Obama's War on Journalism Coming to a Head

[adirondacker]

"A Supreme Court ruling against NYT reporter James Risen, who is refusing to reveal sources, leaves the Department of Justice with a serious decision to make on whether it will finally defend press freedoms or continue its attack on them.
by
Norman Solomon

Ten months after the Committee to Protect Journalists issued its scathing report “The Obama Administration and the Press,” journalists and potential whistleblowers continue to face unprecedented surveillance and legal jeopardy. The report, authored by Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post, remains grimly up to date as it describes “the fearful atmosphere surrounding contacts between American journalists and government sources.”

The US Department of Justice seems determined to intensify that fearful atmosphere—in part by threatening to jail New York Times reporter James Risen, who refuses to name any source for the disclosure in his 2006 book State of War that the CIA bungled a dumb and dangerous operation with nuclear weapons blueprints in Iran.

The government is now prosecuting a former CIA employee, Jeffrey Sterling, for allegedly leaking that information to Risen. Attorney General Eric Holder may soon decide whether he wants to imprison Risen for not capitulating. The Freedom of the Press Foundation calls it “one of the most significant press freedom cases in decades.”

Almost a year ago, under the letterhead of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 46 news organizations sent a letter to Holder urging the Justice Department to withdraw the subpoena issued to Risen. Two months ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists put out a new statement again calling on the Justice Department to cancel the subpoena."

<SNIP>

More at link including a petition...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/04/obamas-war-journalism-coming-head
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/risen_petition.php

[merrily]

1. Before Obama, there was another form of de facto

limit on the press, namely, no access for critics of the administration. D.C. press/reporters need the occasional exclusive and the occasional "scoop," and the occasional "White House sources say......" So, just that in itself led to media's pandering; and I don't think this administration changed that policy.

Then, there's the secrecy, the surveillance of reporters, the attempts to limit any federal shield law that is under discussion, the attempts to define "journalist" in some way that would exclude outlets like wiki and so on. Cumulatively, it is quite unsettling.

I have a lot of contempt for the media, but the media don't owe me anything; and I don't have to give them any of money if I don't wish to so to do, or face seizure and prison. Neither of those things is true of the federal government.

[adirondacker]

2. I agree. "Manufacturing Consent" immediately comes to mind when these topics arise. nt

[merrily]

3. Going back to Bushco, think how the press actively cooperated in

selling the Iraq War, in smearing Plame, etc.

I remember hearing a reporter who had gone to Iraq "embedded" talking about "we," meaning him and the members of the military in the tank in which he was riding. How is that for totally objective reporting on the Iraq invasion?


It's a brave new world.