Comments about ‘In our opinion: The Obama administration's all-out assault on press freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 22 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Instead of fulfilling his promise to be the most transparent presidency ever Barack instead sets new record in hiding information.


Barack, is this how you show you have nothing to hide?


Between the economy, international relations, transparency, it's say one thing and do the exact opposite for Barack


Poor example of what a leader should be

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Barack promised to be the most transparent president in history.

And what does he actually DO?

It found the “The Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, cited more legal exceptions it said justified withholding materials and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy,” according to an AP report.


Barack can lie to our faces all day long but so long as he blames the rich and bush for everything the liberals will support him no matter what.


Can you imagine what the liberals would be saying if bush had set these kinds of "records" after promising transparency?


Perhaps Barack doesn't know what transparency means.


Someone get this guy a dictionary

Orange County, CA

The only thing transparent about this administration is its motives...more power to the president.

Lehi, UT

I agree. And the speech suppression has probably been going on for a long time, but it really came to my attention during the last election. I wasn't a big Romney supporter at first, until I saw how dishonest and hateful Obama campaigners were. And the thing that almost surprised me was the alarming rate at which they edited and lied about Mitt Romney and especially Mormons and other Christians. The bullying was unprecedented. And, when people tried to explain or tell the truth about issues that liberals disagreed with, comments were removed, Romney supporters and others were blocked, dishonest articles were written and so on. This was by major media sources, including CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Yahoo, and many others.

Sore loser
tampa, fl

Obama's transparency vow reminds me of one of my sayings: "if you gotta say it, it probably isn't true". Closed quote

Costa Rica, 00

"Finland topped the list as the nation with the freest press".
Maybe Finland is number one because they have 'secret files' that nobody wants.

Virginia Beach, VA

"The administration’s record makes a mockery of Obama’s promise to make his administration the 'most transparent' ever."

Uh huh, and the record of the Deseret News and the rest of the right wing press makes a mockery of legitimate journalism.

Incessant whining does nothing for the nation. Recognizing realities and offering solutions to problems actually accomplishes something worth accomplishing.

The Patriot Act passed by the Bush Administration and renewed by the Obama administration is still in effect. And yes, fighting international terrorists makes secrecy a necessity.

Although many Right and Left Wing extremists think that the traitorous Edward Snowden is a hero for providing "transparency" to our enemies by letting them know exactly how we surveil them, the responsibility of the US government to keep this nation safe far outweighs the transparency it owes citizens.

And how do you know the Obama administration is not the most transparent ever?

Which administration has been more transparent? And how could you even possibly know that?

Blindly repeating Rush Limbaugh's Right Wing rhetoric is quite unprofessional for a reputed news organization, don't you think?

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Well, he promised to "fundamentally change our country" and the media should not be surprised that he is working against their freedom as well.

I welcome those who believe in the First Amendment to what defenders of the Second Amendment have been experiencing for many years, often egged on by the media types who finally feel outrage when THEIR protections are challenged.

Big, intrusive government must be kept within the limits set in the Constitution. Obama (and most liberals) do not see things that way.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Sorry, but this editorial lost me when it used "data" supplied by the totally non-transparent "Cause of Action".

"Cause of Action" is a right biased 501(c)(3) which receives much of its funding from the anonymously funded, and equally right wing "Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity".

Arguments using obviously biased sources are just not credible.

Idaho Falls, ID

We should be surprised at this? This is just standard operating procedure for this administration. From Day 1 he has been circumventing the Constitution and Congress just let's him do it. The likes of Pelosi and Reed are mere lapdogs.

Pleasant Grove, UT

@DN Editors: "The administration’s record makes a mockery of Obama’s promise to make his administration the 'most transparent' ever."

Maybe he meant he would tell the most transparent lies ever.

Pay close attention to this:

"The First Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…' But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's 'critical information needs.' Those 'needs' will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment." (New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections, by Byron York, 20 Feb 2014)

In other words, Obama is going to run the FCC just like he runs the IRS, NSA, DoJ, EPA, and HHS -- as a weapon against his political adversaries.

This is abuse of power. It's time for Congress to shut down these efforts by defunding them, and -- if that doesn't work -- impeach.


The DNews should work harder to avoid misinterpreting statistics. The reason attributed to America's drop in the press freedom index was not attributed to a decrease in American press freedom, but largely due to a dramatic increase in other countries' ranking.

Please give your readers an appropriate context.

Murray, UT

I am not sure which is the bigger problem, the media sources which willingly spout the president's untruthful rhetoric, or the withholding of the information, but both are a real threat to our freedom.

Ogden, UT

Obama is conducting an assault on most of what has made the country great his quest is socialism / communism. Can be compared to Longshanks in Brave Heart.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Yes Obama is bad - but he is really only symptomatic od the Orwellian politically correct left who has taken hypocrisy to new levels.
Ironically, their is still a huge portion of the media, even a majority, who continue to cover for Obama long after it should be blatant to everyone that he is freedom and tolerance's worst nightmare.

Springville, UT

We've had our freedoms torn to shreds for several years, while the media could only praise the POTUS. And even you, the Deseret News, have a policy of not being critical directly of the current POTUS.

Our right to privacy is gone. We're spied on by our own government and, per the IRS scandal, which you have helped to keep out of the news, we know full well the risk that this is being done to target political opposition. And you were silent.

Our police (and other branches of government) have become militarized, not to protect us against outside aggressors. And you were silent.

The president, by executive order, erases other protected rights, and you have been silent.

So now you see that Freedom of the Press is being hindered. We're crying big tears for you. Were you critical of the administration's desire to put monitors in each news station? No. You were silent.

Are you going to stand up finally and take a firm stand against what has happened? I doubt it. I expect that you'll bow down and continue to support the POTUS and fight your little battle against Senator Mike Lee.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


Answers to many of your questions as to how we know about the transparency of Baracks leadership are found in the article.

Did you read the article? If you did, your questions are answered about what the watchdog groups found.

Or did you just immediately come to Baracks defense and try and turn the attention elsewhere?

The des news and rush Limbaugh have nothing to do with this.

Can you not face the facts of the article?

salt lake city, utah

There's absolutely something to RDLV's statement, however here's a topic that the left, particularly the "far left" has been very critical of Obama about (contrary to the beliefs of many ideological posters on this thread).

However the "I hate Obama" glasses are so firmly implanted on the right that fair and important criticism, criticism that could find important allies, turns into idiotic hyperbole.

"All out assault on press freedom"..really. No press conferences, newspapers being shut down, reporters being imprisoned without trials etc.

When the question is "is this administration withholding lawful information more than other administrations, and have reporters been pressured more by this administration for sources than other administrations" that's in no way shape or form an "All out assault" on freedom of the press.

DN do your job with respect and dignity and quit being a shill for the crazies.

Orange County, CA


Two simple examples of the lack of transparency, both addressed in the article:

1. Lack of press conferences where the president makes himself available to respond to questions.
2. Control of photography of the president.

You wrote: "Recognizing realities and offering solutions to problems actually accomplishes something worth accomplishing."

The examples above are realities recognized by people across the band of the political spectrum.

Simple solutions:

1. Convene more press conferences where the president responds to questions formulated by the press, not pre-screened, with opportunities for follow-up questions.
2. Open up the access to photographers.

Yet even these simple solutions are a bridge too far for this administration - whose self-proclaimed standard for their administration was that it was going to be the most open and transparent in history.

How do we know it is not (you asked)? The president doesn't make himself available to be questioned.

I never listen to Limbaugh. I read across the spectrum of political thought to educate myself and to formulate my own ideas, from the DNews to the NY Times to the Economist.

This is not blind whining - it's recognizing the reality of rigidly controlled access to information from the White House.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


Ya keep spinning this away from the fact Barack promised the most transparent office ever and the facts show otherwise.

Why not just address what Barack promised and his failure to do what he told us.

That has nothing to do with the des news, fox

Barack lied again. Poor example.

to comment

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