• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Report: Obama brings chilling effect on Journalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Espresso

Banned
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government's aggressive prosecution of leaks and efforts to control information are having a chilling effect on journalists and government whistle-blowers, according to a report released Thursday on U.S. press freedoms under the Obama administration.

The Committee to Protect Journalists conducted its first examination of U.S. press freedoms amid the Obama administration's unprecedented number of prosecutions of government sources and seizures of journalists' records. Usually the group focuses on advocating for press freedoms abroad.

Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post, wrote the 30-page analysis entitled "The Obama Administration and the Press." The report notes President Barack Obama came into office pledging an open, transparent government after criticizing the Bush administration's secrecy, "but he has fallen short of his promise."

"In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press," wrote Downie, now a journalism professor at Arizona State University. "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."

Downie interviewed numerous reporters and editors, including a top editor at The Associated Press, following revelations this year that the government secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 AP journalists. Downie also interviewed journalists whose sources have been prosecuted on felony charges

Those suspected of discussing classified information are increasingly subject to investigation, lie-detector tests, scrutiny of telephone and email records and now surveillance by co-workers under a new "Insider Threat Program" that has been implemented in every agency.

"There's no question that sources are looking over their shoulders," Michael Oreskes, the AP's senior managing editor, told Downie. "Sources are more jittery and more standoffish, not just in national security reporting. A lot of skittishness is at the more routine level. The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention."

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.

Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief who is now director of George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs, told Downie the combined efforts of the Obama administration are "squeezing the flow of information."

"Open dialogue with the public without filters is good, but if used for propaganda and to avoid contact with journalists, it's a slippery slope," Sesno said.

In response to the report, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama had committed his administration to work toward unprecedented openness. He said it's the first administration to release White House visitor records.

"Over the past four years, federal agencies have gone to great efforts to make government more transparent and more accessible than ever, to provide people with information that they can use in their daily lives," Schultz said.

The administration has processed a record number of Freedom of Information Act requests and improved processing times, strengthened whistleblower protections with a new law and improved transparency on government spending, data, lobbying and other information, Schultz said. He also noted Obama has declassified volumes of information and signed orders limiting new classifications.

Schultz said existing whistleblower laws do not apply in the same way to employees at intelligence agencies, but he said Obama signed a directive to ensure such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.

In the report, Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary, said such complaints about transparency are part of the "natural tension" between the White House and the press.

"The idea that people are shutting up and not leaking to reporters is belied by the facts," Carney told Downie.

National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said there is still investigative reporting about national security issues with information from "nonsanctioned sources with lots of unclassified information and some sensitive information."

Downie found the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a "watershed moment," leading to increased secrecy, surveillance and control of information. There is little direct comparison between the Bush and Obama administrations, though some journalists told Downie the Obama administration exercises more control.

"Every administration learns from the previous administration," said CBS Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer. "They become more secretive and put tighter clamps on information."

Shortly after Obama entered office, the White House was under pressure from intelligence agencies and Congress to stop leaks of national security information. The administration's first prosecution for leaking information came in April 2009 after a Hebrew linguist working for the FBI gave a blogger classified information about Israel.

Other prosecutions followed, targeting some government employees who believed they were whistle-blowers. The administration has rejected whistle-blower claims if they do not involve "waste, fraud or abuse," according to report. So sources exposing questionable or illegal practices are considered leaks.

To date, six government employees and two contractors have been targeted for prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act for accusations that they leaked classified information to the press. There were just three such prosecutions under all previous U.S. presidents.

By 2012, an AP report about the CIA's success in foiling a bomb plot in Yemen further escalated the Obama administration's efforts, even as the White House congratulated the CIA on the operation, Downie wrote. The disclosure in May that the government had secretly subpoenaed and seized AP phone records drew sharp criticism from many news organizations and civil rights advocates.

In September, the Justice Department announced AP's phone records led investigators to a former FBI bomb technician who pleaded guilty to disclosing the operation to a reporter.

"This prosecution demonstrates our deep resolve to hold accountable anyone who would violate their solemn duty to protect our nation's secrets and to prevent future, potentially devastating leaks by those who would wantonly ignore their obligations to safeguard classified information," the Justice Department said last month.

Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor, said the report highlights the growing threats to independent journalism in a country that has upheld press freedom as a measure of democratic society for two centuries.

"We find we must fight for those freedoms every day as the fog of secrecy descends on every level of government activity," she said in a statement. "That fight is worthwhile, as we learned when the outcry over the Justice Department's secret seizure of AP phone records led to proposed revisions intended to protect journalists from overly broad investigative techniques. Implementation of those revisions is an important next step."

In its report, the Committee to Protect Journalists recommends several reforms, including ending the practice of charging people who leak information to journalists with espionage and preventing secret subpoenas of journalists' records.

Source: AP
 

TCRS

Banned
To date, six government employees and two contractors have been targeted for prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act for accusations that they leaked classified information to the press. There were just three such prosecutions under all previous U.S. presidents.

dang. fucking Obama.
 

Zoc

Member
The whole need for secrecy for "national security" is a direct result of America's meddling in other countries. Without secrecy, America wouldn't be able to protect itself from the blowback.

Stop fucking with other countries' business and there won't be any more need for secrecy.
 
The whole need for secrecy for "national security" is a direct result of America's meddling in other countries. Without secrecy, America wouldn't be able to protect itself from the blowback.

Stop fucking with other countries' business and there won't be any more need for secrecy.

you need secrecy...there are certain info that are more detrimental for public knowledge than it is without.

for example, if there is an asteroid heading for us, with only a month left to to hit, do you think they'll tell us?

fuck no. if they did, all sort of normalcy in society would go out the shitter
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Sometimes I think the truth behind the Obama spygame is that as this administration sees it, they're basically fucked. They can't dismantle the organism that began to grow after 9/11 or they'll be ruthlessly attacked for "making us vulnerable to the terrorists". And it's the one thing that really could stick, with America's islamophobia.

So Obama stays the course and even presses down the accelerator pedal to prove he's not making America unsafe and is serious about security.

I'm not saying this as an excuse for him, really. The security state that has blossomed under his watch may stain him with an enormous mark forever, and it has caused many of his supporters to (rightly, in my opinion) withdraw their approval.

But all the same, the direction America has been heading in for the last decade was kind of screwed no matter what.
 

Zoc

Member
you need secrecy...there are certain info that are more detrimental for public knowledge than it is without.

for example, if there is an asteroid heading for us, with only a month left to to hit, do you think they'll tell us?

fuck no. if they did, all sort of normalcy in society would go out the shitter

Nah, worse things have happened to societies and they survived.

Government secrecy is always bad, because of the opportunity it creates for abuse. It needs a very strong justification, which is not provided by America's ridiculous self-imposed task of world policing.
 

120v

Member
i'm not really sure what's wrong with cracking down on security leaks. i understand the tenor of the administration's handling is kind of orwellian, but there seems to be this notion it should be blase about leakers and journos going willy nilly with classified data.
 

Zoc

Member
i'm not really sure what's wrong with cracking down on security leaks. i understand the tenor of the administration's handling is kind of orwellian, but there seems to be this notion it should be blase about leakers and journos going willy nilly with classified data.

It might not be wrong if it were a private company like Apple cracking down on leaks about the next iPhone, but that is an organization that is not really responsible to anyone and in the end, not that important. This is a supposedly democratic government, supposedly responsible to its citizens, unwilling to even tell them what it is doing. Doesn't that strike you as fucked up?

Maybe you'll say that if they just told everyone everything they were doing, they wouldn't be able to catch all the terrorists, but I say that if you have to betray your citizens to catch terrorists, its not worth it. If you can't operate military bases around the world and dip your nose in other countries' business without creating terrorists, causing you to have to betray your own citizens, then the whole freak show of trying to be the world police is not worth it.
 

Lanark

Member
Would be great if the GOP lighting its crotch on fire wasn't the top headline over things like this.

The problem is that there is a near consensus among democrats and GOP over this (as well as on a lot of other civil liberty questions), there is no debate over this, there is nobody who presents an alternative to this, so the media doesn't care, they can't sell stories about this.
 

Sibylus

Banned
The problem is that there is a near consensus among democrats and GOP over this (as well as on a lot of other civil liberty questions), there is no debate over this, there is nobody who presents an alternative to this, so the media doesn't care, they can't sell stories about this.
Oh, believe me, I know full well. Greener grass.
 

Somnid

Member
The Cold War really fucked up the world's ideas about privacy, both personal and for the government. But at least here national security is just some unquestionable word that entitles you to censorship. Although I highly doubt much of this matters as much as they think it does. Just come out with it. The fact that the Snowden leaks haven't been a problem other than mistrust and embarrassment perhaps demonstrates that this really is dumb to hide, it's face saving, not national security protecting.
 

SimleuqiR

Member
I thought this had to do with "chill, I go this!" meme.

obama_i_got_this.jpg
 

hipbabboom

Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
As big an asshole as Bush was, Bush wasn't trying to sneak his finger up your bum.

Bush was the one who formed the department of homeland security that introduced most of the laws that NSA and law enforcement just love.

The reality of it is people who leak national info should be treated as harshly as possible. What the hell kind of message would you be sending if you're forgiving about such things?

Journalists afraid to report the truth better look for work in the gaming press because real journalism is not for them.
 

120v

Member
It might not be wrong if it were a private company like Apple cracking down on leaks about the next iPhone, but that is an organization that is not really responsible to anyone and in the end, not that important. This is a supposedly democratic government, supposedly responsible to its citizens, unwilling to even tell them what it is doing. Doesn't that strike you as fucked up?

Maybe you'll say that if they just told everyone everything they were doing, they wouldn't be able to catch all the terrorists, but I say that if you have to betray your citizens to catch terrorists, its not worth it. If you can't operate military bases around the world and dip your nose in other countries' business without creating terrorists, causing you to have to betray your own citizens, then the whole freak show of trying to be the world police is not worth it.

having come of age during 9/11 i have a special disgust for "we need to catch the terrorists at all costs"

but i don't think this is what that is. if you're a government employee, agent, contractor or whatever, and you sign on a dotted line not to leak classified intel, it's your job to do just that.

just like how the US can be tyrannical hiding behind "national security" there's also an extreme on the other end of the spectrum where sensitive data is leaked all over the place... i don't the latter is right, either.
 
Bush was the one who formed the department of homeland security that introduced most of the laws that NSA and law enforcement just love.

The reality of it is people who leak national info should be treated as harshly as possible. What the hell kind of message would you be sending if you're forgiving about such things?

Journalists afraid to report the truth better look for work in the gaming press because real journalism is not for them.

This is why transparency should be paramount and not letting any administration run roughshod over the privacy of citizens in the name of "security" should be our highest priority. This clip should give you the chills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbLX7_ezkK8

And at it's core, our 'security" efforts have been fruitless. The NSA has admitted that the reported 50+ terrorist plots they "stopped" is a BS number and as evidenced by the recent shooting in DC, the Boston bombing, the Hassan shooting at Fort Hood, they are wholly ineffective. Pretty much every "plot" that has been "stopped" has been an FBI sting where the FBI set everything up and just found some schmuck to agree to deliver a bomb, where without the FBI creating the scenario, never would have occurred in the first place.
 
Is this the same AP which did the lying story on the virginia governor candidate as an essential hit piece last week because it thought the initials TM can only mean Terry Mcauliffe and no one else ?

Transparency.
 

kurbaan

Banned
Yup years from now when freedoms of press and speech have been fully eroded. Directly or in directly history will look back and Obama will be the start.

Well more like Bush gathered the wood Obama lit the fire. I think each future president will get worse in this regard. This will be his legacy in the long term.m
 
This is why transparency should be paramount and not letting any administration run roughshod over the privacy of citizens in the name of "security" should be our highest priority. This clip should give you the chills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbLX7_ezkK8

And at it's core, our 'security" efforts have been fruitless. The NSA has admitted that the reported 50+ terrorist plots they "stopped" is a BS number and as evidenced by the recent shooting in DC, the Boston bombing, the Hassan shooting at Fort Hood, they are wholly ineffective. Pretty much every "plot" that has been "stopped" has been an FBI sting where the FBI set everything up and just found some schmuck to agree to deliver a bomb, where without the FBI creating the scenario, never would have occurred in the first place.

You should really source you claims better. Also, its pretty disingenuous to claim that those agencies are in effective based on the simple fact that random shit happened
 
You should really source you claims better. Also, its pretty disingenuous to claim that those agencies are in effective based on the simple fact that random shit happened

Source: Leahy gets Alexander to admit the number of plots thwarted was basically made up and thwarted nothing.

That's not to say that the programs might not have some effect, but their effect is likely from deterrence and the threat that the data is gathered than from actual identification of plots from the data itself.
 

Nesotenso

Member
To date, six government employees and two contractors have been targeted for prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act for accusations that they leaked classified information to the press. There were just three such prosecutions under all previous U.S. presidents.


I would like to know more about these cases and why these people were targeted for prosecution before passing judgement.
 
To date, six government employees and two contractors have been targeted for prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act for accusations that they leaked classified information to the press. There were just three such prosecutions under all previous U.S. presidents.


I would like to know more about these cases and why these people were targeted for prosecution before passing judgement.

Here is a quick summary of all 8.
 

Crisco

Banned
This all sounds like sour grapes from the journalists who are pissed that people are going directly to WhiteHouse.gov to get their information, instead of to them. Tough shit. If they can't figure out ways to make compelling news without breaking laws or exposing classified information, that's their problem.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
This all sounds like sour grapes from the journalists who are pissed that people are going directly to WhiteHouse.gov to get their information, instead of to them. Tough shit. If they can't figure out ways to make compelling news without breaking laws or exposing classified information, that's their problem.

The problem is that things are being classified for political reasons rather than national security reasons, and they rightly should be leaked to the press.
 

Kettch

Member
Hope they enjoy any future whistle blowers following Snowden's lead and taking refuge in America-unfriendly countries. Because that's what any with half a brain are going to do.
 
To add to this, the whole idea of a "journalist shield law" that is being kicked around should cause anyone who believes in holding the government accountable to be up in arms. Why a journalistic operations like the Washington Post would support such a law is beyond me.

You would think any journalist worth their salt would simply ask any member of Congress that supports a proposed shield law, how they square that with the First Amendment, which could not be more clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The very notion of the government defining who is a "qualified" journalist is ridiculous and open to all manner of abuses by this or any future administration.
 

APF

Member
Yea, Bush's administration had an entirely different view on whistle blowing.

Valerie Plame is a perfect example of this. Obama has a lot to learn.

If anything, Plamegate demonstrated the Bush Administration's lack of regard for classified and protected information. It had nothing to do with whistleblowing.
 

Ataraxia

Member
^ If you're talking about Valerie Plame, Bush had nothing to do with that. The closest figure to Bush involved in that scandal was Vice President Cheney but the lawsuit against him was dismissed. There's no credible evidence linking Bush to that mess at all.
 
^ If you're talking about Valerie Plame, Bush had nothing to do with that. The closest figure to Bush involved in that scandal was Vice President Cheney but the lawsuit against him was dismissed. There's no credible evidence linking Bush to that mess at all.

his vice president did it and therefore falls to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom