…and journalism.
This is your country: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This is your country on fascism:
The Chicago Tribune weighed in with an editorial late last month accusing the prosecutors of “wielding this subpoena to send an unsubtle message to these students and other journalists: Back off. Don’t make waves. You’re embarrassing us.” And in an article in Salon.com last week, American University law Prof. Darren Hutchinson called their behavior “shameful,” exemplifying “a deep contempt for the law, which makes the students’ efforts to uncover wrongful convictions even more compelling.”
The Cook County prosecutors’ actions are certainly shameful. But they may be excused for thinking that attacks on media critics are, in today’s political era, business as usual. Indeed, they need look no farther than the White House, whose occupant has sometimes styled himself the nation’s chief media critic.
It is, after all, the Obama administration that declared that its critics at Fox News Channel are not real journalists, and that Fox is not a “legitimate news organization.” In doing so—as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted with a reference to “brushback pitches” in baseball—the White House’s goal was just the same as that of the prosecutors in the president’s native city: To chill criticism, and to get journalists to think twice before stepping up to the plate.
Bert Gall and Robert Frommer of the Institute for Justice have made a compelling case that the Obama administration’s word choice is quite significant. They think that by branding Fox as something other than a “legitimate news organization,” the White House is actually setting up a more brutal attack using campaign finance laws. News media organizations are exempt from campaign-finance laws’ speech regulations. But if Fox is not a “legitimate news organization,” then federal election authorities might be able to argue that its political speech can be regulated like that of any other non-news corporation.
I hope that SCOTUS finally defangs McCain-Feingold this session.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s more on the Northwestern case.
[Update a few minutes after the previous one]
Here’s another story along the same lines:
In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.
The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.
<TONE=”sarcasm”>Why should they object? What do they hav to hide?</TONE>
And still another abuse of power along similar lines (via Instapundit):
Justice Dept. Asked For News Site’s Visitor Lists
That’s not the Northwestern case. Eric Holder’s folks wanted data on visitors to Indymedia.us. Any doubt how this story would have gone over if John Ashcroft’s Justice Department made a such a request?
I think the Northwestern case is abhorant, and I’m very disappointed with Anita Alvarez, who I thought well of until now. If nothing else, I can show my displeasure at election time. I do think her side has a point that the Innocence Project isn’t strictly journalism, but I don’t see why that should matter — I think the request would be completely inappropriate even if the Innocence Project billed itself as a non-profit private detective agency.
The Indymedia story is less clear-cut to me. I understand your reactions, and I can understand what looks awful about this. I do wonder if this is exactly the sort of thing, Rand and Leland, that you would give a pass to if you knew all the facts. Possibly terrorism was involved. Possibly the Justice department was trying to protect the life of a right-wing journalist (not that the person’s political beliefs should matter). I understand that those are the kind of justifications that that are always used to trample on people’s rights, but if the justifications are actually true, the waters would be muddied — even if the subpoena was hamhanded, the Justice Dept may have been well-intentioned. Still, since we have no information, you guys are right to protest, and I should join you, but I think we should be open minded about the motivations of the Justice Dept.
Eric Holder’s Justice Department is long past the point at which I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Still, since we have no information, you guys are right to protest, and I should join you, but I think we should be open minded about the motivations of the Justice Dept.
The transparency of the Obama administration continues to amaze me. Who could believe that we could have such a transparent administration?
If someone’s life was really at stake, the administration should just say so (as they did), and then weather the inevitable protests. I think the protests are good. But how much transparency do you want from the FBI, the DEA, etc when someone’s life is at stake? Serious question: how can the department of justice prove that the info they requested will not be abused while still protecting someone (if that’s really what they were doing). I suspect there is a way, even if it is imperfect.
The Indymedia story is less clear-cut to me.
Not surprising for a person unclear on the concept of a republic.
Rand, do you have an opinion on Leland’s continued barbs? It is your blog – what would you like to see happen? I could engage him in yet another discussion regarding the definition of the word “republic”; I could ignore him; I could reply with rudeness of my own; etc. What is your preference? Would you prefer to stay out of it? People often talk about blogs as if they are parlor rooms. If I was sitting your house and one of your guests acted rude toward me in the way that Leland continually does, I would first catch your eye, and try to gauge your opinion. There are no non-verbal cues here, so I’m asking.
Rand, do you have an opinion on Leland’s continued barbs?
Not enough of one to want to weigh in. I don’t have time or interest in policing the “parlor room,” unless things get egregious.
LOL… Gee bob, I guess you can’t handle what you dish out:
I do wonder if this is exactly the sort of thing, Rand and Leland, that you would give a pass to if you knew all the facts.
In otherwords, you are suggesting that Rand and me may not be principled in finding the Justice Department’s action objectionable. You then go on to explore ways in which we might ideologically change our opinion:
Possibly the Justice department was trying to protect the life of a right-wing journalist (not that the person’s political beliefs should matter).
The fact that Rand or me made no mention of these things; you had no problem building these strawmen argument and suggesting that is how we might think.
Now, you want to point fingers and call other people rude?
I was not suggesting that you or Rand weren’t principled – I was suggesting that you would want to follow your principles, which includes giving the government some lattitude when there is a “human cost” (I’m quoting from the CBS article).
The fact that Rand or me made no mention of these things; you had no problem building these strawmen argument and suggesting that is how we might think.
That’s right – you didn’t mention it, but the article you linked to explained that assistant U.S. attorneys asserted that someone’s life was on the line, and I think that was a significant aspect of the story – significant enough to keep an open mind regarding the justice department’s motivations if not their legal actions.
—
You also recently posted a comment here declaring your intentions to be rude to me.
—
Now, since you bring up our mutual fascination with the word “republic”, lets talk about Japan and Singapore. Please explain why Japan is or is not a republic, and then please do the same for Singapore. I bet you can’t do it.
Leland – Bob-1 made a very mild remark – the barbs are all from you.
Alvarez does not work for Eric Holder, and other than a possible grin-and-grip, doesn’t appear to have spent much time with Obama or Holder. So, other than a desire to smear Obama with whatever’s available, tying the two cases doesn’t make sense. So I’ll discuss them separately.
Regarding Alvarez – highly questionable at best, even to us morally bankrupt Chicagoans /snark/. You will note that the Chicago Tribune has been leading the charge against Alvarez on this.
Having actually read the Indymedia article, it looks the US Attorney from Indiana, who originated the request (BTW, a Bush appointee) didn’t get it vetted by Holder. The supoenda was immediately withdrawn when questioned.
Lastly, for all the hand-wringing about the Fox News / Obama tiff, you will note that Fox still gets to have a reporter in all the press pools and briefing rooms. Fox is hardly getting shut out.
…you will note that Fox still gets to have a reporter in all the press pools and briefing rooms. Fox is hardly getting shut out.
Not for lack of trying by the Chicago Way White House. They tried to shut Fox out, and the rest of the media, honoring their pool agreement, refused to go along.
Rand – the “exclude from the pool” is bogus. The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn’t on the list, was told that they hadn’t asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox’s Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.
Dunn said yes, and Fox’s Major Garrent was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg.
I was not suggesting that you or Rand weren’t principled – I was suggesting that you would want to follow your principles, which includes giving the government some lattitude when there is a “human cost” (I’m quoting from the CBS article).
My principle is not to give the government latitude in abusing power. I’ve been pretty clear in my objection to excessive government power, particularly over it’s citizenry.
That’s right – you didn’t mention it
I didn’t mention it, because I thought others should read the whole thing and make up their own mind. Not go around playing mind reader for others.
Nice Gerrib, glad you could give your two cents, and that of TPM. I guess we can believe TPM’s anonymous source, or we can see what CBS News had to say:
Friday night on the “CBS Evening News,” White House correspondent Chip Reid corroborated the idea of the networks standing up behind Fox News.
“All the networks said, that’s it, you’ve crossed the line,” he said.
There is more here at Huffpo, to including this chilling quote that actually came from TPM:
“This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest
Is it bogus if the White House says they have demonstrated their willingness to exclude them from the pool? Or do we need to have a debate on what “demonstrated” means?
Leland – apparently we do, because the White House didn’t demonstrate anything. Nor does your CBS News report confirm anything. CBS News is reporting what Fox said.
I’m sorry, but if we’re in a “he said / she said” between the White House and Fox, I go with the White House.
I’m sorry, but if we’re in a “he said / she said” between the White House and Fox, I go with the White House.
Isn’t that funny…I’d go the exact opposite, with a hell of a lot more basis.
Regarding the Indymedia supoenda: The reason Eric Holder didn’t approve it was the supoenda was issued 13 days before Holder was sworn in. Obama had only been in office 3 days at the time.
Facts matter, and they are not your friend in this case.
Regarding the Indymedia supoenda: The reason Eric Holder didn’t approve it was the supoenda was issued 13 days before Holder was sworn in. Obama had only been in office 3 days at the time.
The fact is, Tim Morrison is still a US Attorney. Obama had no problem firing Walpin, what’s the delay now? Golf game? Dinner date?
Gerrib – the White House didn’t demonstrate anything.
White House spokesman – This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews
Well Rand, in a “he said/she said” between Gerrib and the White House, who would you go with then?
Leland – “Demonstrated our willingness” = “we’d sure love to.”
But they didn’t. Heck, the White House spokesman was talking to Fox News!
Regarding the district attorney – considering some of Obama’s Justice Department appointees are still waiting for confirmation votes, I suspect he’s got higher priorities.
“Demonstrated our willingness” = “we’d sure love to.”
Incorrect
Perhaps we are starting to understand specific problems with your reading comprehension.
Regarding the district attorney – considering some of Obama’s Justice Department appointees are still waiting for confirmation votes, I suspect he’s got higher priorities.
Like appointing someone to head the TSA? It’s all in keeping with the Chicago Way of things. Indeed, the last line seals it:
Southers’s nomination has the support of law enforcement leaders from across the country, several California government officials, and labor unions eager to represent TSA’s employees if they win collective bargaining rights.
Emphasis mine, although I must admit having difficulty determining which to emphasize; California government officials or labor unions.
If Matt Drudge is right, and I don’t think that is always a safe bet (but probably so in this case); credit goes to President Obama for sacking Anita Dunn and then granting an interview to Fox News.