Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CPJ Report: the Obama Administration and Press Freedoms

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the this-is-not-what-I-expected dept.

Privacy 289

dryriver writes "Committee To Protect Journalists reports: U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. In the Obama administration's Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An 'Insider Threat Program' being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues. Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. Reporters' phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being 'an aider, abettor and/or conspirator' of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail."

cancel ×

289 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (5, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | about 10 months ago | (#45100187)

Even South Park made fun of England's libel courts which are absurdly tilted in favor of whomever has the money and the power. Perhaps Obama can start suing them all there. Why not? It's not as if anyone cares whether we live in a tyranny or not.

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100277)

Probably... all it takes for extradition these days is for the libel to be posted on a server located in the US right?

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (5, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 10 months ago | (#45100455)

In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest on even greater illegal activities like systematic corruption, war crimes, cover-ups etc were actually afforded some protection (Daniel Ellsberg as one example). Journalists reporting on the whistleblower material were also afforded some protection. Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing no matter how egregious the crime they are bringing to the publics attention. Libel laws strengthened and extended laws and new ones are being passed like the US Shield law [wikileaks-press.org] - designed to shield the corrupt from exposure and outlaw any media organization that is not complicit from doing investigative reporting.

Hard not to come to the conclusion that those institutions behind the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers are wholly and irrecoverably corrupted. Guess that is what happens when the population votes in a two headed single party dedicated to serving power and moneydecade after decade...

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (4, Insightful)

Xicor (2738029) | about 10 months ago | (#45100539)

you can blame the people who refuse to vote for a third party because "they cant win"... if people actually voted with their brains and voted for who they ACTUALLY want in power, we might get a libertarian president.

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100573)

"Don't Blame me, I voted for Kodos!!!"

- Homer Simpson

Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100791)

I don't vote libertarian because I don't want my neighbor having a pet panther in their back yard.

Re: "I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (4, Interesting)

Xicor (2738029) | about 10 months ago | (#45100963)

well, your only options are to stick with the two parties who are both the exact same thing and will destroy your rights, or to vote for a third party. is there any reason why you dont want your neighbor to have a panther? panthers are much quieter than dogs.

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 10 months ago | (#45101055)

you're ignorant if you think a 3rd party can beat the 2 gorillas. its a closed system, mate, there is NO hope of this ever happening however much you or I would love to see a 3rd party have a fighting chance.

the reality is that the system is broken and needs a do-over.

no tweaks will be enough. we need a full do-over. sorry to say, but I have given up hope of the system fixing itself.

the sooner people stop the fantasy of being able to vote in non-corrupt people, the sooner we can actually make PROGRESS toward serious reform.

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 10 months ago | (#45101107)

lol, you clearly dont understand how voting works. if the majority of the people vote for a third party, one of the two parties will lose out and we will have a third party (now second party) president. tweaking the system wont make a difference as long as there are ignorant people voting for the lesser of two evils because they think they only have two choices.

Re:"I'll sue you.......in ENGLAND" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100859)

In the Good Old Days whistleblower's leaking "illegally" in the public interest

In the good old days one only saw grocer's apostrophes in crude, handwritten signs. Get your GED, son.

Today in the first world there appears to be an all out assault on both reporting and whistleblowing

There's also an all-out assault in the written language.

You asked for this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100199)

Slashdot (/.) overwhelming supported Barak Obama's runs for President.
Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected. (In the general news/media arena and here on Slashdot.)
Now the blessed, Slashdot Messiah is screwing you over.
Regrettably, it is a bittersweet truth--the sweet is that President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way and the better is that he is screwing everyone with his Royal Presidency.

Re:You asked for this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100357)

Well, i think Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Re:You asked for this (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100535)

Well, yes, if Cthuhlu was the alternative.

But for the most part, Brand D and Brand R are like toothpaste. Different flavors of pasty abrasiveness. . .

Re:You asked for this (5, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 10 months ago | (#45100731)

Slightly off topic, but I feel the need to push this now more than ever...

The US needs a new voting system [wikipedia.org] , one that doesn't favor two-party control. This bickering and extremism in Congress today, and in the White House, starts at campaign time and leaves us with fewer moderates every year.

Imagine what might happen in the US if the Democrats and the Republicans couldn't push their agenda on the American people just because they have a slim majority. What if, heaven forbid, there were a third party with no ties to the other two, and a bill actually were judged on its merits rather than on the party that proposed it?

Re:You asked for this (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100895)

Let me flip it back at you: How about a mod of the First Amendment for Political Campaigns:

1. Limited Time for campaigning: say, 30 calendar days prior to election

2. NO political Advertising, period. Each Candidate makes a statement on his or her stands on the issues of the day. Maximum length, 2 pages. All responses are in a booklet mailed to voters 10 days prior to the election.

3. No political parties.

4. One public forum for candidates: each has 15 minutes to sell him/herself and their ideas. Saved to web, and viewable.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100911)

There is, and always has been other parties.

When I turned 18 I was able to vote for GW's second term election. I noticed that the Neo-Nazi's and the Socialist parties both had people on the ballot. Take your pick.

The problem isn't a lack of a third party. It's a lack of a GOOD third party.

Re:You asked for this (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 10 months ago | (#45100979)

Nonsense. Our plurality voting system favors two parties. Voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away; people vote for the lesser of two evils, not the best candidate.

Re:You asked for this (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 10 months ago | (#45100557)

there are more than two candidates... it is people like you that cause this ridiculous shit to occur. use your brain, vote for a third party. if enough ppl actually vote for who they want instead of "the lesser of two evils", we wouldnt have had to deal with obama in the first place.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100611)

Indeed. Just imagine if Hillary had won. (McCain't had no chance either way, he was too much of a moderate Republican pussy to win.)

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100989)

I'm actually kind of glad McCain DIDN'T win....and I voted for the guy....What a two faced son of a bitch.

Re:You asked for this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100753)

Well, i think Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Oh really?

We have a budget deficit that is literally an order of magnitude larger than it was under your "greater" evil. Your "lesser" evil called those 10-times smaller deficits "unpatriotic". What does that make your "lesser" evil?

We have a workforce participation rate that is lower than it has been for the past six or seven of your "greater" evils.

We have a President who, until he got snookered by Putin, was prepared to actually invade a country unilaterally, unlike the President that you would term your "greatest" evil, where "unilateral" meant 43 other countries involved.

Your "lesser" evil has bombed Libya, helped to turn it into a failed state, then claimed there we no "hostilities".

Your "lesser" evil has turned the IRS into a political attack dog used to harass and silence political opponents.

That's just off the top of my head.

THIS is your "lesser" evil in action:

There is no access to the daily business in the Oval Office, who the president meets with, who he gets advice from,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has been covering presidents since Gerald Ford. She said many of Obama’s important meetings with major figures from outside the administration on issues like health care, immigration, or the economy are not even listed on Obama’s public schedule. This makes it more difficult for the news media to inform citizens about how the president makes decisions and who is influencing them.

“In the past,” Compton told me, “we would often be called into the Roosevelt Room at the beginning of meetings to hear the president’s opening remarks and see who’s in the meeting, and then we could talk to some of them outside on the driveway afterward. This president has wiped all that coverage off the map. He’s the least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.

That's from the very CPJ report that's the subject of this very topic. One you obviously failed to read.

You, sir, are a fool.

At best.

Re: You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100833)

And you seem to pick and choose your half-truths.

The wars were not put on budget until 2007 when Democrats demanded your 'sunshine'.

Let's not forget Bush outing a CIA agent when the agents husband told the republicans there was no yellow cake.

Re:You asked for this (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 10 months ago | (#45100367)

Yeah, and conservatives supported Bush, even after he started 2 wars.
Everybody fucks up sometime, conservs and libs fucked up back-to-back.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100457)

Not all conservatives did. I know of more conservatives who thought that things like The Patriot Act were a bad idea before they ever passed than I know liberals who are willing to offset Obama and his boys.
 
Get beyond Fox news and start looking at the deeper, more active conservative core and you'll see there is plenty who want to give a good number of what the man on the street calls conservatives the heave-ho. You don't find that in the liberal circles. It's extremely rare to see a liberal shout down the likes of Feinstein, Obama or Reid.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101099)

Liberals don't tend to shout and rant at those who are on their side.

They want to quietly work people, and get them to reform, rather than throw them out of the troika to the wolves.

That, and the ones that do, like OWS, don't have the same backers as the Tea Party to make them look good.

Re:You asked for this (5, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 10 months ago | (#45100369)

You know what would be nice? Being able to have a grown-up discussion about issues like TFA without being distracted by whatever bullshit the GOP is using rise the hackles of their Tea Party base this week (death panels? Benghazi? Who can even keep track?). The signal-to-noise ratio is really low when a conversation about press freedoms needs to be overpowered by "No, really, defaulting on national debts would be Bad, you fucking morons."

Re:You asked for this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100383)

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the American electorate no longer resembles "grown-up discussion", which is why our political system is so fucked right now.

Re:You asked for this (3, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45100643)

Two words: Term limits. No way should someone be a senator for multiple decades, if only to keep them from "going native" to the DC culture. Of course the very people who need the term limits are the ones who would have to vote it in, so it's not likely to happen.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101009)

You are absolutely correct. The problem is that being a congressman/woman is an icnredibly sweet job, with tons of benefits and no accountability. And as history shows over and over, money and power breed corruption. Limiting terms will reduce the power and money one can accrue while in office, and prevent it from becoming a career.

Re:You asked for this (0, Flamebait)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45100477)

Don't even bother wasting your breath on being thoughtful. The Right hasn't a single idea of their own beyond "fuck the rest of you - especially Obama". Every time a REAL issue like this comes up, the signal-to-troll ratio approaches zero. I'd LOVE to have an honest discussion about what a disappointment this guy has been, but it ain't gonna happen here on /.

Re:You asked for this (4, Insightful)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100561)

And the FIRST step to thoughtful debate is to STOP DEMONIZING YOUR OPPOSITION.

Obama is NOT the anti-Christ (that would be Larry Ellison. . .) and the Tea Party is not the KKK in Izod and Chinos. . .

Re:You asked for this (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45100727)

No. Enough. There's a natural human inclination, when listening to two other parties argue, to assume that the sensible position is somewhere in the middle. That's how, in the last 20 years, the Far Right has dragged the goalposts so far into extremest right-wing nutter land that a "moderate Republican" like Barak Obama can be vilified as a wild-eyed socialist. The Tea Party are extremists, plain and simple. The Koch brothers are plutocrats, plain and simple. They are both at war with democracy, the middle class and the very NOTION of government, plain and simple. We can start a thoughtful debate when we start to recognize the facts on the ground.

But you ARE right about Larry Ellison :)

Re:You asked for this (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | about 10 months ago | (#45100821)

You are completely deranged. Obama has fucking NATIONALIZED the fucking auto industry and healthcare - what sort of fucking mental gymnastics does one have to do to equate him with a misunderstood "moderate republican"?

You can talk about other people being the problem, but it is deranged people such as yourself that fuck up any chance of debate.

You are an utter fool, and you have OD'ed on the kool-aide.

Re:You asked for this (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45100875)

Thanks for proving my point.

Re:You asked for this (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | about 10 months ago | (#45100943)

Is this now the Argument Sketch from Monty Python? You made the laughable point that Obama is really a Moderate Republican - and I called you an deranged idiot. Prove your initial point (about Mr. Obama) or slink away you fucking chode.

Perhaps you can explain why this "moderate republican" frames every problem as caused by the private sector, and every solution from government?

Like I said, you are clearly deranged. I'll add that you are clearly hard autistic spectrum as well - it's sooooo easy to manipulate people who do not *innately* understand human interaction.

Re:You asked for this (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45101083)

Obama is to the RIGHT of people like Eisenhower and Nixon, FAR to the right of people like Dirksen.

I've looked at your trolling^Wposting history, I'm not going to further engage such a belligerent know-nothing as yourself, thump your chest and go away.

Re:You asked for this (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 10 months ago | (#45100947)

Canada "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." The United Kingdom "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." Democrats couldn't even agree among themselves to offer everyone the ability to voluntarily buy into Medicare.

But thanks for proving my point: your inability to even recognize the difference is why We Can't Have Nice Things.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101091)

Bush bailed out the banks, you wouldn't know what a socialist was if one bit you on your extremely wide ass..

Re:You asked for this (2)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#45100915)

If this nation has slipped so far that people who have peaceful demonstrations and write blogs are considered extremists, then I guess it's time for the revolution.

Re:You asked for this (3, Funny)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100991)

OK, what do you suggest ??? Political Combat in Thunderdome ??

Two pols enter, one pol leaves. . .

It would certainly fix the geriatrication of Capitol Hill. . .

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100715)

Unfortunately I watched with a grim attitude I watched as he appointed many previous people who did the same thing under the Clinton admin. Some of the very same people who came up with the bright ideas of this sort of thing under the Bush admin (he appointed many of the same people).

We seem to have picked up a group of contractors and carer politicos who are paranoid as hell. We can switch out the top of the political chain but the beast lives on.

Unfortunately things like this shutdown are exactly what we need at this point. People need to see how deadlocked they are and how out of control they are. Snowden I think is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg how f-d up it is. And you are worried the theater the GOP/DNC have produced for you? Neither side wants to budge an inch. With people getting off message being punished. I will be shocked if Kerry is still in this game a year from now after he royally screwed up what they wanted to happen in Syria.

I'd LOVE to have an honest discussion about what a disappointment this guy has been
That will not happen as anyone who raises the least bit of descent about him is shouted down as a 'foxnews watcher' or racist if the argument goes really bad. I have watched as the DNC has used the normal divide and conquer rules that they have used for a hundred years. Pretty much pushing the same agenda. I dont hate the man I think he is just your run of the mill DNC guy.

What gets me even more mad is the GOP side is mimicking this behavior. Basically the 'take it or leave it' attitude the DNC has been doing for a long time now. I talk to fellow GOPers and they are unwilling to bend an inch. Much like when I talk to people from the DNC party.

If you want me to sum up the parties ( and I know you didnt ask)
GOP - We made these rules and by God you are going all follow them and if we do not like the rules we will vote them away. We are not all special we are all equally screwed over.
DNC - We made these rules and by God you are going follow them but only if it does not affect me and if we do not like the rules we will change them until they work (we can get it right *this* time). They also only apply to some people because we are all special in some way.

Re: You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100871)

The honest discussions stopped when Bush started putting protesters in cages... 'Freedom Zones'. Which I guess we're analogous to freedom fries?

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100507)

We can never have a grown-up discussion with divisive people like you. A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas. The press should have some freedoms, and not others. "This" has historically resulted in "that," and here is evidence to support my claim.

Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed. Yeah, I went there.

Re:You asked for this (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 10 months ago | (#45100675)

A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas.

Ah, how noble! Well, on one side the idea is "Maybe we could sort of regulate the banks that, when left unregulated, broke the global economy, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a modern healthcare system while we're at it?" On the other we have "HITLER HITLER HITLER ARGLEBARGLE!" Surely there's an enlightened discussion to be had between such well-reasoned views!

Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed.

You go around natural history museums asking "Were you there?" don't you?

Re:You asked for this (2)

jasper160 (2642717) | about 10 months ago | (#45100375)

How come when classified information is leaked under a republicrat president it is glorified but if classified (embarrassing) information is leaked under a "liberal" president they get the jumper cables out?

Re:You asked for this (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45100393)

Of course we supported him. Did you see the other guy?

Re:You asked for this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100397)

Slashdotters were warned that Senator Obama would do "bad things like this" if elected.

The problem is that no one better ever had a chance of making it through the primaries. It's not like there was a better viable alternative.

President Obama is screwing his devotees and followers of his Progressive (Leftist) Way

Everywhere in the wide world, Obama is a conservative moderate right. US does not have a "Left" side.

Re:You asked for this (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100597)

I seem to recall the candidacy of one Hillary Clinton.

And as for the rest of the world's political spectrum, the US poltical spectrum is simply different. It probably has something to do with the Metric system (grin)

Re:You asked for this (5, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45100595)

Actually it's more funny that he only got there because the press had such a hard-on crush for him. ("Sort of a god", "had to step down" to the White House, etc.) Now that he's not living up to their fan-fiction dreams of him, they're not happy.

Re:You asked for this (3, Insightful)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 10 months ago | (#45101027)

You know, I must've missed that.

I have no recollection of people complaining that Senator Obama would end up being a conservative right wing leader hell bent on attacking our civil liberties at home while exporting undeclared warfare worldwide.

I do remember plenty of idiots rambling about how he is a foreign born Muslim communist. None of those claims panned out, however.

So yes, Obama supporters were misled. They were perhaps naive to think that a candidate supported by one of the two established parties could possibly be a departure from business as usual. However wrong Obama supporters were in their opinion of Obama, the detractors were doubly wrong. None of you asshats was claiming that Obama was a closet conservative, so don't try to spin it like that's what you were saying all along.

Re: You asked for this (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 10 months ago | (#45101101)

People that cry over the Republicans last two losses need to get their head out of their ass. The party may have good financial ideas (which is certainly debatable) but most of us can't get past their 20th century social policies long enough to even have that discussion.

Stop bringing your little book of fairy tales into every discussion and then maybe we'll talk. Until then I think I'll keep voting for the adults that aren't afraid of brown people or the big bad gays.

Re:You asked for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101125)

Asked? No. I don't think anyone could have easily predicted this is what would be going on, unless you think there's some sort of "leftist" guarantee that whistleblowers will get prosecuted more, while under "rightist" governments they don't (at which point I'd laugh at the suggestion, given history). This seems to be some kind of peculiarity of either this president or of the people in power getting generally unnerved by the ease with which secrets can now flow out of government, thanks to technological improvements. Given the greater frequency of this kind of clampdown on ordinary press freedoms in many other democracies, I think this is a sign of the times, not of a particular government official or the particular political leanings of this one.

Don't get me wrong, I think it has to be stopped and the Obama administration should be acutely ashamed of the distinction of doing more of this than all previous administrations combined. It's ridiculous. But I don't think changing who the president of the USA was would change the situation dramatically, and it might even be worse. These people are scared of us and the press. To which I say: good. What we need to do is lean on politicians generally to lay off the press. The press isn't revealing this information because they want to conduct espionage, and they usually try to do it responsibly by cutting out the parts that could compromise anything of specific operational significance. They're doing it because they think the people are interested in the information and that it matters to the future of democratic institutions, so people should be informed. They're not doing it because journalists are "spies" or something foolish like that.

Transparency (3, Insightful)

blach (25515) | about 10 months ago | (#45100211)

"This is the most transparent administration in history." --Barack Obama http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html [realclearpolitics.com]

Re:Transparency (0)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#45100235)

That might be true.

Maybe in previous administrations the same people that are now prosecuted were killed and erased from history by CIA black ops.

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100275)

And it didn't mean that anything that could be used to hurt the USA would be declassified. You have to understand why the NSA wouldn't just release all of those documents themselves and cause the backlash, even though they still haven't shown that they didn't really do anything against the law.

The media has had a field day these last few years and have not be investigated themselves for lying to the public and posting minority opinions to promote them and encourage people to not work with Obama.

Re:Transparency (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 10 months ago | (#45100311)

Have to agree. I had just moved back to Canada when Clinton was on his way out and Bush was on his way in. It seemed like overnight the media went from TMI on US news to a black hole. Then Obama got in and we again started having more US news on Canadian News sites than actual Canadian news. Then again, when Harper (our PM) got a majority government he took the same route as Bush did and basically black balled any reporter that didn't report what he wanted or asked questions that weren't previously vetted and approved at press conferences.

Re:Transparency (2)

cmorriss (471077) | about 10 months ago | (#45100779)

Are you on drugs? Bush was lambasted by the media. Constantly. Now Obama is in office. Remember how we're still fighting a war in Afghanistan? What happened to Guantanimo? The only reason we know ANYTHING about the NSA is because every news outlet would be dumb as a bag of rocks not to report it. It was thrown in their lap.

Who knows what else is going on. There's very little real journalism in today's media. Part of that really is a belief by many in the media that Obama is overall a great man and they should not pound him too hard for anything, and part of that is because of the KGB like surveillance of the media keeping everyone else in line as much as possible.

Re:Transparency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100299)

"This is the most transparent administration in history."

"I made your email protections transparent, your cellphone privacy transparent and all of your fourth amendment rights so transparent that you can't even prove they exist."

Re:Transparency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100323)

"This is the most transparent administration in history."

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge. Weakness is strength."

Transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100213)

Our government's idea of "transparency" is how they can see everything we're doing ... even see us typing up a FOIA request.

Re:Transparency? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 10 months ago | (#45100689)

Indeed. A one-way mirror is still transparent. Just not both ways.

Hope and Change (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100221)

How's it working for you these days? There were plenty of people who were screaming that this stuff would be happening. Nobody listened. Maybe next time you will, but I doubt it. The American public is too busy watching American Idol to give a crap about anything important anymore.

Right.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100225)

Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

Grow up.

Re:Right.... (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 10 months ago | (#45100303)

Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

Grow up.

That isn't even a good troll. Crying 'racism' at any criticism of Obama is actually in and of itself racist. He gets plenty of criticism for his actions, not so much the color of his skin. You're the one who really should consider growing up.

Re:Right.... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45100495)

Could it be that Slashdot is rasist as fuck against a black president? No, it couldn't be that.

No, it isn't be that. Because nobody is talking about the color of his skin.

See, being a person who is working against your freedoms and trying to keep government activities a secret isn't an issue of the color of your skin.

It's an issue of your integrity and your campaign promises. If your president isn't working to improve or maintain your liberties, he's working against them.

We're not seeing a whole lot of 'audacity of hope' these days. We're seeing someone who is helping reduce your freedoms and curtail your press from telling people what it is they're actually doing when that might be illegal.

This is very much a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of thing.

Re:Right.... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45100555)

No, it isn't be that

Wow, I be typing goodly today ...

Re:Right.... (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 10 months ago | (#45100565)

There is a lot of dislike of Obama due to his race. There's no question about that. But that doesn't lesson the seriousness of legitimate criticism. For that matter, even if someone is motivated by racism to make a specific criticism it doesn't impact the validity of that criticism. To go full-Godwin, if Hitler said that 1+1=2 as part of an argument to kill all the Jews, it doesn't make 1+1=2 less true.

Re:Right.... (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | about 10 months ago | (#45100613)

Yes. Many of us oppose Obama because of his color. We don't like Yellow-striped Reds (evil grin)

Press Freedoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100229)

Ask Snowden what does he thinks about it...

Obama, the non-leader leader (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100245)

This man has no ideas of his own, and virtually zero leadership cred. He got to where he is by selling out to those with money, and was elected to the highest position in the land with so few qualifications that it boggles the mind. He speaks OK (when his teleprompter works) and is capable of telling people what they want to hear. Of course when the powers that be want to clamp down on things that may reduce their power, he plays along. He's a spineless douchebag. He should go back to smoking pot and just hanging out. That's what his vision for America is anyway.

Re:Obama, the non-leader leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100777)

The Kenyan born Muslim who plays golf eight days a week on Martha's Vineyard with George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and the other libs hatching plans for the next Solyndra or Fisker bailout and Fast and Furious and when are the MSM (that's Main Stream Media) going to finally get off their butts and cover the outrage at Benghazi? Or Fast and Furious! While Putin plays him for an easy mark and bails him out of Syria and America looks small again? Look I'm not saying Bush did a good job but in comparison, he had nothing like Benghazi or Fast and Furious and that's why increasingly, polls are showing that the voters are coming to see what a miserable excuse who should never have been elected because anyone can fake a birth certificate. Doesn't mean it's real.

Re:Obama, the non-leader leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101119)

No, he's a fake progerssive who's doubled down on every failed Republican policy of the last two decades.

Re:Obama, the non-leader leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100867)

He speaks OK

You sound like an excellent judge of grammar.

Re:Obama, the non-leader leader (1)

Quila (201335) | about 10 months ago | (#45100917)

Don't forget, the presidency is the first election he ever won against a solid opponent. In all previous elections he either had no opponent, an opponent who could never win (a Republican in his solid Democratic state district), or a last-minute swap-out who had no chance (Alan Keyes). He even won state senate primaries mainly by having the opposition disqualified, or running unopposed. In 2000 he ran a primary against the incumbent for his Congressional district and lost badly (he got the upper class vote, but the regular black population voted against him).

Re:Obama, the non-leader leader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101073)

Don't forget, the presidency is the first election he ever won against a solid opponent. In all previous elections he either had no opponent, an opponent who could never win (a Republican in his solid Democratic state district), or a last-minute swap-out who had no chance (Alan Keyes). He even won state senate primaries mainly by having the opposition disqualified, or running unopposed. In 2000 he ran a primary against the incumbent for his Congressional district and lost badly (he got the upper class vote, but the regular black population voted against him).

What election did Romney ever win against a strong opponent.

Who cares about this kind of trivia. Go back to your talk radio hole.

change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100263)

Change you can believe in!

Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100293)

U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise.
 
Fallen short? Is that's what it's called when it's the most closed administration in recent history? Fallen short? Give me a break!
 
Today we are the police state that the likes of Obama told us we were under Bush. People really need to wake up.
 
Oh, but yeah, I know... it's Apple and the "XBone" that we need to worry about, right?

Its Own Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100295)

I know that the press is liberal left leaning Obama fan boyz. But, Obama has his own media? Which channel is that?

Re:Its Own Media? (2)

fredrated (639554) | about 10 months ago | (#45100349)

Channel 666.

Bread and circuses (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 10 months ago | (#45100313)

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

There have been classified documents since 1911 (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#45100319)

Reporters didn't have access to classified documents in the Good Old Days either. And anyone caught leaking papers to the Soviet Union during the Cold War was in serious, serious trouble.

It's probably a lot easier to try someone under the Espionage Act today since you can deliver a large volume of information electronically and odds are there will be some electronic fingerprint on it pointing back to the leaker unless they're fully aware of all the security precautions. Fifty years ago, if you leaked the amount of data that would fit on a single CD-R to someone today, it would take up several boxes full of printed papers. ("Where are you going with that crate of papers, Ed?" "Uh....") But if you slipped a handful of papers into your briefcase a few at a time and gave them to someone at dinner, it'd be harder to trace the leak.

Re: There have been classified documents since 191 (1)

techprophet (1281752) | about 10 months ago | (#45100405)

This just in: journalists equated with the Soviet Union. More at 11

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (5, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 10 months ago | (#45100449)

Reporters didn't have access to classified documents in the Good Old Days either. And anyone caught leaking papers to the Soviet Union during the Cold War was in serious, serious trouble.

Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100541)

Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

Which is bs as there were 15 prosecutions during the 1990. Hell 1985 had 4 prosecutions in a single year. The claim of only 3 combined prosecutions under all other administrations is so obviously false it's a wonder how they even consider this to be journalism.

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100699)

Which, presumably, is why the Obama Administration has brought charges against more journalists (6) than all other administrations combined (3)?

Which is bs as there were 15 prosecutions during the 1990. Hell 1985 had 4 prosecutions in a single year

[citation needed]

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100755)

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100937)

Making contrary claims, telling people who ask for citations, which you should have provided in the first place, to Just Fucking Google It, as if anybody will....Obama, is that you?

Re:There have been classified documents since 1911 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45101081)

There were 15 prosecutions against journalists under the Espionage Act in the 1990s? Four Espionage Act prosecutions against journalists in 1985?

Your cheeky little link posted below doesn't back you up.

its quite telling really. (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 10 months ago | (#45100339)

Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.
the government surveillance, crackdown on leaks, and persecution of journalists just shows how desparate america is to maintain the illusion of the land of the free and home of the brave. in reality we kill our own citizens, run torture camps, kidnap people we consider enemies, and maintain the highest incarceration rate in the world. we topple foreign governments, install dictators, sabotage existing governments attempts at independence and autonomy, and detain indefinitely without trial anyone we see fit. We had an entire slew of protests across the country called Occupy that ended with nothing but arrests and more surveillance. Nothing changed and nothing will.

the fastest way to stop the leaks and the leakers is to stop pandering to a minority constituency of plutocrats while paying lipservice to real americans, and get on with some real change. Arrest corrupt wall street bankers, shut down guantanamo, and for fuck sake stop sticking your dick in the middle east every six months for a boost in the opinion polls leading up to an election.

Re:its quite telling really. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100395)

Once the structure falls apart, once the cognitive dissonance between what we say and what we do becomes so indefensible, then we have no choice but to persecute dissent and stifle protest.

And that will mark the end of what was once a great country, which has now become everything they've ever opposed.

Congratulations America, you have given up your rights and freedoms in the name of securing your rights and freedoms.

You're no longer the shining example. You're the sad joke whose demands the world is going to start ignoring. Your security and economy don't trump the rest of the world.

And I imagine Americans will continue to believe how awesome and free they are ... all the while becoming as bad as every government you've ever criticized.

Pathetic.

But... but.... but...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100345)

I didn't mean "transparency" as "you can look at me," I meant, "you can look at what I want to show you." Plus the bonus of, "you can look at those Nasty Republicans." You know, that one-way glass kind of transparency.
-Barack Obama

Good Man + Absolute Power = Bad Man (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 10 months ago | (#45100373)

If we were watched over by scrupulous eunuch atheist priests who lived in a walled off commune and never spoke to another soul wouldn't mind, but we are watched by public servants. The value of mass surveillance data inevitably means it will be abused. http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=386989 [crikey.com.au]

Re:Good Man + Absolute Power = Bad Man (2)

Silverhammer (13644) | about 10 months ago | (#45100663)

I reject your premise. Good people do not seek power in the first place.

That's not to say there are no good people with power. But those who have it almost always have it forced upon them by the circumstances of the moment, and when the moment has passed, they try to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

More examples (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100463)

* Hushing up Fast 'n Furious debacle by executive privilege.
* Gagging Benghazi witnesses, even forbidding them from testifying to Congress.
* Blaming Benghazi on a stupid YouTube video for weeks (right before the election -- we have to make the attack seem "spontaneous" so it looks our policies have ended terrorism), knowing full well that it's a lie.

I could go on all day, but I do have to actually work. Most of these things (all three of the cases I mentioned) happened before His reelection, so it was completely obvious to those of us who aren't idiots what kind of president this guy was/is. Now, time to wait for said idiots to try to deflect the issue by talking about how bad Republicans are (happens every time, as if these turds get their marching orders from On High; so predictable).

Well, what did you expect? (3, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45100499)

Obama got the Nobel prize, not the Sakharov prize.

Re:Well, what did you expect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100835)

They should take his back and give it to Snowden.

Obama bin bama caught being a fake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100701)

How could this be? Surely it is not true. Surely it is because of them darn republicans. Obama bin bama wouldn't betray his own words of peace nor transparency ....would he??? What a traitor he is to the American people.

Well... (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#45100839)

...this is what happens when you have a President that makes your leg tingle.

Seriously, though, the press has ALWAYS done a better job covering Republican presidents, as their adversarial role is abundantly clear. Largely, Democratic presidents who ostensibly have the shared outlook, overall sympathies, if not outright vote of reporters (http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp), have been covered much more gently and with (dare I call it) an almost collaborationist approach.

As politics have become more strident and divisive, it seems like the press itself has found itself more stridently taking a side, with Fox on the Right, and everyone else on the Left.

Lack of Transparency? Wonder why. (0)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 10 months ago | (#45100869)

When you have to deal with people who work for you and claim to be on your side and who you feel you should be able to trust only to find leaked confidential documents and conversations online and in the press ...can you blame the administration for tightening their safeguards and access by the media? This isn't what he wanted. He believed in his mission of "Hope and Change".

People want and demand transparency. But, it's these very same people who also want to screw him over every chance they get.

If they let him do his job and not worry about him trying to explain his every move in explicit detail when he takes a shit, he might be more forthcoming. Think about all the "scandals" he's had to contend with - starting with the "birther" movement, racist comments about a "black man (oh..wait a B/W milkshake) in the "WHITE house" to WikiLeaks to screw ups by the intel community and the DOJ and extreme conservatives who have made it their solemn promise that he wouldn't get elected (well, he can't again..so, I guess they win) to those shutting down the gov't....yeah...he's going to insist that things be reviewed and and withheld....we all created this situation.

We asked him to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring troops home. We then bitch about him using drones and violating sovereign turf of those nations who claim to be our "allies" so he can cut down on the number of needed body bags for brining our people home. Sadly, we can't have it both ways...especially, when there wasn't an exit strategy in place and harder when the situation keeps evolving. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't work wither.

We tell the guy to find a way to create jobs in this country. Then, we bitch when he tries to stop large corporations from outsourcing our jobs to those overseas by raising taxes. We tell the guy that we can't afford healthcare. Then, we bitch that his plan is going to destroy America. See the previous bitch about sending our jobs overseas as to why we can't afford healthcare.

Am I thrilled by the lack of transparency? No. But, this is our doing by not supporting the person elected into the office to do a job and second guessing everything he does rather than coming together to help solve the problems. Partisan politics be damned.

I, personally, received an interesting phone call the other night - an obscene phone call from someone I didn't know.. Turns out, caller id was my friend. Referencing the name of the business with a LinkedIn profile, it came from from the owner (or someone in his employ) of a staffing agency that "specializes" in outsourcing tech jobs overseas. Worst part of it? If it was him, he was the head of our school board for 10 years and lead the change in curriculum that eliminated most science, music/arts programs but increased spending on sports. A little self-serving? You think? It's crap like this that is the very reason the administration is more opaque than transparent.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45100971)

I guess having every news outfit in the country EXCEPT FoxNews in his pocket isn't enough for Emperor Obama. Whoduv thunk it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>