Quantcast

Comments about ‘Journalists criticize Obama administration, say Fox News' James Rosen targeted 'for basic reporting'’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 20 2013 4:14 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KDave
Moab, UT

It is ironic. If Obama is successful in muting the press, then how will he learn what is happening in the World? He only sees it on the news.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Sorry, folks, but I don’t see the press as the victim here. Publishing classified documents obtained by means of questionable legality is not just “doing their job” as some are trying to make it sound. If any private citizen tried to pull something like that, you can bet that Federal law enforcement would be all over them.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

UtahBlueDevil,

"Freedom of the Press does not include breaking and entering, violating others privacy, or putting the public in danger. They are subject to the same laws everyone else is...."
______________________________

Well said, UtahBlueDevil.

There have always been news reporters who test the limits of the First Amendment as it pertains to a free press. Some have claimed legal privileges that the courts do not recognize such as the legal right to keep news sources confidential, even when certain documents obtained by a reporter have been subpoenaed. Some reporters have gone to jail screaming about their rights. The fact is, it’s illegal to withhold evidence in a criminal investigation or court proceeding. I couldn’t get away with it myself.

Freedom, in our country, has never meant unrestricted license. The First Amendment right of freedom of the press was never meant to grant the press a special dispensation from the rule of law.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Here comes the newest in manufactured scandals.
Fox News....isn't it the station that is sanctioned by only the wonderful of the wonderfulist?
Now they would not do this sort of thing, would they? They have never filled their newscasts with disingenuous news concerning ourPresident!
Has our world ever noticed that whenever people are trying to vilify our President, a higher power, along with mother nature, seem to get in their way, and the true colors and love of our country comes through?
Other issues, naturally, are put on the back burner during these times of disaster.
Politicians and other groups tend to appear extremely silly and dishonest in the light of what is really important.
Just ask Chris Christie about this sometime.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Having lived in Germany after WWII, there was still a significant feeling in that country at how Hitler was able to take over their country and isolate through their system a certain class of people through a governmental process of registering and tracking. The impact of that act is known for the 6 million plus besides their families and friends. How Hitler got to power and how he maintained power through his tactics and schemes is also known. We relive history but a lot of the history that is available is not taught anymore. We get into our own little world of media devices and don't even talk to people anymore. We don't read books with thoughts and ideas from others as to why a certain civilization came into power and then went out of power. There are people with evil designs. President Bush mentioned the evil axis and then got into a war that took his eyesight off of those targets. This President said he would do a lot of things in 2008 that haven't happened as he had an agenda that is different from what he proposed. We need his real agenda to prevent history reliving.

sixpacktr
Murfreesboro, TN

And thus we see the absolute willingness to look the other way by our fellow countrymen such as 'pragatist' and 'twocents' that will defend the Dear Leader to the death.

I wonder what they will be saying when it all falls apart and chaos reigns? When our rights are a distant memory and we are living in fear to speak our minds? Because that is exactly where this is going, and if you can't see that, then there is no real hope for you. Luckily, there are enough that are vigilant that will create a place of refuge when it all hits the fan...

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@Mike

and yet another day of you making claims you have no proff to support while crying about the unfair treatment of swallow.

mightyd
Hurricane, UT

to all those saying that the reporters are not above the law, and should have there records sought out, well, THATS why we have subpoenas.....makes sense huh...
and lets not be giving a pass to obama here....lets try to be subjective...it always amazes me how we can turn a blind eye when its "our" guy in office...there seems to be a pattern here.......eh?????

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

As usual, too many rush to defend Obama before they even read the article.

The article states: "Under U.S. law, it is not illegal to publish classified information," Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Guardian. "That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the U.S. government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the U.S. government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ — that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information — is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself."

Did you get that? It is NOT illegal to for a newspaper to publish classified information.

If it were illegal, when the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, that entire news organization would have been indicted. According to Wikipedia, the Times house council, "James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy."

By the way, it wasn't until 2011 that that report was de-classifed and released to the public.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "UtahBlueDevil" it is funny that you are so concerned now about putting lives at risk by what news organizations publish. The fact is that liberals cheered when the lives of soldiers were put at risk by publishing pictures of the Iraq prisons. Then again they cheered when the Wiki leaks came out. Why is it now that your ilk cares about protecting lives? Where were you when soldiers were being killed because of the actions of the press?

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The press certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and I would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent. While they cannot solicit classified information, they have every right under a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press to receive it unsolicited from anyone, including and especially whistleblowers.

The well established practice by which our government ferrets out inappropriate leaking of classified information is by subpoena, and they have to make a case that the journalist should be legally required to divulge the source. Journalists then often have to make a choice between their journalistic integrity or their loyalty to a sometimes heavy-handed government.

The actions of the DOJ to characterize James Rosen as engaging in illegal activity to a judge has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and whistleblowing activity, and is probably illegal, even if he was never officially charged with anything. These actions are being roundly pilloried by nearly all major news organizations.

Giving up critical rights to a powerful government seems a small matter to many of our citizens today.

HS Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

Hillary won't stand for this when she's President.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

DSB - '@Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The press certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and I would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent"

So. if the press were to gather the names of all those who had conceal and carry permits - and publish those in a news paper.... that's ok? right.... shoe fits on both feet? I do recall a national outcry when a Northeaster paper did so... and legislation by a republican was pushed to ban such a practice. So where is the line for you...?

@Redshirt - I am pretty sure you would classify me as a liberal - and yet I didn't cheer at any of those events you mentioned. So I don't know which liberals you are referring to. No more so than I have seen Klan like characterizations of Obama - and seen people cheer those - do I subscribe those peoples behavior to all conservatives.

There are always people who are outliers to any group who do things that don't represent the populous as a whole. That is no less true for liberals or conservatives.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

We may believe that the first amendment or any amendment isn't important but they are vital for an open and transparent government. We know Presidents Nixon and Johnson had problems and Nixon got impeached and departed. However, Daniel Ellsberg was an important part in helping the Vietnam war to close down along with helping security become more realigned during Nixon's time. Maybe it even started the Nixon process becoming history, also.

Anyway, in late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Daniel Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of classified documents to which he had access and became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that the Democrat government had knowledge, early on the Vietnam war could most likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, as a New York Times editor, he wrote much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance". Integrity is vital or no trust exists.

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

@utebluedevil
If a newspaper wanted to publish the names of those with concealed weapons permits, and received that information without solicitation, yes...they would have the right to publish it under the first amendment. Of course there will be outcry and they will have to deal with it. Our first amendment rights don't include immunity to the natural consequences of our actions. The press has to realize that there will be an outcry and fallout from certain stories they publish. What you're insinuating is an argument between what's ethical and what's legal. I don't believe it's ethical to report classified information, especially pertaining to national security. But it is legal under the first amendment, and taking that right away from the press is tantamount to suppressing and oppressing the publics ability to hold a powerful and corrupt government accountable, regardless of who holds office.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@mike richards
Yes, by all means, investigate all misdeeds. In the case of the AP and IRS scandals, how about also investigating those who are demanding that the president be removed from office? What is their agenda? What do they have to gain? Who benefits most when the waters around the president’s office is muddy? Who benefits most when he cannot do his duty? Somebody does not want him to be able to do his job? Who is that person or persons? consistency Mike thats all anyone is asking for.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@Cougsndawgs - nice tag teaming. Exactly the response I would have made, only you made it better. And if potential whistleblowers were fearful of approaching a journalist in the future, people like UtahBlueDevil would be unable to make the connection to the heavy-handedness of our current DOJ in fostering that climate of fear.

justamacguy
Manti, UT

@ UtahBlueDevil: Prior to the election there were all kinds of top secret leaks showing up in the liberal Obama favoring press. Of course these leaks were all favorable to the Obama campaign for re-election. There were so many that both congress and Romney questioned the risk to national security. So i guess as long as the leaks are flattering to Obama and reported in that light by the liberal press it's OK, but if the leaks are detrimental to the Obama image and reported by the conservative press they are criminal. How convenient.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments