Eric Holder's 'Off-The-Record' Meeting With Journalists Leads To 'On-The-Record' Quotes, But Not Much Else
from the blah-de-blah-blah dept
Remember how Eric Holder wanted to hold a meeting with a bunch of journalists as he seeks to revise the "guidelines" the DOJ sets up for itself (fox watching the hen house, anyone?) on how it spies on journalists? A meeting where many top news organizations refused to go because it was officially "off the record?" In the end, the media seemed to be split on whether or not to go, as summarized by the Huffington Post (who didn't go):Not going: New York Times, AP, Huffington Post, McClatchy, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Reuters, and NBC News.And then, for all the fuss, at the end of the meeting, DOJ officials told the reporters they could discuss "in general some of the ideas that were discussed," though it appears that some points still remained off the record. As for what was publicly disclosed, it sounds like reporters were not impressed.
Going: The Washington Post, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times/ Chicago Tribune, ABC News, Bloomberg, USA Today.
At the session, Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole expressed a willingness to revise the guidelines for such investigations, journalists present at the get-together told POLITICO.Ah, so the hens get to suggest to the fox how they'd like their rights to be violated, and then the fox gets to decide how best to "incorporate those suggestions"? I'm sure that will work out just great. As some who were in attendance noted, nothing in the meeting suggested that the DOJ was actually going to change or adjust its policies.
But Holder stopped short of offering any concrete changes to the guidelines. Instead, the Attorney General sought to assure the journalists that he and the DOJ were trying to seek a balance between the demands of national security and the free flow of information, and sought suggestions from the journalists on how those changes might be achieved.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eric holder, journalists, off the record, surveillance, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
An administration full of crooks and liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An administration full of crooks and liars
And they aren't all crooks and liars, but far too many of them are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...They're more like guidelines anyway."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) Low level army personnel leaking evidence of war crimes is treason.
3) Bankers aiding and abetting terrorists is ok.
4) Bankers laundering drug money is ok.
5) High level politicians outing under cover people is ok.
There seems to be a pattern here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really?
Republican Nixon resigned before the impeachment process was completed to avoid the shame.
Oh, and please list the "shit" Republican Nixon, in fact, did and the "shit" Obama's been accused of, but not proven, unless you know of something that has, in fact, been proven in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Nixon's time it was standard for powers-that-be to maintain a believable facade of lawful government. People expected a lot more from politicians then. While they are not necessarily any more honest than they are today, politicians had to work harder back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]