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
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
The only thing transparent about this administration is its motives...more power
to the president.
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.
Obama's transparency vow reminds me of one of my sayings: "if you
gotta say it, it probably isn't true". Closed quote
"Finland topped the list as the nation with the freest press".Maybe Finland is number one because they have 'secret files' that
"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?
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.
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.
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
@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
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.
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.
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.
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
GaryAnswers 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?
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.
Gary: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.
Pragmatic,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, foxBarack lied
again. Poor example.
Government monitors in the news room, selective enforcement of federal laws,
crony capitalism with the presidents supporters, using tax collectors for
political purposes, laundering money by subsidizing certain unions who make
political donations back to the president and the list goes on. Is it Venezuela,
Russia or the US?
Chris B -Nothing in the article proved the contention that the
Obama administration is less transparent than any other American administration
has been.The World Press Freedom Index ranked Finland number one in
transparency, and dropped the US 14 places from last year. So what? Finland
has hardly any military to speak of, few spies, and few secrets to keep. No
comparison there. But it’s tops in education, has an ultra-strong social
safety net, subsidized housing, and wonderful socialized medicine. Even the
poorest of the poor can rely on better health care there than America’s
middle class. You’re right, we should try to be more like Finland.Yes the Obama administration is denying request to files more often
after NSA revelations. That’s because more intrusive questions are being
asked.FOX “NEWS” and the Wall Street Journal are both
owned and controlled by plutocrat and propagandist Rupert Murdoch, and are
therefore equally worthless as news sources.Referencing a Right Wing
Propaganda Source like Cause of Action should never occur in any legitimate
publication. That tells us something about the Deseret News.
"Arguments using obviously biased sources are just not credible."What liberal larry means is that arguments using obviously Conservative
biased sources are not credible; we've learned that there is absolutely no
problem with liberal biased sources."Blindly repeating Rush
Limbaugh's Right Wing rhetoric is quite unprofessional for a reputed news
organization, don't you think?"And the liberal media
sources are any better? I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but from what I
know about the right wing and the left wing media sources, the right wing beats
the tar out of the left wing when it comes to accurate and honest reporting (you
know, the ones Obama tries to get people to ignore and would shut down if he
It amazes me that so many people have forgotten the cozy relationship the Bush
Administration had with Fox News and some of their commentators. Republicans
acted like lap dogs and ate it up evening believing Dick Chaney's
"facts", WMD, etc., etc. Republican dogma has made Rush, Sean and Billo
very rich as these commentators never have to worry about the truth. You can
paint the Demo's with the same brush. Truth and government seldom are on
the same page these days.
The complaint that this supposed attack on press freedoms has been "under
reported" by the press being attacked is dead give away. This is just
another right wing canard.
Ed Snowden, who will someday be recognized as a hero, recently said,
""going to war with people who are not our enemies, in places that
aren't threats, doesn't make us safe." Like the
"War on Drugs," the "War on Terror" has been used as a pretext
and cover to shred the constitution and take away our freedoms while we stood
and cheered with approval because, you know, bad guys and flag waving and stuff.
Obama is a continuation of the Bush/Cheney administration -
government purchased and controlled by the very elite of the international 1%.
In previous centuries a people could rebel and act, but in this age
of electronic information gathering, drones, and big data, I wonder if the
ability of the government to track and monitor has reached the point of no
So we have a daily paper (DN) saying that the nation's news media is under
an "all out assault" from the Obama administration. From what I can
gather, however, the DN is confident of being allowed to publish tomorrow and
thereafter. This brings to my mind two words: "fear monger". And no one
does that better than the right.
I checked out your references. The indexes are odd and hard to understand. The
Cause for Action organization is one of the many shadowy fronts set up by the
big money a la Citizens United.You are keeping undesirable company.
The more I hear and see of the Bill of Rights portion of the American
Constitution, the less I believe the fairy tales about America, God and the
exceptionality of our founding fathers. If the framers of our Constitution were
inspired by God why did they do their work in secrete? Was the Bill of Rights
about people or just about the power demands of the then current warlords? In
the First and Second Amendments are there any reference or mention of individual
Gary boy,The associated press found this:“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.Hardly a right wing
group. Liberals trust left wing sources but think there is only spin
from the right?Lol!
Ultimately, our right to free speech and religion are guaranteed by free
exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. I hope all you free speech
enthusiasts realize this.
First they came for the Tea Party, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a
Tea Party member. Then they came for the religionists, and I did
not speak out-- Because I was not religionist. Then they came for
the honest people, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an honest
person. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak
The purported "rewriting of Freedom of Information Act" in 2009 was done
to prevent fuller disclosure of the Bush torture program. There is
a difficult but important balance between national security needs and the public
right to know. Certainly we need to guard against corruption and leaders use of
data for political power and control. But on the other hand, we don't want
to expose those who risk their lives to keep us safe and/or publicize
tactics/methods that our enemies can profit from. The AP study
noted:It could not determine whether the administration was abusing the
national security exception or whether the public asked for more documents about
sensitive subjects. The NSA has experienced a 138% surge in record requests.
Overall there has been an 8% increase in record requests from the prior year.
The govt response increased 2% over the prior year. Both parties
have expressed concern. re:NateQuoting Byron York?York
is just hyperbolic about a VOLUNTARY questionnaire (as part of a larger census)
sent to newsroom's decision makers. We should be more
concerned about media consolidation and a few corporations having ever greater
control over the majority of media outlets.
1aggie"The purported "rewriting of Freedom of Information
Act" in 2009 was done to prevent fuller disclosure of the Bush torture
program."But in 2009 Obama was president. Think about it. What
possible interest could the Obama administration have in preventing disclosure
of anything Bush? In 2009 they were still in the bash Bush for anything and
everything mode. In fact, they are still trying to hang him, to help their
polling numbers today. They would never have hid anything Bush did
that resembled torture. They were flaunting water-boarding. Don't you
remember?Your claim makes absolutely no sense.
@mohokat"Obama is conducting an assault on most of what has made the
country great his quest is socialism / communism."Just one
problem... #1 in press freedom is the socialist nation of Finland. #2 is the
socialist nation of the Netherlands. #3 is the socialist nation of Norway. #4 is
the socialist nation of Luxembourg... and it kinda goes on like that.I'm also not sure when conservatives became fans of Bradley Manning,
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seeing as they were individually highlighted
in this report when clicking on the Americas section, as people the gov't
has gone after. In fact it's usually liberals, and libertarians of course,
who complain the most about US policy towards them.
@1aggie "Quoting Byron York?"An interesting thing happened
after the Byron York article was published. The switchboards at the White House
lit up with phone calls from citizens. The next day, the FCC released a
statement admitting they had overstepped their bounds, and that the monitoring
would no longer include media owners, news directors, or reporters. They
promised to re-design the study. This is something we need to keep our eye on.
Freedom requires vigilance.
pragmatistferlife It is ironic that you complain of the
"ideological posters on this thread" because Obama merely harasses
reporters with lawsuits rather than throwing them directly in jail or tries to
monitor newsrooms instead of merely publishing his own propaganda s the only
source. Are you suggesting that it will only be problem when there is a
military assault? Otherwise everything is hunky-dory? Sounds pretty partisan
to me.Dixie DanFox was been more critical of Bush than CBS,
NBC, MSMBC, ABC, NYT, TIME etc have ever been of Obama. The media is clearly
stacked in Obamas favor so even if your allegations were true about Fox liking
Bush - it is clearly false on the larger scale. The media in general was never
in Bush's court the way they are for Obama
To say that the MSM is not heavily stacked in favor of the current
administration is to be willfully ignorant or hopelessly obtuse. Either way, it
is a threat to our liberties.
Is media "preference" for Obama wrong on its face? Could it possibly be
that Obama gets better press because his administration performs better than
Bush's "Reign of Error"? Nah.
Counter Intelligence.." Are you suggesting that it will only be problem when
there is a military assault? Otherwise everything is hunky-dory? Sounds pretty
partisan to me."...No.And I only refer to the ideological
posters in the context of refusing to admit that the left criticizes Obama. Once
again take your I hate Obama/liberals glasses off before you read. I and many liberals are very concerned about freedom of information act
policies, drone policies, and in some cases middle east policies. Contrary to your biased beliefs liberals don't consider the President the
"dear leader" because they support the ACA, human rights, and more
Keynesian economics. You all really need to get out more. Utah is
a tunnel, and in many ways a very insignificant tunnel.
"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.
"If that is your idea of examples of "the spectrum of
political thought", well, if the New York Times is your idea of the left of
the political spectrum you need to get out more. Try something like Adbustres if
you want to get close to the left. "Were you critical of the
administration's desire to put monitors in each news station? No. You were
silent."Maybe they were silent, because this is, like so much
else conservatives claim, a lie. "from what I know about the
right wing and the left wing media sources, the right wing beats the tar out of
the left wing when it comes to accurate and honest reporting "Obviously then you don't know much about left wing and right wing media
sources. Hahaha. Too funny. Lovely desert, who has come after any of
those groups? The tea party, religious people, honest people, or you? Who has
come after ANY of them? You do realize, that disagreeing with people is not
coming for them?
Came across a 2008 article in the Center For American Progress titled,
"Think Again Bush Legacy: War on the Press."Similar
complaints.Comparing records of presidential press conferences is
also interesting.Number of press conferences:Richard Nixon: 39.
Average per yer: 7.03Gerald Ford:40. Ave/yr. 16.32Jimmy Carter:59.
Ave/yr: 14.75Ronald Reagan:46. Ave/ yr. 5.75HW Bush 137. Ave/ yr.
34.25Bill Clinton: 193. Ave/ yr 24.13GW Bush: 157 Ave/ yr 26.25Obama : 100. Ave/yr 20 (as of Jan 2014)(Source:The American
Presidency Project UCSB)
Doesn't this paper ever tire of its constant attacks on the President?
This editorial is such nonsense. The editorial page is beginning to look like it
pulls directly from the mandates of Roger Ailes to coordinate coverage. The
press whines in every administration when they can't have unfettered
access, and we are in a new era when responsible journalism is rare, including
on the pages of this paper. Media outlets have become partisan outlets
packaging news to sell to a specific audience. This paper has done the same.
Since republicans don't do anything in this country, I guess they expect
Obama to do everything! Seriously, how much can one man be expected to do? It is
ridiculous to blame the president for everything. It is absurd! Don't you
think it is pathetic the way republicans do nothing but belly ache and complain
and point the finger at Obama! It truly is getting old!
Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Even the Deseret
news blocks many posts that it believes are disrespectful....Obama exercises the
same policy amongst the press.Obama exercises a state run White
House like the DNEWS exercises a state run newspaper........there is difference
between civil and class, neither Obama or the DNEWS has any,
Obama administration is so transparent they are invisible.