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 52
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-11 12:22:13 PM  
4 votes:
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 12:35:17 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:15:05 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:01:16 PM  
3 votes:
img.fark.net
2013-10-11 11:55:12 AM  
3 votes:
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 01:40:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:22:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:01:56 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:55:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:44:31 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:40:54 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:29:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:48:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:43:46 AM  
2 votes:
Fox news complaining about freedom of the press? I don't know if I should laugh or cry....
2013-10-11 11:40:26 AM  
2 votes:
Of course you accuse the black guy of spending too much time chilling.
2013-10-11 03:18:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:33:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:18:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:16:08 PM  
1 votes:
More prosecutions for leaks =/= "chilling effect" on the free press, you morons.

Unless the press lets it.
2013-10-11 02:10:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:05:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:03:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:46:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:40:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:39:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:36:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:30:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:29:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:28:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:19:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:17:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:11:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:05:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:03:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:01 PM  
1 votes:
This is the full report.
2013-10-11 12:18:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:18:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:02:24 PM  
1 votes:
 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 11:57:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:55:18 AM  
1 votes:
Fox News sounds very concerned.
2013-10-11 11:54:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:52:21 AM  
1 votes:
...Fox News has created a "pants-pissingly warm" effect on the free press unseen since...
2013-10-11 11:51:25 AM  
1 votes:
Harper?
2013-10-11 11:48:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:47:49 AM  
1 votes:
Not gonna give them the click- I assume this is as fair and balanced as you'd expect it to be?
2013-10-11 11:47:42 AM  
1 votes:
The Obama-Hitler is UPON US.
OMG.

/No. This is just Obama continuing and running with Bush II's policies.
2013-10-11 11:46:06 AM  
1 votes:
Fox News is a blind squirrel and this story is a nut.
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report