Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

So it's safe to say that the media, even the liberal side, is overreacting a bit? After watching the Maddow piece I linked above, she insinuates that the DoJ got transcripts and all. Good info GaF. Thanks again.

The media is overstating this greatly, because it involves them. They're playing the victim.

By all means, have a legitimate conversation about whether this SHOULD be legal or if should be more oversight or whatever, but they should really stop pretending/imagining that the phone records part of this is a scandal.

 

[GaimeGuy]

MATRIARCHAL DYSTOPIA

So in Minnesota we'd have a genderless matriarchal dystopia. :O

 

[B-Dubs]

Right. My bad. They obtained months and months of phone records though. They weren't listening in real time.

They didn't listen at all. All they have is who called who and for how long. Ever see a police procedural on TV when they get the phone records? That's what the Justice Department did, that's it.

 

[Tamanon]

If you want some good humor, look at the difference between the framing of the AP subpoenas and the Bloomberg terminal monitoring in the media.

 

[pigeon]

The media is overstating this greatly, because it involves them. They're playing the victim.

Yeah, this. DoJ subpoenas the Associated Press. Who publishes the article calling it an unprecedented scandal? The Associated Press. Are you surprised?

 

[Gotchaye]

So it's safe to say that the media, even the liberal side, is overreacting a bit? After watching the Maddow piece I linked above, she insinuates that the DoJ got transcripts and all. Good info GaF. Thanks again.

It's still quite concerning.

If you know exactly who various reporters have been talking to, it actually isn't going to be that hard to figure out what was said. Stories cite anonymous sources because the sources made anonymity a condition of their being sources. If a reporter writes a story relying on an anonymous source, and the government knows that the reporter only spoke to one person who had access to the information in the story, the source isn't really anonymous anymore.

The government's concern here isn't that one reporter happens to know something that's supposed to be secret. The government's concern is that a reporter is publishing something that's supposed to be secret.

I thought Maddow had a reasonable take on it. What the government did potentially compromises the anonymity of many sources such that it makes it harder for the AP to find anonymous sources in the future.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Ezra Klein has a nice writeup of the ”scandals” on wonkblog.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Im on my phone!

Sheesh you people are sooooo demanding

Spoiler

mybad

 

[Tamanon]

It's still quite concerning.

If you know exactly who various reporters have been talking to, it actually isn't going to be that hard to figure out what was said. Stories cite anonymous sources because the sources made anonymity a condition of their being sources. If a reporter writes a story relying on an anonymous source, and the government knows that the reporter only spoke to one person who had access to the information in the story, the source isn't really anonymous anymore.

The government's concern here isn't that one reporter happens to know something that's supposed to be secret. The government's concern is that a reporter is publishing something that's supposed to be secret.

I thought Maddow had a reasonable take on it. What the government did potentially compromises the anonymity of many sources such that it makes it harder for the AP to find anonymous sources in the future.

Incorrect.

The government's concern is that someone in the government is leaking classified information. They are not concerned with the reporter.

 

[Gotchaye]

Incorrect.

The government's concern is that someone in the government is leaking classified information. They are not concerned with the reporter.

Of course they're concerned with the reporter. The government wouldn't care if someone leaked classified information to their cat. A leak is a problem for the government only to the extent that the information finds its way to people who can use that information to work against the government's interests. Someone letting something slip to their spouse is worth looking into, mostly because of concerns about the leaker just not being careful enough in general, but it's not nearly as big of a deal as someone deliberately going to the press with something, where the whole point of doing so is to get that information distributed as broadly as possible while preserving anonymity.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's still quite concerning.

If you know exactly who various reporters have been talking to, it actually isn't going to be that hard to figure out what was said. Stories cite anonymous sources because the sources made anonymity a condition of their being sources. If a reporter writes a story relying on an anonymous source, and the government knows that the reporter only spoke to one person who had access to the information in the story, the source isn't really anonymous anymore.

The government's concern here isn't that one reporter happens to know something that's supposed to be secret. The government's concern is that a reporter is publishing something that's supposed to be secret.

I thought Maddow had a reasonable take on it. What the government did potentially compromises the anonymity of many sources such that it makes it harder for the AP to find anonymous sources in the future.

The AP shouldn't have sources that are willing to compromise the security of our informants that have infiltrated al qaeda.

Legally, they shouldn't have sources that are willing to leak classifeid info (even if that info shouldn't be classified). (Though their criminal liability is protected to an extent)

Morally, they shouldn't have sources that are willing to leak classified info that REALLY SHOULD be classified.

 

[empty vessel]

I support the dissemination of all classified info, so I support the AP, but what needs to change is more than the law surrounding the government's ability to obtain media records--although technically they didn't get media records but the records of a telecommunications company--but also the laws that allow the government to keep secrets from the public in the first place.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I support the dissemination of all classified info, so I support the AP, but what needs to change is more than the law surrounding the government's ability to obtain media records--although technically they didn't get media records but the records of a telecommunications company--but also the laws that allow the government to keep secrets from the public in the first place.

seriously, all of it?

 

[Gotchaye]

The AP shouldn't have sources that are willing to compromise the security of our informants that have infiltrated al qaeda.

Legally, they shouldn't have sources that are willing to leak classifeid info (even if that info shouldn't be classified). (Though their criminal liability is protected to an extent)

Morally, they shouldn't have sources that are willing to leak classified info that REALLY SHOULD be classified.

I think that's all true, though I would prefer that the second not be true. But that's not really relevant.

If it was actually the case that what the AP did was genuinely a terrible decision on their part, and if it is actually the case that the leaker ought to be found and punished, then at the very least the DoJ should have had to go before a judge and make that case. If it's still really clear that the AP should have to give this source up, then start throwing people at the AP in jail until they talk. But do it all above-board.

I don't think it's appropriate for an administration to be able to declare whatever it likes to be classified, then compromise the anonymity of a media organization's sources without any indication that it was doing so in order to find a leaker, except perhaps in some weird ticking time bomb type case. I get that it's all legal, but it shouldn't be.

 

[Tamanon]

seriously, all of it?

It's EV, he holds some nuanced opinions.

 

[AndyD]

seriously, all of it?

That's not an unusual position. Mind you, not immediate. But something along the lines of after it is no longer critical to public safety/defense...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's not an unusual position. Mind you, not immediate. But something along the lines of after it is no longer critical to public safety/defense...

There's a law for that. Freedom of Information Act.

And an Executive Order

Also, One can dream about Obama actually telling the truth (wonkblog link)

 

[AndyD]

There's a law for that. Freedom of Information Act.

And an Executive Order

Also, One can dream about Obama actually telling the truth (wonkblog link)

I know there is, but the reality is that things can be held back for so long that it becomes pointless. Many documents from decades ago are still under seal and likely will be for a long while still.

 

[The Librarian]

So while I was watching the very dumb and very pointless Star Trek into Darkness, did Obama resign or was impeached?

 

[The Technomancer]

So while I was watching the very dumb and very pointless Star Trek into Darkness, did Obama resign or was impeached?

Romney is being sworn in as we speak now, there's a stream on the White House page

 

[GaimeGuy]

Both. Everything. He resigned over Benghazi, was impeached for the IRS thing, and is now being jailed over the AP thing.

and deported for the fake birth certificate.

 

[Jooney]

and deported for the fake birth certificate.

Don't forget about Hillary cracking under the pressure and admitting to the murder of Vince Foster.

 

[The Librarian]

Well, shit.

Romney is being sworn in as we speak now, there's a stream on the White House page

But at least I can celebrate at the thought of the impossibility of a genderless utopia!

 

[Owzers]

Is it republican fantasy that a 4 man squad would have 100% saved the last 2 Americans who died in Benghazi? At best you can say they'd have a chance, but my favorite guy Bolling declared that they would have been saved if not for telling them to stand down.

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ce/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony.

 

[Jooney]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ce/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony.

Ratings-bait. Gotta be tough on those heathens so you pull in a listenership.

I know its cynical but that's what modern media has conditioned me to be.

 

[Atlagev]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ce/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony.

Is using Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" as bumper music a requirement for all "edgy" right-wing AM radio hosts?

 

[Tamanon]

Is using Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" as bumper music a requirement for all "edgy" right-wing AM radio hosts?

I've also seen "American Girl" used a good amount. Better than Hannity's "LEEEEET FREEDOM RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING" at least.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, shit.


But at least I can celebrate at the thought of the impossibility of a genderless utopia!

Yea but you'll be doing it from inside a binder.

 

[Oblivion]

Holy shit:

Hey Folks, #Obamacareinthreewords - go!

It's. The. Law.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...p-wastes-some-more-time-on-repeal?detail=hide

I said GODDAMN!

 

[Tamanon]

I liked Yglesias's "Affordable Care Act #ObamaCareInThreeWords"

My submission was "Crying. Spilled. Milk."

 

[Oblivion]

I can't go on the twitters at work, but my submission would be: "Get over it".

 

[GaimeGuy]

"A good start."

 

[Oblivion]

Oh speaking of Issa being a douche, it seems he won't let Adm. Mike Mullen and Thomas Pickering testify in the Benghazi hearings in public, because he doesn't want things to become too "partisan:. Seriously:

The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ghazi-review-blow-the-whistle-on-Darrell-Issa

Who the hell are these people trying to kid?*

*rhetorical

 

[RustyNails]

Is using Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down" as bumper music a requirement for all "edgy" right-wing AM radio hosts?

Didn't you know? Tom Petty was making a theme song for Andrew Zimmerman when he wrote the song.

 

[Owzers]

Oh speaking of Issa being a douche, it seems he won't let Adm. Mike Mullen and Thomas Pickering testify in the Benghazi hearings in public, because he doesn't want things to become too "partisan:. Seriously:



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ghazi-review-blow-the-whistle-on-Darrell-Issa

Who the hell are these people trying to kid?*

*rhetorical

Makes sense complete sense since he's a scumbag.

I hope pickering and mullen refuse to testify unless it's public and go on all the sunday talk shows to call out Issa. Good luck justifying to the American people and your news network that they don't deserve to hear their testimony.

 

[speculawyer]

Speaking of which,

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?186514-Dept-of-Justice-Wiretaps-Associated-Press/page2

THose images. My GOD.

I need to set up another account there. My previous account got banned. I got caught correcting false assertions.

 

[The Librarian]

Holy shit:





http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...p-wastes-some-more-time-on-repeal?detail=hide

I said GODDAMN!

I liked the Democrats' tweet on it: "Big [ ] deal."

 

[Wilsongt]

I need to set up another account there. My previous account got banned. I got caught correcting false assertions.

You should know better than to correct people there. What they say is the law, and people with even a single functional neuron get banned.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

That image makes my head hurt and not only because of the content.

 

[Wilsongt]

Holy shit:





http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...p-wastes-some-more-time-on-repeal?detail=hide

I said GODDAMN!

"Republican bitter tears."

"Republicans obstructing progress."

"Keep crying, republicans."

 

[Cloudy]

http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html

I know CBS is doing this to undermine ABC as much as anything but it's nice to see.

 

[speculawyer]

http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html

I know CBS is doing this to undermine ABC as much as anything but it's nice to see.

What the what?

CBS Evening News let out a bit of a bombshell tonight, admitting on the air that it was Republicans on the Hill who provided the media with false quotes that are the only real smoking gun the GOP has buttressing its conspiracy-theory surrounding the Benghazi attack.

Could this turn into a scandal back-fire? A scandal about the State Department's confused talking points turns into a scandal about the GOP making up fake quotes to manufacture a scandal.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."


Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

This could be another example of "Please proceed governor". The Republicans get so wrapped up in their own echo chamber that they lose touch with reality and spew false information that can easily be proven to be false.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

What the what?



Could this turn into a scandal back-fire? A scandal about the State Department's confused talking points turns into a scandal about the GOP making up fake quotes to manufacture a scandal.

Oh god I fucking hope so.

 

[Amir0x]

what...this whole thing is based on manufactured quotes hand delivered from Republicans?

Dear fucking God, journalists, do your goddamn job

 

[ClassyPenguin]

That White House tweet.
So. Damn. Good.

 

[fallagin]

Could this turn into a scandal back-fire? A scandal about the State Department's confused talking points turns into a scandal about the GOP making up fake quotes to manufacture a scandal.

I hope to fucking God the answer is yes.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html

I know CBS is doing this to undermine ABC as much as anything but it's nice to see.

Dude if this is real

What the eff

 

[Wilsongt]

I said God DAMN at the CBS news story.

Who knew that Republicans were lying sacks of shit all along?

 

[Owzers]

I hope to fucking God the answer is yes.

Who pushed the video? In other words, there will be no repercussions for the GOP manufacturing emails. None.