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
    More: Scary, Obama, Committee to Protect Journalists, Bush administration, open government, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

1813 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:44 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 20 of 220 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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