigative series about his murder--it implicated friends of the paper, like Senator Barry Goldwater
 
2013-05-31 10:25:02 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

 
2013-05-31 10:27:46 AM  
And while Nixon wiretapped journalists, his was an extra-legal process - not something approved in writing by the attorney general.

And this was somehow preferable?
 
2013-05-31 10:28:45 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.


Oh well.  Blame Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney and Bush.  They f*cking started this mess.  (And I don't mean the Patriot Act, I mean the perpetual war on terror that exists because we invaded a sovereign nation for no f*cking reason and pissed the Arabs and Persians off for eternity, well, ever more than they were).
 
2013-05-31 10:33:13 AM  
There are journalists in Mexico. Some of them are still alive. And they have real editors. Some of them are still alive.

And in Iran, and Egypt, and Syria.

We have O'Reilly and Hannity's love fest.  And an IRS "scandal" on Entertainment Tonight.
 
2013-05-31 10:35:33 AM  
Journalists have become celebrities, or at least like to pretend they have become celebrities, and celebrities don't follow the same rules as everyone else. The current leak of classified materials were not Iran-Contra type abuses, they were human intelligence successes, successes that require that their details they never see the light of day.  Reporters and editors have become wikileaks converts and think all info should be free, not caring that even the smallest amount of information in the wrong hands could mean life or death for countless people.
 
2013-05-31 10:36:17 AM  
Here's the problem:

* It was a subpeona and it was issued to telecoms, not the reporters. The reporters weren't told until after the fact. The phone company handed over the phone records to the DOJ w/o telling the AP until afterward. That's the main f*cking problem.

And also:

* Subpeona != search warrent

* "Pincus is a left wing hero, stood up to Bush, blah blah," that's an argument from authority.


"Everybody recognizes this is a precedent," one national security reporter, who requested anonymity, told POLITICO. "It looks like we're seeing what could be a new policy, which is to investigate journalists without their knowledge."

Gee, if I were worried about the feds being up my ass for doing my job, I'd be upset, wouldn't I?

Does it automatically mean Sarah Palin is President, and Obama has to march down Pennsylvania with a farting bongo strapped to him? No, but these kinds of powers are exactly what we didn't want the Executive to have, and  they were rubber-stamped back in the 00's by Congress anyway, because terrorism.
 
2013-05-31 10:38:54 AM  

WTF Indeed: Journalists have become celebrities, or at least like to pretend they have become celebrities, and celebrities don't follow the same rules as everyone else. The current leak of classified materials were not Iran-Contra type abuses, they were human intelligence successes, successes that require that their details they never see the light of day.  Reporters and editors have become wikileaks converts and think all info should be free, not caring that even the smallest amount of information in the wrong hands could mean life or death for countless people.


Or it means that the nature of statecraft has to change. I come from a world (Defense) that's used to locking up information and keeping one the right hand from knowing what the left one's doing. That worked in the world of fax machines and telephones. It doesn't work in the world of instant information. Information will continue leaking out until it becomes a sieve. Calling the reporters uppity does nothing to change this effect.
 
2013-05-31 10:42:40 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.


No it's not. Learn about how human intelligence and classified materials work.

DarnoKonrad: The media is filled with people like Bob Woodward.  In other words unscrupulous scum.  High ideals are a smokescreen to shape whatever narrative is the most self promoting or profitable.  I'd enjoy a few rotting in prison for putting people's lives in danger.


Bob Woodward was not writing stories using classified materials. He was following a trail of money and illegal planning by members of the White House staff.  What Woodward turned into over Watergate is what the problem is now.
 
2013-05-31 10:44:13 AM  

coeyagi: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

Oh well.  Blame Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney and Bush.  They f*cking started this mess.  (And I don't mean the Patriot Act, I mean the perpetual war on terror that exists because we invaded a sovereign nation for no f*cking reason and pissed the Arabs and Persians off for eternity, well, ever more than they were).


You're right. It's Bush's fault. He made them do it.

Let's vote Bush out in 2016.
 
2013-05-31 10:45:34 AM  
It's funny to see the same media that have for years sucked either White House or opposition dong in order to secure that sweet sweet access, now spin on a dime and pretend the integrity they long since forfeit is under assault.
 
2013-05-31 10:47:40 AM  

WTF Indeed: Bob Woodward was not writing stories using classified materials. He was following a trail of money and illegal planning by members of the White House staff. What Woodward turned into over Watergate is what the problem is now.


Read the article.  It's got nothing to do with Watergate, it does however, illustrate how far these people will go to get a scoop.  They'll lie, they'll slander, they're endanger others -- all quite deliberately.
 
2013-05-31 10:48:18 AM  

verbaltoxin: Or it means that the nature of statecraft has to change. I come from a world (Defense) that's used to locking up information and keeping one the right hand from knowing what the left one's doing. That worked in the world of fax machines and telephones. It doesn't work in the world of instant information. Information will continue leaking out until it becomes a sieve. Calling the reporters uppity does nothing to change this effect.


Everyone has a professional responsibility. For DoD and Intelligence workers it's keeping classified information secret. For Journalists it's deciding what information is worth and/or should be printed. In this case no one preformed professionally.  The leaker broke the law when they talked to a reporter and the journalists broke ethics standards by putting months or years of intelligence work at risk for a two day story.
 
2013-05-31 10:55:13 AM  

verbaltoxin: * It was a subpeona and it was issued to telecoms, not the reporters. The reporters weren't told until after the fact. The phone company handed over the phone records to the DOJ w/o telling the AP until afterward. That's the main f*cking problem.


You realize that if you're wiretapped during an investigation with a warrant, they don't have to tell you about that either, right? Or do you think that they have to give you a paper saying "we're tapping your phone for the next 48 hours"?
 
2013-05-31 10:55:22 AM  

WTF Indeed: verbaltoxin: Or it means that the nature of statecraft has to change. I come from a world (Defense) that's used to locking up information and keeping one the right hand from knowing what the left one's doing. That worked in the world of fax machines and telephones. It doesn't work in the world of instant information. Information will continue leaking out until it becomes a sieve. Calling the reporters uppity does nothing to change this effect.

Everyone has a professional responsibility. For DoD and Intelligence workers it's keeping classified information secret. For Journalists it's deciding what information is worth and/or should be printed. In this case no one preformed professionally.  The leaker broke the law when they talked to a reporter and the journalists broke ethics standards by putting months or years of intelligence work at risk for a two day story.


This.  If you're going to whistleblow, make it damn worth my while.  It must include malfeasance.  If it does, I have no problem with you breaking the law to get the information public.  But you better make sure it does otherwise you journalists and leakers are giving away information that may hurt my country.

If the info was worth it, really mattered, proudly stand up and declare that you broke the law for the good of the people and the people will recognize you.

I swear its like bizarro world from the wikileaks case.  Bradley Manning (leaker) and Wikileaks(journalists?) were called TERRORISTS by fox news for letting classified info go.  Accused of treason and capital crimes!

Its like people have no perspective.
 
2013-05-31 10:57:56 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: * It was a subpeona and it was issued to telecoms, not the reporters. The reporters weren't told until after the fact. The phone company handed over the phone records to the DOJ w/o telling the AP until afterward. That's the main f*cking problem.

You realize that if you're wiretapped during an investigation with a warrant, they don't have to tell you about that either, right? Or do you think that they have to give you a paper saying "we're tapping your phone for the next 48 hours"?


No warrants were issued in this instance.
 
2013-05-31 10:58:33 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.


It's amusing that you believe government was more open in the past although it does seem that journalists care more about the story than the lives of assets overseas.
 
2013-05-31 10:59:02 AM  
If the media leaked this kind of crap during he Cold War these journalists would be disappeared and the general public would have supported it in the name of national security.
 
2013-05-31 10:59:12 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Read the article.  It's got nothing to do with Watergate, it does however, illustrate how far these people will go to get a scoop.  They'll lie, they'll slander, they're endanger others -- all quite deliberately.


That's how reporters work and have always worked. It's why their are millionaires in the world who made their fortune teaching others how to talk to reporters without actually saying anything. The difference between a story about Animal House and story about a foiled plane bombing in Yemen is that the giving details about the filming of Animal House doesn't endanger the the lives of sources.
 
2013-05-31 10:59:44 AM  
I have a question about this "journalists have never been labeled conspirators in a leak before" claim: was Julian Assange ever labeled as a conspirator in the Bradley Manning case? I remember the constant talk at the time about the cable leaks about how he was trying to avoid the possibility of being extradited to the United States for questioning. Was that just paranoia over the possibility of the government doing that, or was he labeled (possibly even charged?) for his role in the leak? If he was, does his being a "citizen journalist" (AKA glorified blogger) not afford him the same protections on publishing materials as the traditional press? Plus I'm curious if his being a foreign citizen was a factor into that determination and the charges against Manning.

Let's be clear: I'm not dismissive of the allegations entirely because I think the post-9/11 laws as they pertain to telecom companies are too broad. This looks like it was legal, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't alter the law for future cases.
 
2013-05-31 11:00:53 AM  

verbaltoxin: cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: * It was a subpeona and it was issued to telecoms, not the reporters. The reporters weren't told until after the fact. The phone company handed over the phone records to the DOJ w/o telling the AP until afterward. That's the main f*cking problem.

You realize that if you're wiretapped during an investigation with a warrant, they don't have to tell you about that either, right? Or do you think that they have to give you a paper saying "we're tapping your phone for the next 48 hours"?

No warrants were issued in this instance.


I know. I'm just poking fun at your crying that they got a subpoena instead of a warrant. It's not like with a warrant they'd have told them before they did it anyway.
 
2013-05-31 11:01:58 AM  

WTF Indeed: DarnoKonrad: Read the article.  It's got nothing to do with Watergate, it does however, illustrate how far these people will go to get a scoop.  They'll lie, they'll slander, they're endanger others -- all quite deliberately.

That's how reporters work and have always worked. It's why their are millionaires in the world who made their fortune teaching others how to talk to reporters without actually saying anything. The difference between a story about Animal House and story about a foiled plane bombing in Yemen is that the giving details about the filming of Animal House doesn't endanger the the lives of sources.


If you're not going to read the article, then just stop replying.  You're not making any sense.  Reporters have not always relied on just making shiat up.  Hell, leaking classified information is at least true.
 
2013-05-31 11:02:06 AM  

Fart_Machine: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

It's amusing that you believe government was more open in the past although it does seem that journalists care more about the story than the lives of assets overseas.


I think it's amusing we now care about the lives of assets overseas, but when the Wikileaks case came out, people were getting up on a cross for Bradley Manning.

So which is it? I'm at least willing to acknowledge the government will have to revise its doctrines on intelligence in the face of new challenges. I don't know what those changes will look like, but I do see a trend where other people want more openness and flow of information. The government doesn't want to encourage that. If anything, they want to control the message further.
 
2013-05-31 11:05:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: * It was a subpeona and it was issued to telecoms, not the reporters. The reporters weren't told until after the fact. The phone company handed over the phone records to the DOJ w/o telling the AP until afterward. That's the main f*cking problem.

You realize that if you're wiretapped during an investigation with a warrant, they don't have to tell you about that either, right? Or do you think that they have to give you a paper saying "we're tapping your phone for the next 48 hours"?

No warrants were issued in this instance.

I know. I'm just poking fun at your crying that they got a subpoena instead of a warrant. It's not like with a warrant they'd have told them before they did it anyway.


And that's the problem: phone records were handed over without a warrant. There was no expectation of privacy. Nobody approached the AP and said that one of their reporters may have violated the law. Instead the AP found out later that their phone records were given to the DOJ.

But carry on with assuming I'm weeping or something. Now I wait for you to call me a conservative. This should be rich.
 
2013-05-31 11:08:09 AM  

verbaltoxin: And that's the problem: phone records were handed over without a warrant. There was no expectation of privacy. Nobody approached the AP and said that one of their reporters may have violated the law. Instead the AP found out later that their phone records were given to the DOJ.


Do you even understand what a court subpoena is?
 
2013-05-31 11:08:10 AM  
Look, whether you agree or not, a person does not legally have ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY OVER RECORDS THAT THEY DON'T OWN.

THIS IS SETTLED LAW! For decades!

You do not have any broad legally recognized expectation of privacy over banking records, phone records, Internet records, or other business records not in your possession.

Government investigators have had the ability to get these types of records since prohibition or before. The courts have said a bank's customers have no 4th or 5th amendment rights applicable to the bank's records regarding the individual's accounts.

If you don't own and control it, you are not protected.

Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is and has been.
 
2013-05-31 11:10:53 AM  

Deneb81: Look, whether you agree or not, a person does not legally have ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY OVER RECORDS THAT THEY DON'T OWN.

THIS IS SETTLED LAW! For decades!

You do not have any broad legally recognized expectation of privacy over banking records, phone records, Internet records, or other business records not in your possession.

Government investigators have had the ability to get these types of records since prohibition or before. The courts have said a bank's customers have no 4th or 5th amendment rights applicable to the bank's records regarding the individual's accounts.

If you don't own and control it, you are not protected.

Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is and has been.


But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena!  Where the hell is my fainting couch?!
 
2013-05-31 11:11:22 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And that's the problem: phone records were handed over without a warrant. There was no expectation of privacy. Nobody approached the AP and said that one of their reporters may have violated the law. Instead the AP found out later that their phone records were given to the DOJ.

Do you even understand what a court subpoena is?


Yes, it's a summons to appear before a court to give a testimony.

Are you done being a condescending asshole?

I'm not trying to assert it's a scandal here. I'm criticizing how it was done.
 
2013-05-31 11:13:15 AM  

DarnoKonrad: If you're not going to read the article, then just stop replying.  You're not making any sense.  Reporters have not always relied on just making shiat up.  Hell, leaking classified information is at least true.


The article was about context and Bob Woodward's personal spin on a story, something all reporters do to a degree. The AP story in question was not about context or personal spin. It was about a choice made by the reporter and the editors at AP. The story of the foiled plane bombing was in and of itself not important. Foiled terrorist plots happen all the time with little to no fanfare. In this case the reporter and editors knowingly provided details of how the plan was foiled, giving the terrorist group knowledge that they more than likely did not have.

It comes down to the idea that knowledge is power and power in the wrong hands can get people killed.  This is the lynch pin failure of the "wikileaks" approach to classified information.
 
2013-05-31 11:13:17 AM  

verbaltoxin: cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And that's the problem: phone records were handed over without a warrant. There was no expectation of privacy. Nobody approached the AP and said that one of their reporters may have violated the law. Instead the AP found out later that their phone records were given to the DOJ.

Do you even understand what a court subpoena is?

Yes, it's a summons to appear before a court to give a testimony.

Are you done being a condescending asshole?

I'm not trying to assert it's a scandal here. I'm criticizing how it was done.


Exactly why are you criticizing the use of a subpoena to gather phone records from the phone company? They're not the personal records of the individual, they don't need a warrant for that. Are you done being wrong now?
 
2013-05-31 11:13:37 AM  

Mrbogey: coeyagi: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

Oh well.  Blame Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney and Bush.  They f*cking started this mess.  (And I don't mean the Patriot Act, I mean the perpetual war on terror that exists because we invaded a sovereign nation for no f*cking reason and pissed the Arabs and Persians off for eternity, well, ever more than they were).

You're right. It's Bush's fault. He made them do it.

Let's vote Bush out in 2016.


Thank you for not understanding how government, history or politics work.

You are truly a pillar of excellence of FarkConnery.
 
2013-05-31 11:14:11 AM  
according to mr pincus, the government knows what is best for us and we shouldn't question their motives or tactics.
 
2013-05-31 11:14:12 AM  

verbaltoxin: Fart_Machine: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

It's amusing that you believe government was more open in the past although it does seem that journalists care more about the story than the lives of assets overseas.

I think it's amusing we now care about the lives of assets overseas, but when the Wikileaks case came out, people were getting up on a cross for Bradley Manning.

So which is it? I'm at least willing to acknowledge the government will have to revise its doctrines on intelligence in the face of new challenges. I don't know what those changes will look like, but I do see a trend where other people want more openness and flow of information. The government doesn't want to encourage that. If anything, they want to control the message further.


I believe Manning is a criminal.
 
2013-05-31 11:15:23 AM  

Fart_Machine: verbaltoxin: Fart_Machine: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

It's amusing that you believe government was more open in the past although it does seem that journalists care more about the story than the lives of assets overseas.

I think it's amusing we now care about the lives of assets overseas, but when the Wikileaks case came out, people were getting up on a cross for Bradley Manning.

So which is it? I'm at least willing to acknowledge the government will have to revise its doctrines on intelligence in the face of new challenges. I don't know what those changes will look like, but I do see a trend where other people want more openness and flow of information. The government doesn't want to encourage that. If anything, they want to control the message further.

I believe Manning is a criminal.


As do I. Just to clarify.
 
2013-05-31 11:17:34 AM  

verbaltoxin: Fart_Machine: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But now everything is classified, confidential, or vital to national security. Without leaks the only stories coming out of Washington would be vetted press releases.

It's amusing that you believe government was more open in the past although it does seem that journalists care more about the story than the lives of assets overseas.

I think it's amusing we now care about the lives of assets overseas, but when the Wikileaks case came out, people were getting up on a cross for Bradley Manning.

So which is it? I'm at least willing to acknowledge the government will have to revise its doctrines on intelligence in the face of new challenges. I don't know what those changes will look like, but I do see a trend where other people want more openness and flow of information. The government doesn't want to encourage that. If anything, they want to control the message further.


To be fair, the Bradley Manning case had far less of a national security aspect than this one. The State Department Cables were primarily inter-office assessments of host countries and their leadership, not any sort of spy work. It certainly hurt international relations to get records of our ambassadors essentially trash talking their host countries at times, and some of the complaints about the lifestyles of the ruling class aided anti-government sentiment in certain countries during the Arab Spring, but no smoking gun of "our Embassy was just a front for the CIA to spy on this country" that I ever saw. The North Korea case is that we had someone on the inside informing us of their military capabilities and activities, and announcement of this information meant losing that resource.
 
2013-05-31 11:17:36 AM  

colon_pow: according to mr pincus, the government knows what is best for us and we shouldn't question their motives or tactics.


That's an obvious strawman.
 
2013-05-31 11:20:17 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: cameroncrazy1984: verbaltoxin: And that's the problem: phone records were handed over without a warrant. There was no expectation of privacy. Nobody approached the AP and said that one of their reporters may have violated the law. Instead the AP found out later that their phone records were given to the DOJ.

Do you even understand what a court subpoena is?

Yes, it's a summons to appear before a court to give a testimony.

Are you done being a condescending asshole?

I'm not trying to assert it's a scandal here. I'm criticizing how it was done.

Exactly why are you criticizing the use of a subpoena to gather phone records from the phone company? They're not the personal records of the individual, they don't need a warrant for that. Are you done being wrong now?


Then I cop to being wrong and misunderstanding details of the story.
 
2013-05-31 11:22:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena! Where the hell is my fainting couch?!


Well, the very first amendment to the constitution does actually single out the press.  So uhhh... yes, they are special and no, they don't need to be above the law, since a law was explicitly written for them.
 
2013-05-31 11:25:15 AM  

lennavan: cameroncrazy1984: But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena! Where the hell is my fainting couch?!

Well, the very first amendment to the constitution does actually single out the press.  So uhhh... yes, they are special and no, they don't need to be above the law, since a law was explicitly written for them.


Wait, you think the first amendment protects them from even investigation? Or do I misunderstand you?
 
2013-05-31 11:27:10 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Please don't say "blow up" and "journalist" in the same breath.



It makes Don Bolles sad.



/Don Bolles was sitting in that car when dynamite blew the floor and seat into his body.
/His own paper wouldn't run the investigative series about his murder--it implicated friends of the paper, like Senator Barry Goldwater


Ahhh, the Arizona Project. That book depressed the hell out of me. (The NY Times and Washington Post also didn't run the series.)
I went into journalism anyway.

/beats getting a real job
 
2013-05-31 11:29:13 AM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: cameroncrazy1984: But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena! Where the hell is my fainting couch?!

Well, the very first amendment to the constitution does actually single out the press.  So uhhh... yes, they are special and no, they don't need to be above the law, since a law was explicitly written for them.

Wait, you think the first amendment protects them from even investigation? Or do I misunderstand you?


I didn't use the word investigation at all in my post so I imagine you read way to far into that post.
 
2013-05-31 11:30:20 AM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: cameroncrazy1984: But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena! Where the hell is my fainting couch?!

Well, the very first amendment to the constitution does actually single out the press.  So uhhh... yes, they are special and no, they don't need to be above the law, since a law was explicitly written for them.

Wait, you think the first amendment protects them from even investigation? Or do I misunderstand you?


No. What angered the AP was the manner in which it was carried out, and that is that they had no knowledge these phone records had been subpoenaed until two months after the fact. And there is the issue of the sheer breadth and scope that even stretched the DOJ's own internal policies to the limit.
 
2013-05-31 11:30:40 AM  

LasersHurt: colon_pow: according to mr pincus, the government knows what is best for us and we shouldn't question their motives or tactics.

That's an obvious strawman.


it's an observation.
 
2013-05-31 11:31:17 AM  

lennavan: cameroncrazy1984: But but journalists are special! They should be above the law! A subpoena! Where the hell is my fainting couch?!

Well, the very first amendment to the constitution does actually single out the press.  So uhhh... yes, they are special and no, they don't need to be above the law, since a law was explicitly written for them.


I don't know of anything in the 1st amendment that says a reporter cannot be legally investigated for a possible crime. Perhaps you can point it out to me? Can a reporter accidentally murder a guy and get away with it if he publishes it?
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report