“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” - Louis
Brandeis______________________________I apply that to the
press as much as anyone. There's nothing noble about keeping the identity
of a news source confidential.
Mike,You are constantly spouting off about the Constitution. So I
ask you, where in the Constitution does it say that the press is the fourth
branch of government? I've read the Constitution. It defines the duties of
three branches. There is no fourth. Come on, Mike, you can't have it both
ways. Either stick to your ultra-strict interpretation of the Constitution or
give it up. But you don't get to cherry-pick like all those people you
criticize for doing what you just did.
"The press is the 4th branch of government. No elected official wants the
press to tell the world that he is a scroundral, but the public has the right to
know what elected officials do in office. It doesn't matter whether that
official is Clinton, who bombed a factory to divert attention from his sexual
escapades, or whether that official is Obama, who fired the head of the V.A. to
cover up the deaths of veterans who were not able to receive medical help. It is
the DUTY of the press to tell where the skeletons are hidden. Obama, as well as
all elected officials, work for us. We have the right to know what they are
doing with the public trust."Thanks mike! I haven't heard a
better argument to save the tribune than this! Have you signed the
petition to save the tribune yet? After all, as you just barely stated, it acts
as the 4th branch of government.
@happy2behereCongress is full of self serving Democrats and Republicans.
Any way you cut it there are more people who are happy with BO's positions
and performance than congress. Harry Reid, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Jason
Chaffetz, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Dick Durbin and I could name hundreds of others
need to go. As a group, they have failed us. In this case, we should throw out
the babies with the bath water.
The press is the 4th branch of government. No elected official wants the press
to tell the world that he is a scroundral, but the public has the right to know
what elected officials do in office. It doesn't matter whether that
official is Clinton, who bombed a factory to divert attention from his sexual
escapades, or whether that official is Obama, who fired the head of the V.A. to
cover up the deaths of veterans who were not able to receive medical help. It
is the DUTY of the press to tell where the skeletons are hidden. Obama, as well
as all elected officials, work for us. We have the right to know what they are
doing with the public trust.
re: happy2bhereA study showing a news agency is trusted in no way
discounts any of the negative said about them. All it means is that
"they're the best in the business" at convincing their viewers to
accept everything they spew lock-step. Viewership and loyalty do not make them
trustWORTHY.On the contrary, many have pointed out time and time
again where factcheckers can show them to be misleading, where they are saying
something that old footage shows they were opposed to earlier, or where they
present video "evidence" of an event which is proven to have been taken
at a completely different time and event. Many have shown Fox News'
ethical issues, but when your viewers only watch your program or listen to
conservative talk radio, they're not going to be confronted by that
contrary point of view.
What a waist of news print and bits. The AG under Obama is doing nothing that
hasn't been tried by every AG since who knows when. Reporters protecting
confidential informants has been a contentious issue at all levels of government
since I started paying attention some 50-plus years ago. Any attempts by
Republicans in the house to legislate protections that already exist is not
about protecting anyone's rights but about political grandstanding. This
year it's the Republicans. Fear not, there will be a time in the future
where it will be the Democrats turn to grandstand and rest assured they will
take advantage of it.
to FTCongress may not be popular, but when a number like 14% comes
up, which is the last one I saw along with 40% for Obama, I hope you realize
what that is saying. It says that when asked if you like Congress, all
Democrats think House and say no, and all Republicans think Senate (and Harry
Reid) and say no. Not much room left. I mention Harry Reid because he has
largely been the veto pen for Obama. He is the single biggest reason little
legislation is getting passed. As majority leader he has the power to not even
let a law come to the floor for a straight up or down vote. And he uses that
power a lot. Gary OFox News was, according to a recent
survey by the Brookings Institute, the most TRUSTED news outlet in the country.
They beat all the networks and other cable news stations. And they cover
stories that the others don't, like the mess on the Mexican border going on
right now. You can disparage them all you want, but it does not change the
truth. Right now, they're the best in the business.
@GaryO: You may have a point about political motivations for Clinton's
impeachment. But that doesn't change the facts of the case, which are that
Clinton perjured himself under oath. Everything else is just political spin.Speaking of political spin, let's not pretend that the press is
politically neutral. There are at least as many pro-Democrat news outlets as
pro-Republican. That doesn't make them illegitimate, you just have to take
what everyone says with a grain of salt and realize they have an agenda.
I'm glad we have competing news organizations, it's important for the
marketplace of ideas. Disparaging Fox News says a lot more about your political
insecurities than it does about Fox.
Gary O - I see I touched a nerve. You and I live in the same state but I can
guarantee you the newspapers in northern Virginia, ie. The Washington Post,
published pictures of G.W. Bush that made him look either sinister or idiotic.
I'm not suggesting they were too far off in their depiction of him but even
I have to admit they were unfair to him in some instances and used their vast
library of unfavorable images of him to influence their readers.Let's be honest and just admit that it happens on both sides of the
Hey Invisible Hand - "The federal case wasn't about sexual
indiscretions it was about perjury."WRONG.It was
about a bunch of insanely jealous Republicans who just couldn't stand the
tremendous successes of the Clinton administration that temporally abolished
Reagonomics by raising taxes for high earners, and then impudently disproved the
dire predictions of Republicans who had said a second Great Depression would be
the consequence.Republicans just could not STAND the fact that their
ideology was being so blatantly disproven and trashed by the reality of four
CONSECUTIVE budget surpluses, and a nation at peace, with strong international
allies, and an immensely STRONG economy.Nope. As demonstrated again
and again since then during the Obama administration, Republicans proved that
they would much rather see America suffer than have it succeed under a
Democratic administration.Face it Invisible Hand, when Right Wingers
succeed, America suffers.And when America suffers, it means that
Right Wingers have succeeded in achieving their goals.
Using a FOX "NEWS" reporter as an example does not convince us that
Obama is picking on the media.For one thing, FOX "NEWS" is
not a legitimate News source. FOX "NEWS" is to real news as professional
wrestling is to the Olympics.FOX “NEWS,” like other
Right Wing pseudo-news outlets, propagandizes simple-minded souls into backing
the agenda of plutocrats like Rupert Murdoch, who acquired numerous
once-legitimate but now fake-news sources, including the Wall Street Journal.
The real agenda of fake news outlets like FOX "NEWS" is
to present an “alternate reality” (as Charles Krauthammer in a
moment of rare candor expressed it) that reinforces Plutocracy in this nation.
Subverting the government is a means to that end. It should be no surprise that
some of their simple-minded followers occasionally assassinate cops eating
lunch, or blow up a Federal Building, or target people for murder outside of
synagogues.It is right for America to fight this twisted and
perverse form of evil. Right Wing America embodies the heart of that evil, where
some self-described patriots carry Old Glory, and Don’t-Tread-On-Me
flags, and swastika banners . . . All with equal reverence.
Who made it illegal for photographers to take pictures of American caskets
coming home from Iraq?And the right has the audacity to complain
@GaryO: The federal case wasn't about sexual indiscretions it was about
perjury. It's bad enough when a president lies routinely to the American
people, but when he does it under oath it makes a mockery of the justice system
and it rises to an impeachable offense.
Invisible hand - you have made an excellent point. The Pentagon Papers come to
mind and I think when people find there is wrongdoing going on they should
report it. But Jay mentioned reporting on "young Somali-Americans who were
returning to Somalia to join forces with violent Islamic extremists." The
story said a grand jury had secretly indicted the young men on charges related
to terrorism. So was the administration, in this case, doing something
unethical or illegal? The evidence brought forth in a grand jury hearing is
meant to be kept secret. This was simply the case of a reporter who broke a
sensational story and somebody broke the law by telling of what was going within
the so-called secure walls of the grand jury room. With the information, the
young men indicted could have escaped from the authorities before they had a
chance to apprehend them, possibly allowing them to work against our government.
Jay used that example and Eric Holder's attempt to force the reporter to
divulge his sources for the story, as an example of the administration
overstepping its bounds. I disagree with that assessment. That's all.
ECR"Liberal papers did to George W. Bush . . . ?? " You MUST be kidding.Almost ALL the news media irresponsibly
gave GW Bush a pass as his administration illegally made war on a country that
did not attack us first.How many in the news media criticized the
Bush administration for irresponsibly allowing a climate of irrational
exuberance that eventually resulted in GW's Great Recession?Right Wing money men and demagogues have had their evil way with America ever
since the Reagan administration, and America STILL suffers from it. The media
slavishly cooperated with Right Wingers by literally turning a President's
sexual indiscretions into a federal case, while deflecting attention AWAY from
important considerations, like the build up of terror cells eventually resulting
in 911.The so-called "liberal media" has been kissing up to
greedy and willfully delusional Right Wing oppressors for decades.The fourth estate essentially became a surrogate mouthpiece for the powerful
second estate. People in the news media have abrogated their
responsibility to observe and report the FACTS . . . and they should be ashamed.
Evensen: "If the media gets [sic] a federal law..."OK. I
know I'm swimming against the raging tidal currents of popular usage, but
is it too much to ask to construct "media" as the plural noun that it
is? I expect the college dropout talk radio hosts to be indifferent to correct
usage, but it is especially grating for a print journalist to make the error in
his lede. Do style manuals mean nothing these days? At least he did not throw
in a "literally" (my other pet peeve).For those who think
this is a trivial matter, treating "media" as singular noun (even when
used in the restrictive sense of news disseminating institutions, what used to
be called the Press) sends the inaccurate message that all of the various news
organizations somehow comprise a singular monolithic entity. Does anyone really
think that Fox, MSNBC, WorldNetDaily, Pacifica News, Mother Jones, The Blaze,
the NY Times, WSJ, NPR, and HuffPo all act as a unified being?/soapbox
@ECR: People who have security clearance should abide by the terms of their
clearance. However, what if you became privy to information that the government
was doing something you considered unethical and/or illegal? Would you feel
justified in leaking that information? Isn't it more honorable to blow the
whistle on secret government abuses than honor the terms of a security
clearance? Those people and the reporters they work with should be protected,
"Commentaries on the Constitution" make the point that "every
citizen may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible
for the abuse of that right;..."Over the decades, the interpretation
of the rights granted under the Constitution has morphed into believes that have
left the original writings of the founding fathers. Yes, there is a
right for freedom of the press. Over the decades the press has decided that
publishing classified information, information that is part of the national
security. There must be a balance between the press and protecting our national
security. Would it have been within the press's right to publish the D-Day
attack plans prior to the assault? I don't think so. There has to be a
line that is not crossed over, and when it is, responsibility must be assumed by
whomever crossed the line.While 'absence of malice' was
not a part of this editorial, it too has lines and, from my perspective, the
Courts have allowed the press too much leniency here as well. Again, you can
print what you want, but if you abuse that right, you are responsible for your
Jay, you are relying on Congress to act? That's makes me laugh!
One more thing Jay, I see you and your staff have managed to find the most
sinister looking picture the president has ever taken to include with this
article. Please don't tell me you guys don't operate that way. And
it doesn't matter what the party of the president is. If you're
making a point about the president you have the ability to influence the reader
before they read a word by the picture you include in your article. Is that a
fair and reasonable function of the press? I always thought it was about
reporting the truth, rather than influencing the perception of the truth.
Liberal papers did to George W. Bush and conservative ones do it to Obama. Like
I said, the game goes on.
"Obama's bad example may force congress to act". Oh please, this
congress (the most inefficient and publicly despised in history) has not been
able to act on anything.
Amazing, just amazing. Here we have liberals, Obama and Holder, attempting to
suppress one of the pillars of our freedom. The Press. It used to be that the
liberal side of the political arena were the ones all about 1st Amendment
protections, and the conservative side seen as the threat. Wow, how things have
turned 180 degrees. Thank goodness for the Republican House to step in and
protect the press. And I more and more understand why I fear the tyranny of the
Left in America much more than any tyranny coming from the Right.
Jay - your points are all well taken. There is nothing more precious or more
necessary to a free nation than freedom of the press. And once a reporter has
reported information that is true and accurate, well, the deed is done. But I
am curious about one point that you made:"He (President Obama)
also has said the Obama administration "has brought more prosecutions
against current or former government officials for providing classified
information to the media than every previous administration combined."Many people in the government are given security clearances, of many
different levels, for the specific reason of keeping information confidential,
secret if you will, often for national security reasons. Certainly many have
used that concept as a means to hide corrupt activities but there still exists a
need to keep certain information secret. Are you suggesting that those given a
security clearance should not be held accountable when they violate the terms of
that clearance? Is that an honorable thing to do?Let's face it
Jay. It's a game that is played everyday with reporters and those who they
report about. Sometimes the reporter wins and sometimes the reporter loses.
The game goes on.
Too bad the Constitution doesn't already protect them... Oh, wait a minute!
It does! Uh oh, silly me, I forgot that the Constitution
doesn't apply to Obama.