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.

(Fox News)   New report shows that the Obama administration has created a "chilling effect" on the free press unseen since...well, you already know who else had a chilling effect on the free press, so I'll just stop there   (foxnews.com) divider line 220
    More: Scary, Obama, Committee to Protect Journalists, Bush administration, open government, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

1804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-11 11:40:26 AM  
Of course you accuse the black guy of spending too much time chilling.
 
2013-10-11 11:43:46 AM  
Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....
 
2013-10-11 11:46:06 AM  
Fox News is a blind squirrel and this story is a nut.
 
2013-10-11 11:46:22 AM  
The press is totally less free, because reasons. Definitely. Ask them. They're all "Oh man, my freedom."
 
2013-10-11 11:46:33 AM  
Well, Hitler never took questions at his press conferences either!
 
2013-10-11 11:47:42 AM  
The Obama-Hitler is UPON US.
OMG.

/No. This is just Obama continuing and running with Bush II's policies.
 
2013-10-11 11:47:42 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Fox News is a blind squirrel and this story is a nut.


To move my butt to the dance floor.
 
2013-10-11 11:47:49 AM  
Not gonna give them the click- I assume this is as fair and balanced as you'd expect it to be?
 
2013-10-11 11:48:03 AM  
I think part of the problem is that people interpreted the idea of more transparency as "complete transparency and total immunity for literally ANY and EVERY leak."
 
2013-10-11 11:48:32 AM  
Fact: The press overwhelmly favors Republicans

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!

This isn't a new problem. The press has always favored the money and Republicans control most of the money.
 
2013-10-11 11:50:06 AM  
images.wikia.com

Yeah, that's right you'll stop right there.
 
2013-10-11 11:50:35 AM  
Meh.
 
2013-10-11 11:51:25 AM  
Harper?
 
2013-10-11 11:52:21 AM  
...Fox News has created a "pants-pissingly warm" effect on the free press unseen since...
 
2013-10-11 11:54:38 AM  
Fox news: "You can't trust any other news source besides us, because they are all horribly bias. But not us! You can totally trust us! Our founder Rupert Murdoch is a 82 year old guy married to a 44 old women. But we are the channel of American moral values! Now watch this commercial"
 
2013-10-11 11:55:07 AM  

Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....


It's an AP story.
 
2013-10-11 11:55:12 AM  
FTA: "government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press, "

Ugh, years ago when I did some government statistics for a state government. I had a reporter call me and ask me questions about some inaccuracies in the data. I thanked him, explained there error in the query, and went about fixing my query. A few days later there was a headline about a secret coverup to produce bad data to make such and such look better than it actually is, citing my data.

Ugh,
 
2013-10-11 11:55:18 AM  
Fox News sounds very concerned.
 
2013-10-11 11:56:06 AM  
To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....

Worst since Nixon, they say.

/I have no dog in this fight
 
2013-10-11 11:57:10 AM  

MindStalker: FTA: "government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press, "

Ugh, years ago when I did some government statistics for a state government. I had a reporter call me and ask me questions about some inaccuracies in the data. I thanked him, explained there error in the query, and went about fixing my query. A few days later there was a headline about a secret coverup to produce bad data to make such and such look better than it actually is, citing my data.

Ugh,


Everyone on Fark agrees that the press is generally terrible - unless that would undercut their arguments against the government.
 
2013-10-11 11:57:14 AM  
I thought it was more of a warming effect on the press.

fcit.usf.edu
 
2013-10-11 11:57:38 AM  
And it's an ASSOCIATED PRESS article at Fox News, not their story
 
2013-10-11 12:00:06 PM  

MindStalker: FTA: "government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press, "

Ugh, years ago when I did some government statistics for a state government. I had a reporter call me and ask me questions about some inaccuracies in the data. I thanked him, explained there error in the query, and went about fixing my query. A few days later there was a headline about a secret coverup to produce bad data to make such and such look better than it actually is, citing my data.

Ugh,


ACK!!!
 
2013-10-11 12:01:16 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-11 12:02:24 PM  
 Wow Fox must have completely changed their position on this subject. Normally they wouldn't be referencing such an article unless they were referring to the authors as traitors. At least under Bush they did.
 
2013-10-11 12:03:40 PM  
While the age of corporate news organizations has made traditional sources, beholden to both corporate and political interests, less useful, we still manage to find reliable news through a variety on non-traditional sources. Those sources are free, and continue to champion the free-press ideal.
 
2013-10-11 12:04:40 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]


Are you farking kidding me?!
 
2013-10-11 12:09:03 PM  
Sooner or later the DPRK will stop writing their own news and start outsourcing their story-writing to Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity.
 
2013-10-11 12:10:10 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]


Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.
 
2013-10-11 12:10:22 PM  

jakomo002: To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....


Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.
 
2013-10-11 12:10:26 PM  
We get it. He's black and you don't like him.
 
2013-10-11 12:10:41 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]


...bwuh. ##NO CARRIER##
 
2013-10-11 12:11:54 PM  
Even NPR doesn't call Republicans on their bullshiat anymore.  These guys never turn off the projector.
 
2013-10-11 12:14:06 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Of course you accuse the black guy of spending too much time chilling.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-10-11 12:14:07 PM  

HypnozombieX: Wow Fox must have completely changed their position on this subject. Normally they wouldn't be referencing such an article unless they were referring to the authors as traitors. At least under Bush they did.


Its an Associated Press story, carried by Fox...
 
2013-10-11 12:14:27 PM  
I read a bunch of the comments from the link. WTF is my problem?

Obama is Hitler? Hyperbole is the most awesome thing ever in the entire universe.
 
2013-10-11 12:15:05 PM  
Here is the original source document for those that don't want to give fox a click..

http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveill an ce-post-911.php
 
2013-10-11 12:15:46 PM  

Mr_Fabulous:


Chapelle is a precog!
 
2013-10-11 12:16:47 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Here is the original source document for those that don't want to give fox a click..

http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveill an ce-post-911.php


Whatever.  Just another racist group peddling their racist agenda.
 
2013-10-11 12:17:20 PM  

GanjSmokr: Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.



Dafuq you on about?

Inheriting a secretive post-9/11 government, Obama pursued more closed policies, rebuffing his promises of transparency, the report states. Six government workers and two contractors have been prosecuted with felony charges under the Espionage since 2009 for allegedly leaking information to the media, with more prosecutions in the pipelines. There have only been three similar prosecutions in all prior administrations.

6 plus 2 is more than 3, right?  Or does math hate black people?
 
2013-10-11 12:18:57 PM  

jakomo002: GanjSmokr: Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.


Dafuq you on about?

Inheriting a secretive post-9/11 government, Obama pursued more closed policies, rebuffing his promises of transparency, the report states. Six government workers and two contractors have been prosecuted with felony charges under the Espionage since 2009 for allegedly leaking information to the media, with more prosecutions in the pipelines. There have only been three similar prosecutions in all prior administrations.

6 plus 2 is more than 3, right?  Or does math hate black people?


Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.

Though the racist accusations are dumb and probably just trolling, of course.
 
2013-10-11 12:18:58 PM  
Translation: Obama isn't screwing up and giving us lots of good stories to phone in. How dare he do such effective Presidentin'!
 
2013-10-11 12:19:48 PM  

Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....


More of a case of "Hi Pot, meet Kettle."
 
2013-10-11 12:22:13 PM  
That "chilling effect" started after 9/11 when America freaked out and let the government do anything they wanted to fight terrorism.
 
2013-10-11 12:22:24 PM  
It's funny how the source of TFA is also the biggest evidence that it's bullshiat.
 
2013-10-11 12:23:15 PM  
It's a fair charge to lay at him. I may like the guy, but his record on this is pretty bad. I remember when the Snowden thing happened, there was an interview or press conference that was basically like, "This treasonous leak puts American lives in danger, and is completely legal, totally legitimate, and an inherently good thing... buuuuuuut maybe we can look at some of these policies if they're wrong?" It's pretty hypocritical to prosecute a guy for espionage because it was a "leak" not a "whistleblower," then turn around make changes based on that leak that wouldn't have happened prior to said leak.
 
2013-10-11 12:24:43 PM  

jakomo002: And it's an ASSOCIATED PRESS article at Fox News, not their story


AP is also a right-wing news organization.  Just not nearly as blatant about it as Fox.
 
2013-10-11 12:24:48 PM  
Fox News shouldn't have to worry. It's not like they employ real journalists.
 
2013-10-11 12:25:08 PM  
Don't let the Fox link fool you. This really is a thing.

"In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press,. The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate." - Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post
 
2013-10-11 12:25:28 PM  

LasersHurt: Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.


Okay:    "The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate," writes Downie. "The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent."...

In at least two of these cases, journalists' communications were seized by the department of justice. Broader awareness of government surveillance, in part thanks to the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, has created a climate of fear for journalists. "I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails," said veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity.
 
2013-10-11 12:25:43 PM  

LasersHurt: Though the racist accusations are dumb and probably just trolling, of course.


I couldn't agree more with this....

So sad that some people who post crap like that are actually serious and not just trolling.
 
2013-10-11 12:26:07 PM  

busy chillin': I read a bunch of the comments from the link. WTF is my problem?

Obama is Hitler? Hyperbole is the most awesome thing ever in the entire universe.


I used to think that, until I realized that hyperbole is worse than Hitler.
 
2013-10-11 12:26:29 PM  

Cletus C.: Don't let the Fox link fool you. This really is a thing.

"In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press,. The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate." - Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post


Oh wow a guy said it who used to be a newspaperman! It must be true, screw evidence, this is all we need!
 
2013-10-11 12:28:25 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.

Okay:    "The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate," writes Downie. "The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent."...

In at least two of these cases, journalists' communications were seized by the department of justice. Broader awareness of government surveillance, in part thanks to the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, has created a climate of fear for journalists. "I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails," said veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity.


You didn't answer any of my questions, you just posted some dude's opinion and noted that two things happened. Two. Two things.
 
2013-10-11 12:29:06 PM  
He's an ineffective leader!
He's a tyrant!

He's an empty suit!
He's imposing a socialist regime!

He's too weak to do anything!
His policies are crushing freedom!

Stop contradicting yourselves, I won't know what to think if you keep mixing up your talking points!
 
2013-10-11 12:29:48 PM  
From the comments on that article:


"Well, lets compare the White House to many of Americas once great cities.  A large population of minorities moves in.  Minorities soon take control of the leadership positions. They begin to cater to those who take without giving, inviting some of the worse  elements in society.  Criminals are given free rein, and the once long arm of justice is told to stand down.  Lies become the norm, and elaborate schemes are concocted to hide the truth.  Starting to sound familiar?"


No, no it's not. But go on, person whose vote counts as much as mine.
 
2013-10-11 12:32:36 PM  
Fox News' mere continued existence is proof positive that Obama isn't cracking down on "news" organizations.
 
2013-10-11 12:33:13 PM  

LasersHurt: Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.


So read the article and google for more info, more sources, and see the truth of the article for yourself.  Do you need me to hold your hand?  Cripes.

I'll start you off with a total lefty site.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/10-7
 
2013-10-11 12:34:01 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: From the comments on that article:


"Well, lets compare the White House to many of Americas once great cities.  A large population of minorities moves in.  Minorities soon take control of the leadership positions. They begin to cater to those who take without giving, inviting some of the worse  elements in society.  Criminals are given free rein, and the once long arm of justice is told to stand down.  Lies become the norm, and elaborate schemes are concocted to hide the truth.  Starting to sound familiar?"


No, no it's not. But go on, person whose vote counts as much as mine.


Wow, so subtle with his racism.  The bigoted white people are really scared of losing their America.
 
2013-10-11 12:34:44 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: From the comments on that article:


"Well, lets compare the White House to many of Americas once great cities.  A large population of minorities moves in.  Minorities soon take control of the leadership positions. They begin to cater to those who take without giving, inviting some of the worse  elements in society.  Criminals are given free rein, and the once long arm of justice is told to stand down.  Lies become the norm, and elaborate schemes are concocted to hide the truth.  Starting to sound familiar?"


No, no it's not. But go on, person whose vote counts as much as mine.


Wow, that's not implied racism at all... NO!
 
2013-10-11 12:35:01 PM  
This is the full report.
 
2013-10-11 12:35:17 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Are you farking kidding me?!


SordidEuphemism: ...bwuh. ##NO CARRIER##


Cuthbert Allgood: Chapelle is a precog!


I'm an Egyptian!: Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.


Yes, it's shooped.
thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com
The "O"riginal

thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com
Yet another lame 'shoop attempt to use that same frame of video to smear Fox.

This sort of thing upsets me. We don't need to stoop to Fox's level. The real stuff they really do is bad enough.
 
2013-10-11 12:35:31 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.


It apparently is. So's the right side.
 
2013-10-11 12:35:41 PM  

LasersHurt: You didn't answer any of my questions, you just posted some dude's opinion and noted that two things happened. Two. Two things.


I was responding to this, sorry.
 
2013-10-11 12:36:15 PM  

Amish Tech Support: Fox news: "You can't trust any other news source besides us, because they are all horribly bias. But not us! You can totally trust us! Our founder Rupert Murdoch is a 82 year old guy married to a 44 old women. But we are the channel of American moral values! Now watch this commercial"


Not any more.  Wendy dumped his saggy white ass and filed for divorce.
 
2013-10-11 12:39:39 PM  

LazarusLong42: busy chillin': I read a bunch of the comments from the link. WTF is my problem?

Obama is Hitler? Hyperbole is the most awesome thing ever in the entire universe.

I used to think that, until I realized that hyperbole is worse than Hitler.


whynotboth.jpg

/oblig
 
2013-10-11 12:40:35 PM  

Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....


I think Fox just admitted what they do is not journalism.
 
2013-10-11 12:40:54 PM  
Looking at prosecutions on their own doesn't tell us anything. It could be that leaks were more tolerated, but nevertheless illegal. It could be that there are more leaks. It's hard to say there's a chilling effect when everyone is printing top secret documents on their web site knowing full well that the government isn't going to kick down their doors for doing so. The media's very actions belie their assertions of victimhood.
 
2013-10-11 12:41:28 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.

So read the article and google for more info, more sources, and see the truth of the article for yourself.  Do you need me to hold your hand?  Cripes.

I'll start you off with a total lefty site.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/10-7


It's not about saying the same thing over and over, it's about proving that your rhetoric of "aggression" and "unprecedented" events MEANS anything. It doesn't. I do not think you can argue that the press is sincerely less free, and I don't care if you try to dress it up from a Left or Right position.
 
2013-10-11 12:44:31 PM  
Wow, why am I not surprised that this story is being blown off because it's Obama.

Same ol' deflections; racism, has to be bullshiat because I don't like the source, and the obligatory BBBUT BUshia

this place has become too predictable.
 
2013-10-11 12:44:40 PM  

Corvus: Bareefer Obonghit: From the comments on that article:


"Well, lets compare the White House to many of Americas once great cities.  A large population of minorities moves in.  Minorities soon take control of the leadership positions. They begin to cater to those who take without giving, inviting some of the worse  elements in society.  Criminals are given free rein, and the once long arm of justice is told to stand down.  Lies become the norm, and elaborate schemes are concocted to hide the truth.  Starting to sound familiar?"


No, no it's not. But go on, person whose vote counts as much as mine.

Wow, that's not implied racism at all... NO!


That commenter goes on to say they should spray paint their names on the White House because it's their culture.
 
2013-10-11 12:49:05 PM  
The report quotes a whole bunch of respected reporters from the top news organizations saying they've never seen such an obsession with controlling information coming from the White House. Sources are fearful of saying anything.

It also cites several times the president's speeches where he pledges transparency in his administration.

That's where we are.
 
2013-10-11 12:51:44 PM  

LasersHurt: jakomo002: LasersHurt: Common sense would dictate that you ask if there have been more leaks, hence more prosecution. Or different TYPES of leaks, as not all are created equal. Or perhaps evaluate whether the word "aggressive" meant anything in the context you used it.

So read the article and google for more info, more sources, and see the truth of the article for yourself.  Do you need me to hold your hand?  Cripes.

I'll start you off with a total lefty site.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/10-7

It's not about saying the same thing over and over, it's about proving that your rhetoric of "aggression" and "unprecedented" events MEANS anything. It doesn't. I do not think you can argue that the press is sincerely less free, and I don't care if you try to dress it up from a Left or Right position.



What is a metric that you would accept as evidence of the claim?
 
2013-10-11 12:52:09 PM  

crab66: We get it. He's black and you don't like him.


GanjSmokr: jakomo002: To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....

Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.


LasersHurt: The press is totally less free, because reasons. Definitely. Ask them. They're all "Oh man, my freedom."

Politics tab never disappoints.
 
2013-10-11 12:53:05 PM  

LasersHurt: It's not about saying the same thing over and over, it's about proving that your rhetoric of "aggression" and "unprecedented" events MEANS anything. It doesn't. I do not think you can argue that the press is sincerely less free, and I don't care if you try to dress it up from a Left or Right position.


READ the actual report and judge for yourself, I really don't care.  I didn't report it and I have no reason to defend the veracity of it.

Read it and think for yourself what it proves and doesn't.

/buhbye
 
2013-10-11 12:53:14 PM  
What the hell would Fox News know about journalism?  Except to make sure they keep one "token" journalist around.
 
2013-10-11 12:55:54 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: What is a metric that you would accept as evidence of the claim?


I'd like us to stop defining "free press" solely as the ability to report governmental information, as it's more than that.

I'd also like them to stop defining "transparency" as "me getting literally anything I want, when I want it."

In short, if you want to prove the press isn't free, you need to... prove that. Not just say "we wish we could get more from the White House, also sometimes leaks of classified info get prosecuted."

I mean in the Civil Rights era there was a recognition that Civil Disobedience involved breaking a law AND facing the consequences of it. Having 2 cases of someone being investigated surrounding classified leaks does not prove the press is not free, that's hyperbole.
 
2013-10-11 12:55:55 PM  

wooden_badger: What the hell would Fox News know about journalism?  Except to make sure they keep one "token" journalist around.


They know how to post stories from The Associated Press. So there's that.
 
2013-10-11 12:56:14 PM  
Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.
 
2013-10-11 12:56:51 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: It's not about saying the same thing over and over, it's about proving that your rhetoric of "aggression" and "unprecedented" events MEANS anything. It doesn't. I do not think you can argue that the press is sincerely less free, and I don't care if you try to dress it up from a Left or Right position.

READ the actual report and judge for yourself, I really don't care.  I didn't report it and I have no reason to defend the veracity of it.

Read it and think for yourself what it proves and doesn't.

/buhbye


I did, and I disagree with you. That's sort of the crux of our interaction, we have different opinions. Sorry?
 
2013-10-11 12:57:30 PM  
I am surprised at the surprise of this. It is what wanna-be dictators do after all.
 
2013-10-11 12:59:23 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.


Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.
 
2013-10-11 12:59:50 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....

It's an AP story.


Assimilated Press.
 
2013-10-11 01:00:13 PM  

floor: Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....

I think Fox just admitted what they do is not journalism.


I think you both just admitted what you do is not reading.
 
2013-10-11 01:00:52 PM  

Vectron: crab66: We get it. He's black and you don't like him.

GanjSmokr: jakomo002: To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....

Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.

LasersHurt: The press is totally less free, because reasons. Definitely. Ask them. They're all "Oh man, my freedom."

Politics tab never disappoints.



At least one of those was posted to make fun of those that would seriously post idiocy like that.
 
2013-10-11 01:01:56 PM  
Interesting- glad the non-Fox News link was posted so I could read over it.

It is interesting noting how many prosecutions they've had, and that it is so much more than in the past. More useful I'd think would be knowing whether there were leaks/incidents of a similar nature/severity in the past and what was done about it. Is it possible there have just been more people leaking info, and thus a greater need to crack down on them? Perhaps more people out to get the administration or who take issue with their policies and thus trying to damage them by leaking secrets? Could the administration just be more open about tackling the leaks and thus more open to being criticized for it vs. perhaps handling it under the table/off the books? I'd think any of these are possible- as is that possibility that they're just being more aggressive about information management and less transparent, although truly quantifying 'transparency' when nobody really knows everything that is going on is difficult.
 
2013-10-11 01:02:27 PM  

LasersHurt: jakomo002: LasersHurt: It's not about saying the same thing over and over, it's about proving that your rhetoric of "aggression" and "unprecedented" events MEANS anything. It doesn't. I do not think you can argue that the press is sincerely less free, and I don't care if you try to dress it up from a Left or Right position.

READ the actual report and judge for yourself, I really don't care.  I didn't report it and I have no reason to defend the veracity of it.

Read it and think for yourself what it proves and doesn't.

/buhbye

I did, and I disagree with you. That's sort of the crux of our interaction, we have different opinions. Sorry?


So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?
 
2013-10-11 01:03:47 PM  

jakomo002: So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?


So you think it's okay to just make shiat up? I didn't say anything was a lie, I'm talking about the CONCLUSIONS you're drawing. Surely you must understand that.

If you can reply without hyperbole and accusation, feel free.
 
2013-10-11 01:05:48 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Are you farking kidding me?!


SordidEuphemism: ...bwuh. ##NO CARRIER##


Cuthbert Allgood: Chapelle is a precog!


I'm an Egyptian!: Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.


Yes, it's shooped.
thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com
The "O"riginal

thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com
Yet another lame 'shoop attempt to use that same frame of video to smear Fox.

This sort of thing upsets me. We don't need to stoop to Fox's level. The real stuff they really do is bad enough.

Re-posted with original image scaled to be precisely the original per-pixel size when viewed on a 2× "retina"-type display (full 1× original size is too big for FARK).

Note that Fox News uses all UPPERCASE AVANT GARDE GOTHIC DEMIBOLD CONDENSED font for its headlines in that section on the maroon patterned background.
 
2013-10-11 01:06:35 PM  
To bypass journalists, the White House developed its own network of websites, social media and even created an online newscast to dispense favorable information and images. In some cases, the White House produces videos of the president's meetings with major figures that were never listed on his public schedule. Instead, they were kept secret -- a departure from past administrations, the report noted.

Forward!

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-10-11 01:07:46 PM  

LasersHurt: I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.


same with torture and enhanced interrogation.
 
2013-10-11 01:08:01 PM  

LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.


In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed." For reference, the Bush version of a leak investigation resulted in Scooter Libby being the fall guy for outing Valerie Plame, and then getting his sentence commuted and his fine paid for by the Bushes (I think it was them; either way his fine was paid). Meanwhile, Armitage and Rove walked away unblemished and free.
 
2013-10-11 01:08:26 PM  

LasersHurt: Cubicle Jockey: What is a metric that you would accept as evidence of the claim?

I'd like us to stop defining "free press" solely as the ability to report governmental information, as it's more than that.

I'd also like them to stop defining "transparency" as "me getting literally anything I want, when I want it."

In short, if you want to prove the press isn't free, you need to... prove that. Not just say "we wish we could get more from the White House, also sometimes leaks of classified info get prosecuted."

I mean in the Civil Rights era there was a recognition that Civil Disobedience involved breaking a law AND facing the consequences of it. Having 2 cases of someone being investigated surrounding classified leaks does not prove the press is not free, that's hyperbole.



I think you've taken this a fine direction.  Part of what you seem to be saying is it's fully possible to have a "free press" but that doesn't mean 100% unfettered access and so on.  But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

LasersHurt: I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.



I'll never agree with anyone who thinks the difference between whistleblowing and leaking is clear cut.
 
2013-10-11 01:08:33 PM  
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journalists-of-t he-associated-press-seized-by-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Federal investigators secretly seized two months of phone records for reporters and editors of The Associated Press in what the news organization said Monday was a "serious interference with A.P.'s constitutional rights to gather and report the news."

The A.P. said that the Justice Department informed it on Friday that law enforcement officials had obtained the records for more than 20 telephone lines of its offices and journalists, including their home phones and cellphones. It said the records were seized without notice sometime this year.



The organization was not told the reason for the seizure. But the timing and the specific journalistic targets strongly suggested they are related to a continuing government investigation into the leaking of information a year ago about the Central Intelligence Agency's disruption of a Yemen-based terrorist plot to bomb an airliner.

See that's aggressive.
 
2013-10-11 01:08:45 PM  
Fox News has the most viewers but somehow they're not mainstream media too bad libs
 
2013-10-11 01:10:05 PM  

lennavan: I think you've taken this a fine direction. Part of what you seem to be saying is it's fully possible to have a "free press" but that doesn't mean 100% unfettered access and so on. But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.


I think the fact that our news media just doesn't give a shiat anymore and doesn't attempt to give us actual information is significantly more harmful to our nation than Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.
 
2013-10-11 01:10:49 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: lennavan: I think you've taken this a fine direction. Part of what you seem to be saying is it's fully possible to have a "free press" but that doesn't mean 100% unfettered access and so on. But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

I think the fact that our news media just doesn't give a shiat anymore and doesn't attempt to give us actual information is significantly more harmful to our nation than Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.


And it's actually more than that. Our "news" media is actually attempting to obfuscate the truth, because it suits their corporate masters.
 
2013-10-11 01:11:29 PM  

Headso: LasersHurt: I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

same with torture and enhanced interrogation.


Never make analogies again.
 
2013-10-11 01:11:56 PM  
Can Obama just step down and let the white VP lead the country for a while? Obviously this sounds racist, but a black buy being President is like the US making our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia a woman, and then we expect them to get along. We would never make our Saudi Ambassador a woman due to cultural issues, so it's probably time that we remove our first black President from office due to our own backwards cultural issues. We can try again in another 50 years or so.
 
2013-10-11 01:13:24 PM  

LasersHurt: The press is totally less free, because reasons. Definitely. Ask them. They're all "Oh man, my freedom."


Totes harshing on mah freedoms.
 
2013-10-11 01:14:06 PM  

LasersHurt: jakomo002: So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?

So you think it's okay to just make shiat up? I didn't say anything was a lie, I'm talking about the CONCLUSIONS you're drawing. Surely you must understand that.

If you can reply without hyperbole and accusation, feel free.


So the report is factual, we can agree.  You object to my use of 'aggressively'?

???  That's the CONCLUSION of the whole freaking thing.  That the Obama Administration is the most aggressive when it comes to prosecuting leakers.
 
2013-10-11 01:14:08 PM  

Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....


Wait until Jon Stewart tells you how to respond.

Is this why you were gone for all of the scandal threads this summer?
 
2013-10-11 01:14:43 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.


It is. Look it up.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:15 PM  

busy chillin': I read a bunch of the comments from the link. WTF is my problem?

Obama is Hitler? Hyperbole is the most awesome thing ever in the entire universe.


What you did there. I see it.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:20 PM  

lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.


Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."


That seems like a really weird way to define that.
 
2013-10-11 01:15:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: lennavan: I think you've taken this a fine direction. Part of what you seem to be saying is it's fully possible to have a "free press" but that doesn't mean 100% unfettered access and so on. But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

I think the fact that our news media just doesn't give a shiat anymore and doesn't attempt to give us actual information is significantly more harmful to our nation than Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.


That's for sure.
 
2013-10-11 01:16:08 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: jakomo002: So you think the report is a lie?  That everyone quoted and interviewed on record was lying?

So you think it's okay to just make shiat up? I didn't say anything was a lie, I'm talking about the CONCLUSIONS you're drawing. Surely you must understand that.

If you can reply without hyperbole and accusation, feel free.

So the report is factual, we can agree.  You object to my use of 'aggressively'?

???  That's the CONCLUSION of the whole freaking thing.  That the Obama Administration is the most aggressive when it comes to prosecuting leakers.


Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.
 
2013-10-11 01:17:54 PM  
Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

"This is the most closed, control freak administration I've ever covered." - David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.

"It's turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press." - Margaret Sullivan, New York Times public editor

"The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention. There's a mind-set and approach that holds journalists at a greater distance." - Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of The Associated Press

"He's the least transparent of the seven presidents I've covered in terms of how he does his daily business." - ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton

"Covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of substance to report on in what should be a much more open system. If the U.S. starts backsliding, it is not only a bad example for more closed states, but also for other democracies that have been influenced by the U.S." to make their governments more transparent." - Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor

"The Obama administration is far worse than the Bush administration" in trying to thwart accountability reporting about government agencies. - Ellen Weiss, Washington bureau chief for E.W. Scripps newspapers and stations.
 
2013-10-11 01:18:00 PM  

LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."

That seems like a really weird way to define that.


So? That doesn't change the fact that Obama is taking this more seriously than any president before him.
 
2013-10-11 01:18:32 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Weaver95: Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....

Wait until Jon Stewart tells you how to respond.

Is this why you were gone for all of the scandal threads this summer?


Let me guess, O'Reilly's on about Stewart again?
 
2013-10-11 01:19:15 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.


Protections for actual whistleblowers have, in fact, been expanded under Obama - by executive order too, so this is something that came from the administration of its own volition.
 
2013-10-11 01:19:33 PM  

Granny_Panties: Fact: The press overwhelmly favors Republicans

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!

This isn't a new problem. The press has always favored the money and Republicans control most of the money.


Lol wut?
 
2013-10-11 01:19:53 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: LasersHurt: Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.

Maybe this is a "me" problem - what is the difference between "aggressively" pursuing something, and pursuing it at all? What is the reason everyone keeps saying "aggressive"? It seems like "any pursuit" is "aggressive" and I don't understand that, but maybe I'm missing something.

I will also never agree with anyone who lumps together Whistleblowing and Leaking. They are different. Hence the two words.

In my mind, "aggressively" means "actually wants to succeed."

That seems like a really weird way to define that.

So? That doesn't change the fact that Obama is taking this more seriously than any president before him.


Because every president had exactly the same type of scenarios presented to them. (no they did not)
 
2013-10-11 01:20:30 PM  
Really, in a day and age of open reporting from the field that can reach millions of people instantly, one administration has had a "chilling effect" on the free press.

I'd say the pursuit of ad dollars and shareholder value has had the more effect on the press than 1,000 Adolf Hussien Fartbamas
 
2013-10-11 01:20:43 PM  

LasersHurt: Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.


SILLY ME.  I thought we were talking about THIS specific study not every study ever penned in the history of humanity.  You moved the goalposts to farkin Jupiter.

Stay in school.
 
2013-10-11 01:21:13 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Yes, I disagree with the conclusion. I don't see how you're having trouble understanding this, unless you 100% accept every conclusion from every "study" done by every group.

SILLY ME.  I thought we were talking about THIS specific study not every study ever penned in the history of humanity.  You moved the goalposts to farkin Jupiter.

Stay in school.


Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.
 
2013-10-11 01:22:18 PM  
In other words, he's vigorously and effectively enforcing the law.  People CAN legally whistleblow, but it takes EFFORT and is oftentimes not as effective or satisfying as turning traitor.  As far as the press is concerned, fark them.  Their job is to investigate, not to simply collect quotes from people who hate their jobs.
 
2013-10-11 01:23:47 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Uh, isn't this obvious? Look, I voted for Obama twice, and I don't regret it. But to say that he HASN'T aggressively pursued leaks and whistleblowers, well, that's just an outright lie. I consider it one of Obama's two major failings as POTUS, the other being his failure to break apart the Too Big To Fail banks.


This is Fark politics. Any criticism of anyone with a D after their name means you are 100% tea party redneck racist conservative who hates the poor.

Expect some mouth breather Democrat fanboy to retort with "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
 
2013-10-11 01:24:54 PM  

Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.


I would suggest you're trying to feed a nutritious meal to people who are used to theirs being cut into tiny bite-sized pieces and spoonfed to them all day every day.
 
2013-10-11 01:25:59 PM  

Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.


It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.
 
2013-10-11 01:26:53 PM  

Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.


6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.
 
2013-10-11 01:28:20 PM  

Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.


On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.


The entire premise of the report is to prove the unprecedented aggressiveness of the OA.  Interviews, quotes, factual references, etc.  If you don't agree with the conclusion, you have to doubt the proof.

My butt you read it.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:32 PM  

Biological Ali: Mike Chewbacca: Obama's attempts to curb whisteblowing.

Protections for actual whistleblowers have, in fact, been expanded under Obama - by executive order too, so this is something that came from the administration of its own volition.


I probably shouldn't have used the term whistleblower. I have no doubt Obama is less open with the press than his predecessors. Part of that is because our press is completely retarded and useless these days. Part of that is because of the rightwing propaganda machine. Part of that is because [REDACTED].

I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.
 
2013-10-11 01:29:35 PM  
funnyshare.org
 
2013-10-11 01:30:30 PM  

meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.


Consider how shiat-tastic our modern "news" media is, I'm sure that right on the money.
 
2013-10-11 01:30:54 PM  

meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.


Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.
 
2013-10-11 01:31:52 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: Again, I did talk about this study. Remember when I said I don't agree with the conclusion? Good times.

The entire premise of the report is to prove the unprecedented aggressiveness of the OA.  Interviews, quotes, factual references, etc.  If you don't agree with the conclusion, you have to doubt the proof.

My butt you read it.


"Agree with me or you are wrong."

Well, okay.
 
2013-10-11 01:34:46 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.



Same here.  I was VERY hopeful when he won, now I realize he's more of a third and fourth Dubya term than anything resembling Hope & Change.  But he's miles ahead of the other potential options.
 
2013-10-11 01:35:17 PM  

LasersHurt: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.


Who to believe, actual journalists dealing with the administration or Fark Politics tab's Democrat fanboy club?
 
2013-10-11 01:36:01 PM  

machoprogrammer: LasersHurt: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

6 journalists offer their opinions. Film at 11.

Who to believe, actual journalists dealing with the administration or Fark Politics tab's Democrat fanboy club?


Do you seriously think you can't find a handful of journalists to pull negative quotes from about ANY administration?

/not a Democrat btw
 
2013-10-11 01:36:25 PM  
By other options I mean (shudder) the GOP.
 
2013-10-11 01:37:26 PM  

LasersHurt: meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.

Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.


These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.
 
2013-10-11 01:37:44 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: I have no doubt Obama is less open with the press than his predecessors.


...

I don't have to support everything Obama does to be an Obama supporter.

I don't think anybody's asking you to "support everything Obama does". It would, however be helpful if things like "less open with the press" could be defined in a more specific manner. What, precisely, are some of the things that Obama's predecessors did that he hasn't done? And, in forming your opinion about Obama's overall openness to the press, have you taken into account the ways in which he improved upon his predecessors - for example, his directive that all agencies process FOIA requests more quickly and efficiently?
 
2013-10-11 01:37:52 PM  

COMALite J: Yes, it's shooped.
img.fark.net
The "O"riginal


That has to be shopped too. I clearly see Tina Fey there as "Palin"..
 
2013-10-11 01:39:04 PM  

Cletus C.: These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.


I am shocked that there are people who liked Bush more than Obama.
 
2013-10-11 01:39:21 PM  

LasersHurt: I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.


you're just refuting the report with your opinion that it isn't valid presumably because it doesn't agree with what you already believe. We're all just giving our as informed as we can get them divided by our past experiences and political bias opinions in pretty much every thread. Mine is the admin is over the top on some of these issues, these journalists and the ACLU agree.
 
2013-10-11 01:39:35 PM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.


http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?
 
2013-10-11 01:40:27 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: meat0918: Headso: Cletus C.: Since so many of you are too busy to read the report, here are just a few of the fun highlights.

It's tough to decide who would know better, those people or the few people in the thread saying the opposite... random internet guys or the actual journalists dealing with the administration, hmmmm... this is too close to call.

On one hand, I'm not pleased with the administration for more than a few things they have done.

On the other hand, the press seems mostly upset they lost some sources of information because that information meant readership which means $$$$.  I don't think they give two shiats about democracy, just ad revenue.

Plus we're in an era of record-setting partisanship, and journalists are citizens like anyone else. There are surely some who have been against the Obama administration for years. Pulling a few negative quotes is the least possible argument one could make.

I bet you could have easily pulled the same type of quotes about Bush, and called it a "study," but it wouldn't really prove anything would it?

I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.

These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.


So you're saying Obama's Administration actually sent a guy to jail for leaking a CIA agent's name to the press and didn't pardon the person that took the fall?
 
2013-10-11 01:40:52 PM  
I love the assumption that anyone who leaks information is a heroic whistleblower and that journalists they pass the information onto are just disinterested parties.

Like that Fox reporter who straight-up encouraged his source to leak him information so that he could, in his own words, influence US foreign policy. Totally not spy like behavior there. Oh wait, we're not even to allowed to question motives are we? His job title is "journalist", he's automatically trustworthy!

Snowden is establishing the trend for 21st century epsionage - leak some damaging information to claim the mantle of HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWER before fleeing with mountains of other documents to foreign adversaries.

I can't wait for history to catch up and exonerate Aldrich Ames for blowing the whistle on America's illegal activities overseas. I blame Obama for not pardoning him.
 
2013-10-11 01:41:49 PM  

Headso: LasersHurt: I mean we're being asked to take the opinions of people with vested interests as if they are impartial fact, and a lot of people seem willing to do it because it agrees with what they already believe.

you're just refuting the report with your opinion that it isn't valid presumably because it doesn't agree with what you already believe. We're all just giving our as informed as we can get them divided by our past experiences and political bias opinions in pretty much every thread. Mine is the admin is over the top on some of these issues, these journalists and the ACLU agree.


I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?


So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.
 
2013-10-11 01:42:02 PM  

LasersHurt: "Agree with me or you are wrong."



You are wrong.  That you can't or won't see or admit it doesn't bother me at all.  I'm not tasked with scouring the internet to promote rational discourse with pigheaded goalpost repositioners.
 
2013-10-11 01:43:10 PM  

jakomo002: LasersHurt: "Agree with me or you are wrong."


You are wrong.  That you can't or won't see or admit it doesn't bother me at all.  I'm not tasked with scouring the internet to promote rational discourse with pigheaded goalpost repositioners.


Man so you just cannot handle being disagreed with.
 
2013-10-11 01:46:27 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then. But I suspect you would include "absolute impunity for releasing literally anything," putting us at less than 100% in any reasonable situation. If not, please correct me, but that sounds like what you're saying.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly- ob tains-ap-phone-records

What do I win?


Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?
 
2013-10-11 01:47:31 PM  

LasersHurt: Man so you just cannot handle being disagreed with.


You saw right through my flippant dismissal of you.

Thanks for the exercise you gave to my eyes.  Must have rolled them a dozen times.

Cheers.
 
2013-10-11 01:49:44 PM  
Mitch Albom?
 
2013-10-11 01:52:14 PM  
Biological Ali:
Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?

It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.
 
2013-10-11 01:54:56 PM  

LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.


You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.
 
2013-10-11 01:56:15 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.


Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.
 
2013-10-11 01:56:18 PM  

Aexia: It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.


Excuse me?
 
2013-10-11 01:57:34 PM  

LasersHurt: I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.


what do you want, this is like witness testimony, you want dna evidence or something? I've heard reporters on NPR mention similar concerns and then the ACLUs concerns. It's not like it's just some known partisan blowhards who hate all things Obama.
 
2013-10-11 01:59:06 PM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.

Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.


Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.  Posting an article where the DOJ secretly and broadly collected phone records from the AP totally meant I think no one should ever be prosecuted or even investigated for leaking national secrets.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:15 PM  

Biological Ali: Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?


No, I'm suggesting the current administration is ever so slightly worse.  You see, not everything is completely black and white.

In 2001, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a SINGLE REPORTER's phone records.  That's bad.
In 2013, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a WHOLE BUNCH OF REPORTERS' phone records.  That's worse.

LasersHurt: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then.


So, what did I win?
 
2013-10-11 02:03:27 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.

Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.

Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.  Posting an article where the DOJ secretly and broadly collected phone records from the AP totally meant I think no one should ever be prosecuted or even investigated for leaking national secrets.


Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.

And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

Headso: LasersHurt: I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.

what do you want, this is like witness testimony, you want dna evidence or something? I've heard reporters on NPR mention similar concerns and then the ACLUs concerns. It's not like it's just some known partisan blowhards who hate all things Obama.


I want people to realize that the opinions of people with heavily vested interest might be less than jake, even if they agree with those opinions.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:34 PM  

Biological Ali: Aexia: It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.

Excuse me?


Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:49 PM  
Step 1:  Click FOX News link.
Step 2:  Press Ctrl+F
Step 3:  Search or "Hitler."

IT ALWAYS FINDS A RESULT!
 
2013-10-11 02:05:28 PM  

Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.


Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!
 
2013-10-11 02:05:58 PM  

lennavan: Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.

Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!


lennavan: Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.

 
2013-10-11 02:08:24 PM  

LasersHurt: Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.


I was mocking your hyperbole with my own hyperbole.  Translated: YOU STARTED IT

LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.


You dont?!

Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?

[insert your answer here]

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

[insert your answer here]

Yes, EXACTLY.  That's EXACTLY how I feel about this situation.  That's EXACTLY why reporters should be allowed to keep their phone records secret.  That's also EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.  Hey, great conversation.  We ended much earlier than I would have guessed, so we have some free time to kill.  Wanna grab a beer?
 
2013-10-11 02:08:36 PM  

Ashyukun: Not gonna give them the click- I assume this is as fair and balanced as you'd expect it to be?

Take it easy Francis. It's actually an AP story Fox the Washinton Post and others just picked up. You can check it out here. Link

 
2013-10-11 02:09:19 PM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.

Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!

lennavan: Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.


How can you not see what I did there?
 
2013-10-11 02:10:11 PM  

COMALite J: Almost Everybody Poops: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Are you farking kidding me?!

SordidEuphemism: ...bwuh. ##NO CARRIER##

Cuthbert Allgood: Chapelle is a precog!

I'm an Egyptian!: Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.

Yes, it's shooped.
[thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com image 430x242]
The "O"riginal

[thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com image 430x242]
Yet another lame 'shoop attempt to use that same frame of video to smear Fox.
This sort of thing upsets me. We don't need to stoop to Fox's level. The real stuff they really do is bad enough.


Phew. That's a relief.
 
2013-10-11 02:10:42 PM  

lennavan: No, I'm suggesting the current administration is ever so slightly worse. You see, not everything is completely black and white.

In 2001, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a SINGLE REPORTER's phone records. That's bad.
In 2013, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a WHOLE BUNCH OF REPORTERS' phone records. That's worse.


I'm not sure what specific incident from 2001 you're referring to, but in the AP case, the records of multiple people were sought because multiple people worked on the story that ultimately published the leaked information. Had they just randomly picked one and ignored the others, I don't exactly think that would've been better. More importantly, this doesn't exactly work as a metric for showing that the press has become less free, which was the initial claim.

I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?
 
2013-10-11 02:10:59 PM  
If the media were doing its job I might give a shiat.
 
2013-10-11 02:11:07 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!


No. They are not above the law.

lennavan: Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?


Badly, because indefinite jailing without criminal charges is bad.

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

There is a wide gulf between "keeping sources secret" and "indefinite jailing" that you are leaping across for reasons I do not understand.

lennavan: Wanna grab a beer?


Oh lord yes do I ever
 
2013-10-11 02:11:29 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Here is the original source document for those that don't want to give fox a click..

http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveill an ce-post-911.php


People definitely should check out the original report - not the AP story, either from Fox or elsewhere - before evaluating these claims. When I saw TFH I immediately wondered about the reliability of the source of this "new report," but it turns out that both the author, Leonard Downie, Jr., and the organization which published the report, the Committee to Protect Journalists, have pretty solid reputations and credentials. The report is completely anecdotal, of course, and is subject to criticism on that basis I think, but I don't know that the problem should be dismissed out of hand.

Look, I'm a pretty big supporter of this president. I like him the way a lot of people liked Clinton. I must admit, though, that like nearly every other president before him, he is a bit enamored of executive power. This sort of thing bugs me, and I don't mind seeing the White House confronted on this matter.
 
2013-10-11 02:12:04 PM  

CynicalLA: That "chilling effect" started after 9/11 when America freaked out and let the government do anything they wanted to fight terrorism.


Then in 2008 we voted to Change that.
 
2013-10-11 02:12:15 PM  

lennavan: Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.


Let's trust the motivations of a guy who joined a firm explicitly to steal information and then fled with it to Russia.

Let's trust the motivations of a reporter who solicited classified information so he could influence foreign policy.

FREE ALDRICH AMES!
 
2013-10-11 02:12:54 PM  
fark the media.  They are doing a horrible job theses days and don't deserve any credibility.
 
2013-10-11 02:15:07 PM  

GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That "chilling effect" started after 9/11 when America freaked out and let the government do anything they wanted to fight terrorism.

Then in 2008 we voted to Change that.


That's funny.  We all knew that once you give the President more power.  No future President is just going to give that up.  But, terrorism.
 
2013-10-11 02:16:08 PM  
More prosecutions for leaks =/= "chilling effect" on the free press, you morons.

Unless the press lets it.
 
2013-10-11 02:17:24 PM  

Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?


Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.
 
2013-10-11 02:17:35 PM  

lennavan: LasersHurt: Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.

I was mocking your hyperbole with my own hyperbole.  Translated: YOU STARTED IT

LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!

Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?

[insert your answer here]

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

[insert your answer here]

Yes, EXACTLY.  That's EXACTLY how I feel about this situation.  That's EXACTLY why reporters should be allowed to keep their phone records secret.  That's also EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.  Hey, great conversation.  We ended much earlier than I would have guessed, so we have some free time to kill.  Wanna grab a beer?


I know I wasn't the one this was directed at, but...

In general, I disagree with the argument that the First Amendment confers extra protections to journalists beyond what is afforded to a normal citizen. The spirit of the Amendment is meant to protect the spoken and written word, i.e. the government cannot punish you for what you say and write (whether or not the government and courts abide by this restriction is a separate question; the short answer is that currently, not really); however, the First Amendment does not confer any sort of immunity from prosecution or legitimate subpoenas related to how someone obtained the information.

In short, you can write what you want and you (probably) won't get prosecuted; how you obtain that information, however, remains subject to all applicable laws.
 
2013-10-11 02:18:57 PM  

lennavan: Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


I agree with that. On the other hand if you leak information that genuinely puts our nation's security at risk, I have no problem with that being illegal.
 
2013-10-11 02:25:53 PM  

LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!

No. They are not above the law.


Just so we're clear, you realize the journalists were not being investigated in these cases, right?  The journalists were never in any danger of being prosecuted.  The DOJ took the journalists phone records in an attempt to identify a source.

LasersHurt: There is a wide gulf between "keeping sources secret" and "indefinite jailing" that you are leaping across for reasons I do not understand.


The charge is for contempt of court.  The journalists are indefinitely jailed for contempt of court because they are keeping sources secret.  When a journalist does not want their phone records subpoena'd, it's because they want to keep their sources secret.  Wow, I bridged that gulf pretty fast.  Maybe it wasn't so wide?

The two situations are incredibly similar.  I'm all for busting criminals and traitors and whatnot.  By all means, bust away.  But there's a reason why you shouldn't be able to do it by forcing a journalist to reveal their sources.  It's in the very first amendment to the constitution.
 
2013-10-11 02:27:30 PM  

lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


Rosen was actively soliciting classified information with the explicitly stated goal of influencing foreign policy. fark him. The only thing DOJ did wrong was not prosecuting him.
 
2013-10-11 02:28:25 PM  

lennavan: The journalists were never in any danger of being prosecuted.  The DOJ took the journalists phone records in an attempt to identify a source.


What Rosen did is illegal.
 
2013-10-11 02:29:27 PM  

CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.


Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.
 
2013-10-11 02:30:13 PM  

Rhino_man: Search or "Hitler."


Oh, I'll definitely pick Search, if I get to choose.
 
2013-10-11 02:31:39 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: lennavan: Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.

I agree with that. On the other hand if you leak information that genuinely puts our nation's security at risk, I have no problem with that being illegal.


Oh I definitely agree with that.  I'm just saying do it without demanding the journalist the leaker went to give up his source.
 
2013-10-11 02:33:08 PM  
Obamabots: b.b..b..b. Fox News!!

No, try the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Is there any criticism of Obama you guys will willingly concede?

I know this will be met with howls of objection but I don't care because it is absolutely true and I have no intention of responding to any of it, so howl away.

The ostrich-like approach that rank and file Democrats have taken to the NSA stories, the refusal to prosecute war crimes, the drone wars, Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press is a carbon copy of the unthinking, knee-jerk support that  Republicans gave to Bush for the Iraq fiasco, from conception to withdrawal, and it makes you look every bit as blindly partisan in the face of all facts and reason as they were about Iraq. Congratulations, that's not easy to do.
 
2013-10-11 02:33:23 PM  

Aexia: lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.

Rosen was actively soliciting classified information with the explicitly stated goal of influencing foreign policy. fark him. The only thing DOJ did wrong was not prosecuting him.


Yes, I have seen many of your posts trying really hard to find someone who believes everything leakers and whistleblowers and journalists ever do is wonderful and beautiful and perfect.  That's not me, you'll have to keep searching.

Best wishes.
 
2013-10-11 02:35:14 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press


Selective? Criminalization and intimidation? Could you expound on what you mean by those statements?
 
2013-10-11 02:38:34 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Obamabots: b.b..b..b. Fox News!!
No, try the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Is there any criticism of Obama you guys will willingly concede?


By what I assume the definition of "Obamabot" is, no there is no criticism they would concede or they would not be an "Obamabot."  Duh.

Karma Curmudgeon: The ostrich-like approach that rank and file Democrats have taken to the NSA stories, the refusal to prosecute war crimes


Oh, there are lots of Democrats who want to see some people prosecuted for war crimes.  But when they bring it up, that's called "b..b....b.....bush!"

I voted for Obama twice.  You want to know what criticism of Obama I will willingly concede?  Read my posts in this thread.
  

Karma Curmudgeon: I have no intention of responding to any of it, so howl away.


Oh, okay.  Well, I bet you think that's a perfectly reasonable way to act.

Karma Curmudgeon: The ostrich-like approach that rank and file ... makes you look every bit as blindly partisan in the face of all facts and reason.


Awkward.
 
2013-10-11 02:41:17 PM  

lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information. That reduces the ability of the press to function. It's pretty farking clear dude. If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already. Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.

Second, the AP case involved a known breach of the law (there was no question that the leaks themselves were illegal), and a subsequent attempt to determine who was responsible by consulting the records of the only people known to have been in contact with the criminal. Seems like the case for the investigation on both counts - establishing the occurrence of a crime itself, and investigating people relevant to the incident - was "pretty farking solid".
 
2013-10-11 02:44:04 PM  

GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.

Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.


Who are these fanatics because that's not the way I remember it.  Most people on Fark knew this was going to happen.
 
2013-10-11 02:47:40 PM  

CynicalLA: GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.

Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.

Who are these fanatics because that's not the way I remember it.  Most people on Fark knew this was going to happen.


Also, anyone who's acquainted with our system of government would know that Congress is the only body with the authority to permanently roll back these powers. The most the President can do unilaterally is simply not use them, but that just leaves them fully intact for the next President.
 
2013-10-11 02:52:39 PM  

Biological Ali: First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.


So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/
 
2013-10-11 03:00:50 PM  

lennavan: Biological Ali: First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.

So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/


Sounds like AP's main complaint was that the subpoena was too broad and issued in secret, which would be a Fourth Amendment issue (albeit one with a clear connection to the First).

I also disagree with the assertion that "The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this newsgathering information from the Associated Press". If we take this stance to its logical conclusion, that means that "the press" can do literally anything, legal or not, in the process of "newsgathering".
 
2013-10-11 03:03:02 PM  

BMulligan: Rhino_man: Search or "Hitler."

Oh, I'll definitely pick Search, if I get to choose.


rightinthemustache.com
You got me good YOU FARKER!
 
2013-10-11 03:04:27 PM  
So I am reading these comments, and I just had to quit.  FARKers you not only disappoint me, but you disgust me.  Yeah I get that you are responding to a Faux Noise link by instantly defending Obama... I get that.  It makes sense given what usually comes from them that we would be conditioned to do so since 99% of the time they are wrong.  But this is a broken clock moment here and many of you need a swift kick in the ass.

The article is correct - well it is an AP article really.  But what is important is the substance not the messenger.  There is no doubt they only reposted it because it was critical of the Obama Administration ...and maybe perhaps because Faux Noise likes to pretend they have any thing to do with this thing called "journalism" which really is under attack.  All the same, the important thing here is that the article is not without merit.  The biggest problem it has is that it is not critical nor detailed enough.

For all the things The Obama Administration (Obama does not do everything himself) does right, this is an area they are very, very bad for us.  Their record on this is very clear, and conflicts well with everything we where promised.

This is the administration that has went after Wikileaks (going as far as threatening "pressuring" any financial institution which so much as helps them accept donations), and still intends to have Julian Assange extradited for "crimes" against the US that are not crimes and would not apply to a non-US citizen doing things outside of the US anyhow.

Wikileaks is guilty only of being unconventional press - internet only and beholden to no powerful interest.  They are therefore not easy to control/manipulate and thus are dangerous to those who need to control the narrative.  This is why they are not "legitimate press" and I would like to see any rational argument beyond this but shall not hold my breath.

This is the administration that locked Bradley Manning up in inhuman conditions for an extraordinarily long time for nothing more than to make an example out of him to all would be whistle blowers.  BTW did you know that it was his diplomatic cable dumps which allowed Tunisian dissidents to realize for the first time that it was actually possible to overthrow their government?

They always believed before that the US would forcibly put it down but found out otherwise from those cables.  Those cables started the Arab Spring.  No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed.  He exposed many wrongs that where simply covered up(not that our media did such a great job covering much of it).

This is the administration going as far as to stop unrelated planes to possibly catch Edward Snowden that happen to be transporting foreign heads of state?  Lets face is they didn't exactly object - they admitted to knowing in advance and still refuse to condemn it - when the UK illegally detained and humiliated Glen Greenwald's husband for nothing more than being associated with a reporter who reports on things they would rather keep secret...  which brings me to the next point.  The NSA.

What Edward Snowden has helped bring to light makes him a hero.  What the NSA has done is well beyond the bounds of decency and legitimate public service.  It also has routinely violated what insufficient legal protections/rights we do have.  On that subject novels could be written.

Under this administration we have experienced such debacles as the secret and illegal seizing of telephone records for AP journalists.  Besides even the well known whistle blowers, they have went after many others with a zeal even The Bush Administration could not match.  What we know is probably only the tip of the iceberg.  But heck, lets let that slide since Faux Noise is joining the criticism.  If they hate Obama, then he can do no wrong!
 
2013-10-11 03:07:40 PM  

lennavan: So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/


Well, when I Googled "ap phone records subpoena first amendment" the results I found fell into largely two categories: Republicans like Rand Paul and Rience Preibus alleging constitutional violations based on dubious reasoning, and legal scholars familiar with constitutional issues (such as CNN's Toobin) saying that there wasn't a First Amendment violation. And I knew from having previously followed the story that the AP's letter to Eric Holder made no mention of the First Amendment, and made only vague, unspecified references to "AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news".

And, given that the organization itself has yet to actually allege a constitutional violation of any sort, it seems that Pruitt's speculation here is about as credible as Preibus's (who, incidentally, also went to law school).
 
2013-10-11 03:10:54 PM  

bk3k: They always believed before that the US would forcibly put it down but found out otherwise from those cables. Those cables started the Arab Spring. No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed. He exposed many wrongs that where simply covered up(not that our media did such a great job covering much of it).


Not that I disagree with your analysis, but if the cables started the Arab Spring, a lot of people died from them.
 
2013-10-11 03:17:06 PM  

COMALite J: Note that Fox News uses all UPPERCASE AVANT GARDE GOTHIC DEMIBOLD CONDENSED font for its headlines in that section on the maroon patterned background.


The FCC should require them to use Comic Sans... or WingDings.
 
2013-10-11 03:18:10 PM  

qorkfiend: Sounds like AP's main complaint was that the subpoena was too broad and issued in secret, which would be a Fourth Amendment issue (albeit one with a clear connection to the First).


That would be a part of the "grumblings about the Fourth amendment" that I referenced earlier. As far as I can see, there has never been any legal tradition exempting "the press" from investigations into criminal activities that "non-press" people would be subject to - the only serious constitutional issues have been about the general validity of those procedures themselves, which is (as you've said) a Fourth amendment issue.
 
2013-10-11 03:21:37 PM  

Jairzinho: COMALite J: Yes, it's shooped.
[img.fark.net image 430x242]
The "O"riginal

That has to be shopped too. I clearly see Tina Fey there as "Palin"..



Fox news spews so much stupid BS on a regular basis that there's no need to shoop anything.
 
2013-10-11 03:35:47 PM  

bk3k: and still intends to have Julian Assange extradited for "crimes" against the US that are not crimes and would not apply to a non-US citizen doing things outside of the US anyhow.


Soliciting someone in the US government to leak classified information is illegal regardless of whether you're a citizen.

bk3k: This is the administration that locked Bradley Manning up in inhuman conditions for an extraordinarily long time for nothing more than to make an example out of him to all would be whistle blowers.


Setting aside that most of the claims about his "inhuman conditions" turned out to be complete bullshiat, he was put on suicide watch because his lawyer filed a motion to consider whether he was mentally stable and he had "joked" about killing himself. And of course, said motion is just one of the many things Manning's attorney did to drag out things before the trial.

bk3k: No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed.


Applauding Manning is like applauding a drunk driver who miraculously didn't kill anyone. Manning indiscriminately dumped hundreds of thousands of unredacted documents into the wild for anyone to read. He had no goal or focus; he simply did it for the lulz.

And, no, I don't concede that "no one died". There are some Chinese dissidents who might argue with that.

bk3k: What Edward Snowden has helped bring to light makes him a hero.


No words of praise for Aldrich Ames? I mean, at least when he blew the whistle on America's illegal activities overseas, he limited his disclosures to the affected parties.

bk3k: Under this administration we have experienced such debacles as the secret and illegal seizing of telephone records for AP journalists.


It wasn't illegal and it wasn't unconstitutional. Journalists aren't above the law.
 
2013-10-11 03:42:39 PM  

jakomo002: To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....

Worst since Nixon, they say.

/I have no dog in this fight


You sound concerned.
 
2013-10-11 03:48:17 PM  

jakomo002: GanjSmokr: Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.


Dafuq you on about?

Inheriting a secretive post-9/11 government, Obama pursued more closed policies, rebuffing his promises of transparency, the report states. Six government workers and two contractors have been prosecuted with felony charges under the Espionage since 2009 for allegedly leaking information to the media, with more prosecutions in the pipelines. There have only been three similar prosecutions in all prior administrations.

6 plus 2 is more than 3, right?  Or does math hate black people?


But I thought you had no dog in this fight? Oh let me guess you're an "independent" you people get dumber and more pathetic every farking day.
 
2013-10-11 04:17:27 PM  

LasersHurt: I think part of the problem is that people interpreted the idea of more transparency as "complete transparency and total immunity for literally ANY and EVERY leak."


My God. The way some trolls post about it you'd think Obama promised to throw open the gates to Area 51 and start a line for those wanting to take captured UFOs out for a spin.
 
2013-10-11 04:22:54 PM  

wildsnowllama: LasersHurt: I think part of the problem is that people interpreted the idea of more transparency as "complete transparency and total immunity for literally ANY and EVERY leak."

My God. The way some trolls post about it you'd think Obama promised to throw open the gates to Area 51 and start a line for those wanting to take captured UFOs out for a spin.


When in fact what he actually meant was his administration would be the most restrictive with information, the most heavy-handed in searching out and punishing people who released information or spoke with reporters and the most intrusive into the lives of Americans than any in the past. It all makes sense now, what he said about transparency.
 
2013-10-11 04:23:21 PM  
Welcome to Obama's America. Why, I remember a time when Fox News used to run twenty negative stories about Obama each day. Everything from thinly veiled race bait about Hip Hop Barbeques to his penchant for arugula. Now we're lucky if we get 17 or 18 stories per day about Benghazi (is it a scandal yet?) or President Obama's government shutdown. Stop silencing your critics, Mr. President!
 
2013-10-11 07:14:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Karma Curmudgeon: Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press

Selective? Criminalization and intimidation? Could you expound on what you mean by those statements?


As an example, read Woodward's Obama book.  Hell, you could read just the first chapter and see leak after leak of classified information. Number of investigations launched on his sources: 0.   Why? Because those leaks make the President look tough on terror.  Rosen was named as a co-conspirator in the FBI's affadavit that the Attorney General himself authorized. Naming a journalist a co-conspirator for doing his job obviously puts reporters on notice that they may be prosecuted for investigative journalism the crosses into the classified realm.  Similarly, the excoriation of Assange is very similar in that it sets an example for what one can expect for making US secrets public.

lennavan: Oh, there are lots of Democrats who want to see some people prosecuted for war crimes. But when they bring it up, that's called "b..b....b.....bush!"


Hogwash. Look at any thread delving into the Bush years. There's two prime examples in the last two days. Plenty of deserved condemnation for Bush officials and almost no mentions of the people most responsible for the lack accountability:  Holder and Obama.

lennavan: Oh, okay. Well, I bet you think that's a perfectly reasonable way to act.


When every time I bring up these criticisms one of two things generally happen:  "both sides are bad, so vote Republican"  or "you didn't care when Bush was president so lalalala I CAN"T HEAR YOU" so you're damn right it's reasonable. On the off chance someone genuinely wants a conversation it ends at my assertion that movement politics has provided the only means of systemic change ever in this country which to fall on the deaf ears of partisans repeating the "change from within" mantra love to trot out but has never delivered systemic reforms of its own volition.   I feel no need to hit my head that wall today.

And as far the bots, you can re-read the first third of this thread.  Nothing but empty platitudes, deflections and strawmen. Par when it comes to Obama's shortcomings, rather than any hint of follow through on seeking "change from within."  That may not be you, but there were plenty of them here.
 
2013-10-11 07:46:48 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: qorkfiend: Karma Curmudgeon: Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press

Selective? Criminalization and intimidation? Could you expound on what you mean by those statements?

As an example, read Woodward's Obama book.  Hell, you could read just the first chapter and see leak after leak of classified information. Number of investigations launched on his sources: 0.   Why? Because those leaks make the President look tough on terror.  Rosen was named as a co-conspirator in the FBI's affadavit that the Attorney General himself authorized. Naming a journalist a co-conspirator for doing his job obviously puts reporters on notice that they may be prosecuted for investigative journalism the crosses into the classified realm.  Similarly, the excoriation of Assange is very similar in that it sets an example for what one can expect for making US secrets public.

lennavan: Oh, there are lots of Democrats who want to see some people prosecuted for war crimes. But when they bring it up, that's called "b..b....b.....bush!"

Hogwash. Look at any thread delving into the Bush years. There's two prime examples in the last two days. Plenty of deserved condemnation for Bush officials and almost no mentions of the people most responsible for the lack accountability:  Holder and Obama.

lennavan: Oh, okay. Well, I bet you think that's a perfectly reasonable way to act.

When every time I bring up these criticisms one of two things generally happen:  "both sides are bad, so vote Republican"  or "you didn't care when Bush was president so lalalala I CAN"T HEAR YOU" so you're damn right it's reasonable. On the off chance someone genuinely wants a conversation it ends at my assertion that movement politics has provided the only means of systemic change ever in this country which to fall on the deaf ears of partisans repeating the "change from within" mantra love to trot out but has never delivered systemic reforms of its own volitio ...


Well, you've convinced me. i promise I'll never vote for Obama again.
 
2013-10-11 08:37:08 PM  
Excellent. My work here is done.
 
2013-10-11 09:05:27 PM  
Well, part of the problem here is that some people don't know the difference between "whistleblowing" (exposing violations or criminal behavior in an agency by means of releasing previously classified or privileged information to the proper authorities, who may or may not be the media) and "leaks" (releasing information that may or may not be classified or privileged to the media so as to create an advantage for one's own side or a disadvantage for the opponent's side).

A true whistleblower may never get anywhere near the media in releasing his information; and in fact many of them never do. A whistleblower may merely report violations to the SEC, for instance, or the IRS; he may drop a pile of documents through the letter slot at the ACLU or EPA. He MIGHT go to the media, but doesn't have to. Many of the whistleblowers in the Vioxx scandal never saw the light of media attention although their lives and careers were ruined by Merck and Co.

A leak, on the other hand, demands media attention. The whole point of a leak is to let as many people as possible know about what you found out, and "devil take the hindermost" as they used to say. Usually a leak is disseminated to make somebody look bad, because the leaker knows something about the subject of the leak that will compromise him or her; or because it will give the other side an advantage. Leaks by definition are less focused than whistleblowing, because a leak is meant to, well, leak all over the place. It is not meant to stop anything, as a whistleblowing is.

Using these crude definitions, it's easy to see that what the Obama administration is doing is not coming down hard on whistleblowers, it's coming down hard on leakers. A person who steps up and says "Company X is violating the law, Congressman Y is insider trading," is not leaking, they are whistleblowing. However, a person who drops a flashdrive full of classified material on the desk of a reporter because it might contain information about Marines behaving badly in Afghanistan isn't blowing the whistle on anything. They're leaking documents with the intent of making someone look bad. The distinction is subtle and probably lost on about 85% of people even here on Fark, but it is there, and leakers, unfortunately, need to be stopped.

Sadly, whistleblowers usually get stepped on too, and not only by the government. It wasn't the government who crushed the Vioxx whistleblowers, or those who tried to bring down BP, or any of a myriad of others. The media could do something about that--but they usually don't, because it's not as fun or sexy as complaining about their loss of freedomz because they're being picked on.
 
2013-10-11 09:33:12 PM  
Holy shiat you guys are unreal. It's not just Fox News saying this.

Your blind loyalty to this President is getting just ridiculous...
 
2013-10-11 09:41:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Don't let the Fox link fool you. This really is a thing.

"In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press,. The administration's war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I've seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post's investigation of Watergate." - Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post

Oh wow a guy said it who used to be a newspaperman! It must be true, screw evidence, this is all we need!


You amaze me...
 
2013-10-11 09:49:07 PM  

Gyrfalcon: A true whistleblower may never get anywhere near the media in releasing his information; and in fact many of them never do. A whistleblower may merely report violations to the SEC, for instance, or the IRS; he may drop a pile of documents through the letter slot at the ACLU or EPA. He MIGHT go to the media, but doesn't have to. Many of the whistleblowers in the Vioxx scandal never saw the light of media attention although their lives and careers were ruined by Merck and Co.


And just on that point, I still couldn't tell you the name of whoever it was that alerted military authorities to the abuses going on at Abu Ghraib - a scandal that involved actual illegal activity and ended with people getting court-martialed. It's hard to see how the situation would have been any better if, say, the person had instead gone to a foreign media outlet and started indiscriminately vomiting information at them (including stuff completely unrelated to the abuses being alleged).
 
2013-10-11 10:21:09 PM  
NIXON, YOU DOLT!

/Seriously, I thought that would be the, um first thing, like posted...
 
2013-10-11 10:31:26 PM  

INeedAName: He's an ineffective leader!
He's a tyrant!

He's an empty suit!
He's imposing a socialist regime!

He's too weak to do anything!
His policies are crushing freedom!

Stop contradicting yourselves, I won't know what to think if you keep mixing up your talking points!


He's the most liberal president EVER!
He's further to the right than Reagan and Nixon!  Suck it libs!
 
2013-10-11 10:47:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: These are journalists who have covered many administrations. They're saying this one is worse even than Bush when it comes to hindering their ability to do their jobs. Worse than Bush. Be concerned when you hear those words.

I am shocked that there are people who liked Bush more than Obama.


You may not be a Democrat, but you are a far left partisan tool.
 
2013-10-11 11:02:46 PM  
Bush had a great relationship with the press.  Just ask Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams...
 
2013-10-11 11:20:43 PM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: Biological Ali: First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.

So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/

Sounds like AP's main complaint was that the subpoena was too broad and issued in secret, which would be a Fourth Amendment issue (albeit one with a clear connection to the First).

I also disagree with the assertion that "The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this newsgathering information from the Associated Press". If we take this stance to its logical conclusion, that means that "the press" can do literally anything, legal or not, in the process of "newsgathering".



Let's remember where he clearly set his goalposts and use those to evaluate whether or not my field goal attempt was good.  Let's at least begin with "yeah, Lenny you're right on that point and he's completely wrong."  K?

qorkfiend: I also disagree with the assertion that "The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this newsgathering information from the Associated Press". If we take this stance to its logical conclusion, that means that "the press" can do literally anything, legal or not, in the process of "newsgathering".



I don't know how to respond to this.  I haven't been on Fark.com in any decent manner for a very long time, however of the few people I recall I recall having the highest regard for what you post.  So you simply cannot be suggesting I'm saying the press can murder people "in the process of newsgathering."  That does not make any sense given the person typing it.

Let me attempt to make it clearer -- newsgathering is not a crime.  If there is no other crime happening other than "I'm gathering news from that dude" then the government has no place being there.

Playing pretend time - You're a super top secret Scully and Moulder type guy in the FBI with access to awesome files.  I'm some columnist for the SmallTime Reader.  You call me up and tell me all of the super secret government files that you know about.  1)  Thus far, YOU committed a crime.  I did not.  Right?  So then I write an article in the newspaper based on what our phone call was about.  2)  Still, thus far, YOU are the only one who committed a crime, right?

In my fictitious scenario, YOU committed a crime.  That means the cops get to subpoena YOUR phone records.

Listen, I get that if you extend my beliefs to every possible scenario, a bunch of jackasses go free.  But if I extend your beliefs to every possible scenario, then the number of people who decide to communicate all of the bad shiat the government is doing is reduced.  I would rather more jackasses go free than one single whistleblower stay silent.
 
2013-10-11 11:28:50 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Hogwash. Look at any thread delving into the Bush years. There's two prime examples in the last two days. Plenty of deserved condemnation for Bush officials and almost no mentions of the people most responsible for the lack accountability: Holder and Obama.


President Bush left office in 2008.  You saw did not seen a specific comment in any post over the last 2 days and therefore drew a conclusion based on that about the last 5.5 years?

Karma, holy fark, you'll never get a (D) more on your side in a thread than me.  But you simply cannot continue to believe that (D)'s do not want to prosecute our own war criminals.  It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

Karma Curmudgeon: When every time I bring up these criticisms

...

... on Fark.com?  You cannot be concluding generalizations based on what you read on Fark.com forums, can you?

Karma Curmudgeon: "both sides are bad, so vote Republican" or "you didn't care when Bush was president so lalalala I CAN"T HEAR YOU" so you're damn right it's reasonable


Look you clearly are oblivious to all of the criticisms I have waged against Obama, as an Obama supporter.  That's fine.  But you will not seem me generalizing the sort of ignorance you display upon the entire right wing.

Look Karma, I'm trying to help you here.  You've got a winning battle.  The Obama Administration is worse than before.  Argue that.  Don't take this opportunity to attempt to argue all Democrats are unwilling to prosecute war criminals.  That clearly demonstrates stupidity.
 
2013-10-11 11:30:59 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: And as far the bots, you can re-read the first third of this thread. Nothing but empty platitudes, deflections and strawmen. Par when it comes to Obama's shortcomings, rather than any hint of follow through on seeking "change from within." That may not be you, but there were plenty of them here.


I'm not going to disagree with you on the bolded section.  But because you read some stupid posts on Fark.com that blindly support Obama does not mean ALL Obama supporters are that way.  What's more, even if 100% of Obama's supporters were that stupid, it has nothing to do with Obama's shortcomings.

Lots of people in this thread believe you're a farking moran.  Is that an indication of your shortcomings?
 
2013-10-11 11:41:32 PM  

FnkyTwn: Obviously this sounds racist, but


There's really no way to say anything of value after this phrase.
 
2013-10-12 12:06:26 AM  
 You know how ELSE had a chilling effect?

img.comc.com
 
2013-10-12 12:11:38 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohAqApvGaV0

What more can I say, top billin'.
 
2013-10-12 01:15:14 AM  
I suspect that replying to you as if you are serious is a mistake, but since you put in the effort then I will as well.

Aexia: bk3k: and still intends to have Julian Assange extradited for "crimes" against the US that are not crimes and would not apply to a non-US citizen doing things outside of the US anyhow.

Soliciting someone in the US government to leak classified information is illegal regardless of whether you're a citizen.


1.  He solicited nothing.  He received the documents he was given.  He did not even know the identity of the man providing these documents until the arrest of Bradley Manning and the public revelations that followed.  That is not illegal.  Journalist receive confidential information all the time.  You better sit down for this one... they publish it too!

Don't tell me you think The Pentagon Papers was a bunch of declassified info at the time, do you?  You apparently know nothing of how journalism works, of what is illegal, and what rights exist for them to do what they do.  In fact, non-journalist receiving classified info are not breaking the law either!  Otherwise the act of reading the paper would be illegal quite often.

2.  Your premise is both preposterous and insane.  Lets change things up.  In the US, possessing and smoking pot is illegal.  In Amsterdam, it is not.  But it is technically illegal for a US citizen to break US law anywhere (which itself is rather silly).  For a non US citizen, there is no issue.  A non US citizen breaking a US law outside of US jurisdiction is not a problem.  But your premise would still have them extradited to the US for breaking marijuana possession laws.  That is clearly insane - and not how laws work.

We can flip this premise.  It is illegal in some places for women to be uncovered in public or even be outside their house unless they are with either their husband or father.  Your premise would see US citizens extradited to these countries for breaking their oppressive laws on our soil.  It is absolutely preposterous and insane.

Julian Assange is not a US citizen and what he did (commit journalism) was not on US soil.  The US does not own the entire world nor does it own the entire internet.  US laws do not apply throughout creation.  There is no legitimate reason to extradite him to the US.  The actions of our Government toward him and Wikileaks amount to nothing more than harassment of someone doing something those in power do not like.

Aexia

bk3k: This is the administration that locked Bradley Manning up in inhuman conditions for an extraordinarily long time for nothing more than to make an example out of him to all would be whistle blowers.

Setting aside that most of the claims about his "inhuman conditions" turned out to be complete bullshiat, he was put on suicide watch because his lawyer filed a motion to consider whether he was mentally stable and he had "joked" about killing himself. And of course, said motion is just one of the many things Manning's attorney did to drag out things before the trial.


I have never heard your claim of suicide watch.  But for the sake of argument I will just assume you are not full of shiat on this.  Out of the 3 years of pre-trial detention Bradley Manning served, the first 8 months where spent in solitary confinement - this means no social interaction, no opportunity to exercise, no mental stimulus.  You stare at the wall, or at the door with a food slot.  This is very much not the same thing as suicide watch.  This is a punishment usually reserved for very violent prisoners (which does not describe Bradley Manning at all), and is never administered for 8 months at a time.  1 month is considered severe.

That absolutely does constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  The courts ruled this exact way and thus he was transferred to another prison as a result.  NO ONE would walk out of 8 months solitary confinement without mental issues.  This was not done for behavioral problems.  This was a simple case of retribution and making an example out of him.  Our Constitution (the details of which you are clearly not so familiar) expressly forbids punishment before conviction - let alone cruel and unusual punishment in any scenario.  If he did at some point contemplate suicide - it is hardly surprising.  I think anyone in solitary for far less time would strongly consider the very same thing.

Aexia bk3k: No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed.

Applauding Manning is like applauding a drunk driver who miraculously didn't kill anyone. Manning indiscriminately dumped hundreds of thousands of unredacted documents into the wild for anyone to read. He had no goal or focus; he simply did it for the lulz.


Completely incorrect.  He did not "do it for teh lulz" at all.  Neither was his dump indiscriminate.  Do yourself a favor and read his full confession statement as it was read in court.

Aexia  And, no, I don't concede that "no one died". There are some Chinese dissidents who might argue with that.

Really?!  Name one and cite any evidence he contributed to their deaths.  I'll just hold my breath while you do that.

Aexia bk3k: What Edward Snowden has helped bring to light makes him a hero.

No words of praise for Aldrich Ames? I mean, at least when he blew the whistle on America's illegal activities overseas, he limited his disclosures to the affected parties.


Oh yeah - someone spying on the country for the USSR is totally the same thing as someone providing information to journalist that the public should know.  TOTALLY THE SAME THING.  With this I find it pretty difficult to take you seriously.  Oh well.

Aexia bk3k: Under this administration we have experienced such debacles as the secret and illegal seizing of telephone records for AP journalists.

It wasn't illegal and it wasn't unconstitutional. Journalists aren't above the law.


I think you are clearly not familiar with this incident at all.  These Journalists have NOT been accused of breaking any laws.  You are talking about tapping about 100 AP journalists' records.  This is all about finding out who they are talking too and Constitution be damned.

The thing is, they can do that and get away with it.  Sure if they actually found any evidence of illegal activity then it cannot be admitted into court - but the motive was never to get prosecutions of journalists in the first place.  No government official that I have ever heard of has served time for unconstitutional actions no matter how deliberate and intentional.  In my view - that needs to change.

Authoritarian apologists/cheerleaders are a big problem as well.  They are exactly why these people can get away with whatever they want in the same of "national security," "public safety," or "the greater good" etc - even though their actions very often only serve their own ends.
 
Displayed 220 of 220 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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