State Dept. Press Briefing Video Had Tough Fox News Questioning Excised, Streisand Effect Takes Over
from the hmmm dept
We have covered all kinds of Streisand Effect type stories here at Techdirt, but I don't recall a whole ton of them featuring the actual United States federal government. Typically, those stories mostly deal with individuals and companies trying to keep something hidden and instead mega-upping the interest in that very would-be-hidden thing. This is different, as this story consists of the State Department apparently attempting to disappear some tough questioning by a Fox News employee. And, man, is it stupid.
Some background is in order. Back in 2013, the State Department held regular media briefings on the Iran nuclear deal. During one of those briefings, Fox News' James Rosen pressed then State Dept. spokeswoman Victoria Nuland as to whether the negotiations had begun in 2013, as the administration indicated, or in 2011, as some reports were indicating. The reason why the question is important is because the Obama administration has always portrayed this deal as having coincided with the ouster of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considered a hardliner, and the introduction of new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, considered a moderate. If it was found that Obama's State Department was actually negotiating with the hardliner, well, that's a story of public interest. Nuland denied to the press that any such previous negotiations had taken place.
Fast forward to later that same year, where we have another press briefing conducted by new spokeswoman Jen Psaki. Rosen, having continued to hear reports of previous negotiations, recited the previous exchange with Nuland for Psaki and then posed the same question to her. She didn't answer directly, prompting Rosen to then ask if it is the State Department's view that lying to the press to facilitate this kind of foreign affairs negotiation was kosher. Psaki's response was illuminating.
James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we’ve answered questions on it, we’ve confirmed details. We’re happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.
That's as close as it gets to a State Deparment official admitting that, yes, they're happy to lie to the press when it suits them. Now, fast forward again to the present, with a recent profile of Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, by the New York Times' David Samuels. In his piece, Samuels again accuses the Obama administration of lying to the press and the public about when these negotiations took place, stirring all this up once more. That prompted Rosen and Fox News to go back to the State Department video archives to review the briefing Psaki had conducted.
Rosen's questions and Psaki's answers had been deleted from the video recording. To blame? Well, first the State Department said it was a glitch in the video, one which apparently only removed the exact recording time of a tough question and answer exchange. But shortly after, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs John Kirby admitted the footage was removed deliberately.
A portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS. I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it takes effect immediately.
Laudible aims, but the damage has been done. In predictable fashion, the original exchange that was supposed to be buried is now not only unearthed but is making headlines once again, three years after it originally occurred. All because someone in the State Department wanted it covered up. And that someone will likely not be found, as the State Department appears to be uninterested in investigating this any further.
It's exactly the wrong thing to do. First, nothing is gained by the attempted coverup. In fact, the story is more widely known now than it would have been otherwise. And now we can add a dash of intrigue to this mix, by adding the story of the video edit on top of it. For a subsection of the population, this will confirm their paranoia and mistrust. And, looking at this story, it's tough to blame them.
But, thanks to the Streisand Effect, at least we know that the State Department is perfectly happy to lie to the press to achieve its goals, and then attempt to cover it up. I wonder if there are any current politicians running for office that this might reflect poorly on?
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: iran, james rosen, jen psaki, nuclear deal, state department, tough questions, transparency, victoria nulan, video editing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This also makes it more likely again that gag-orders will force the re-publication of warrant-canaries.
(As in the `compelled speech' threshhold is closer to be broken).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sleeping Dogs
The Obama Administration is quite clearly "the most transparent administration in history."
Transparently deceitful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
So, if that's the biggest problem why is a prime bullshit artist going to be the nominee on the other side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Just checking. If they're going to attack Obama and Clinton for something, it might be useful to have another option that's not guilty of the same or worse. (Given the tone of the comments I was responding to, I'll guess they're not interested in Sanders).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
It's a shame some people have to label everything with simplistic notions. Everything has to be left or right, and then attack the "other". No need for nuance and shading, so long as you can defend a "team", right?
"Why excuse their actions?"
Where did I do that?
"I certainly don't excuse the actions of "my party"."
But, your party (assuming you're a Republican) is nominating someone just as guilty at the things you're attacking the current administration for. He just hasn't had the chance to do them in a government role yet. You might want to consider that while attacking "the left" (where neither Obama or Clinton reside, one a global scale at least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
You excuse their actions by stating that the other side is as bad or worse. Nobody said anything about the other side, the article and my comment was about the current administration. So why divert attention from the current subject?
I don't defend the Republicans. I hate them for the Patriot Act among other things. But I am not blindly loyal as you appear to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
No, I note that you're making a one-sided attack. That's "this happens everywhere and you shouldn't be a hypocrite for attacking only one "side"" not "look a squirrel!".
"So why divert attention from the current subject?"
The subject is behaviour that both "sides" have participated in. If you attack one "side" with criticism, it's noteworthy when the other "side" is guilty of the same things. Glass houses, etc.
"I don't defend the Republicans. I hate them for the Patriot Act among other things."
Interesting that your hatred doesn't extend to supporting a party or candidate that doesn't deal in the things you dislike. I don't believe your country's politics will change for the better while you've convinced yourselves that there's only binary options for everything. you support people you hate just because you dislike the other team more. Sad.
"But I am not blindly loyal as you appear to be."
I'm not even American, my loyalties do not lie anywhere. I just note the sad comedy inherent within the team-based sport that American politics has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Apparently you just don't get it. The article was about the current administration removing video footage and getting caught. I commented on their dishonesty. But you and the other guy can't handle criticism of that party so you attack the other party. This is why we keep getting people like Obama and Hillary in office! Can you not stay on topic? There are plenty of other articles here where you can get your shots at the other party and you would be on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
...and I commented on the fact that the other major party is also full of liars. For some reason you have taken great exception to that.
If the subject is murder and you attack Jeffrey Dahmer, it's not off topic to note that you support John Wayne Gacy.
"But you and the other guy can't handle criticism of that party so you attack the other party."
Once again, I support nobody, I'm not even in your country. I can handle criticism of anyone in your political system, I just prefer it to be even handed. It's possible to criticise both sides without picking a team.
"This is why we keep getting people like Obama and Hillary in office!"
I'd rather them than Trump or Bush for a multitude of reasons. I'd prefer more it if you didn't have a binary choice between "pretty bad" and "utterly horrific", but there you go. I don't have a vote there, so I have to watch from the sidelines and hope that you make what I consider to be the best choice, as I will be affected by whoever you choose. I wish you would consider more options than the team sport you've created, but there you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
No, I don't take exception to it. Frankly anyone who wants to be President is probably not somebody you want to be President. What I do take exception to is that nobody can talk about O or H without the defenders coming out of the woodwork to trash the other side. Can you not admit that "your guy" is a liar? Its a diversionary tactic used by the left all the time. Hey look over there, never mind what is over here! Can we not discuss the party in power just one time w/o somebody yelling squirrel?
I hate we have a binary choice too but it is what we are stuck with for the moment. The 3rd parties are not much better and a vote for them is a vote for the loser so we have to pick the least worst of the 2 choices we have. Frankly the Dems don't stand for anything I do so I am left with little choice but to vote Repbub.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Noting the truth is now trashing someone. OK.
"Can you not admit that "your guy" is a liar?"
Once again, numbnuts, I have no "guy".
"The 3rd parties are not much better and a vote for them is a vote for the loser so we have to pick the least worst of the 2 choices we have."
That is why your political system is doomed to failure. You'll vote for Pol Pot because, hey, at least he's not that Satan guy on the other team! But don't you dare point out the Khmer Rouge while discussing hell's atrocities...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Why don't you vote for somebody who will stand up to the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
If they're going to attack Obama and Clinton for something, it might be useful to have another option
So you speak ill of the US and it's political system while you are unable to get your country to stand up to the US?
Didn't you also say:
Glass houses, etc.
Now see why it is better to stay on topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
You missed out a few words in your quote there, very selective of you. It's clear what I was saying, which is that criticising one side while the other side does the same is pretty hypocritical. But there's the problem with politics as a sports game when people decide they have to pick a team and stick with them.
"So you speak ill of the US and it's political system while you are unable to get your country to stand up to the US?"
I don't know what you're blathering on about here. I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight. At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have to vote for someone despicable because I'm sacred of the other team, my politics are rather more nuanced than that.
But, I can also have an opinion of your system, even if that opinion is "what a bunch of assholes". I can say that while also accepting that there's assholes on my side of the pond, who I wish would stop your country from bullying the world. Funny how honesty works, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
So what you are saying is your are a hypocrite? You speak ill of the US but now cannot take criticism of your own country? The very same thing you said about me criticizing the current administration, which was the subject of the post.
I don't know what you're blathering on about here. I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight.
But yet you say we will fail because we can't change things overnight.
At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have to vote for someone despicable because I'm sacred of the other team, my politics are rather more nuanced than that.
So how many choices do you have when voting and just how far apart are those choices on the issues? My politics are more nuanced as well, but I have 2 real choices and I suspect you don't have much more choice. Yet you say we will fail without mentioning that your country will fail as well for the same reason?
Also, when you start with the name calling it shows you are losing. I am only using your own words against you. If that upsets you, then you obviously have a hole in your reasoning that should be addressed rather than resorting to name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Oh, so now you're just making shit up. Where did I say anything like that? You've not even named my country, let alone criticised it.
"But yet you say we will fail because we can't change things overnight."
I'm saying you will fail because not only are you not trying to change, you won't even consider a different option to the binary one you've settled on. You think both parties are bad but you'll vote one into power anyway. How does that change anything except for the worse?
But, hey, I'm finishing work now so won't answer for a while. I may respond later, but honestly now that you're literally making things up there's probably no point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Making stuff up? You spoke poorly of the candidates, you say your country won't stand up to the US thus implying we are bullies and you say we are doomed to fail. Those are all clearly your words.
you won't even consider a different option to the binary one you've settled on
You have said as much about yourself:
I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight.
I can't change the 2 party system overnight so do we agree neither of us are magicians?
You've not even named my country, let alone criticised it
Why do I need to name your country, you admit your vote changes little and that they are to weak to stand up to the US. I did criticize it by basically saying their choices are no better than ours and they are weak.
Oh, and cursing is like name calling, it shows you aren't confident in your position. So let me summarize the discussion here:
I make a point about the current administration being dishonest, which goes right along with the blog post. You pipe up and say, yea, well what about those other guys. You say you don't have a guy yet you say you are for Hillary. You say the US will fail due to the political system. So I use your tactic and say oh yea, what about your country. You admit your countries system won't change over night either and that they are to weak to stand up to the US. None of that is relevant to the current blog post but it got you on the defensive which is what you were trying to do to me to distract from the original story. So I repeat, see why you should stay on topic? If you are going to switch topics, then you better not live in a glass house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
OK.
WTF does that have to do with your claim that "(I) cannot take criticism of your own country)"?
"I can't change the 2 party system overnight so do we agree neither of us are magicians?"
Indeed. But, one of us is at least in a position to do something. I just have to watch from a distance as your country does things that directly affect me without me having a say.
"You admit your countries... are to weak to stand up to the US."
No I didn't. Stop lying about the things the person you're talking to is actually saying, then you might learn something.
As for the rest of your rambling - everyone running for president in your country is dishonest. One is worse than the other, but they're both bad. Noting this is not an attack, just a hope that people there will actually change the system so that it's not a choice between someone who will cause havoc across the globe and one whose stated wishes threaten to destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Don't drag me into this shit. I was just pointing out that no one said the "other side" was better. That is a statement of fact. You were not claiming one side was superior, you were pointing out the flaws of the side featured on this story.
I also pointed out that IMO, neither candidate is worthy of being the president for the reasons I mentioned above.
Go Freedom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
>>This is what always amazes me about partisans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.
Kennedy was kinda a people's guy, and look what happened to him.
But we've worked it this way since the 18th century, when robber barons were choosing candidates. Chester A. Arthur got enlightenment in the office, and we can hope for something like that, but not likely.
The only choices we're being given are people who will toe the oligarchy line while lying to the people. That's what we get. That's all we get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.
And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only way the better option (ranked-choice/ranked-preference voting) will ever get implemented, at least in the U. S. of A., is if it's done from the bottom up - in towns and municipalities, then in counties, then in states, then for federal elections one state at a time, and finally on a nationwide level (if only for the electoral college, if that even still exists by the time we get that far).
I'm moving towards activism in that direction myself, for my own area; if you get a chance to push for it in your own local government, you never know what bit of advocacy might make the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs
Because, for many people, he's "our" B.S. artist. They project their hopes and dreams onto Trump in the naive belief that they can exert some kind of influence on him. Good luck with that.
People are sick of the establishment and too caught up in Rep V Dem culture wars and the fear that the candidate they hate more than the other one will get in if they vote for a third party, so they vote for a rank outsider in the Tweedledumber party in the hope that he'll a) beat the Tweedledumb party's candidate and b) shake things up a bit, i.e. make the establishment respect the wishes of the voters.
Still others vote for Trump in the hope of watching it all burn to the ground so we can start again. I can understand it, but even Bruce Bartlett has been quiet about it lately as the realisation sinks in that the GOP establishment is a) rallying around Trump and b) attempting to manage him. Good luck with that.
If he does make president he'll soon discover that there are a) limits to his power and b) a long line of toadies desperate to win his favour (and some of his money) by doing what he wants.
Buckle in, people, we're in for a rough ride if Trump gets in. If Hillary gets in, expect business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the only evidence is a sticky note saying "plz cut per b(6)", how can they investigate that? At least they're going to try to be more accountable in the future, or so they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That still doesn't excuse the lying, deleting media coverage, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That pesky Rosen guy again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit. Complete bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So What?
*shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please TD, don't let this site go the way of so many others by trolling the pinheads and those with marginal self-control by using a story pretty much guaranteed to generate bickering and flaming.
(Yes, I've heard of free speech and this was mine).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically...
How true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Proof history is created by the victors"
What past history has been "modified" like this
I suspect, the reason their so scared with difficult questions like this, is the eventual followup question
Where else have you done this?or Have you done this before
Official
(Nervous) No!Never!
3 Months later, proof of lie
Official
Ah, shhhit!
You know, im here just randomly contemplating things, and ive come to an idea, kinda just snuck up on me, these damn filthy independant thoughts..........anyways........why are there some sort of litmus tests for the representatives.........with such positions, i would thought that, the effort they put into making policy for EVERYONE, they make a LITMUS policy for themselves.........it almost irresponsible bordering criminal, that they dont clean their OWN house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long live the glorious 3rd world dictatorships this would be acceptable in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a stupid, stupid thing to bother lying about.
*Okay, so the wise man in question was Tyrion Lannister. It's important to use references that millennials can relate to. If it makes anyone happy, I can attribute it to Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or Winston Churchill instead. Really, I have no problem making up an attribution. As Winston Churchill once said, "Americans always end up attributing quotations to the right author, after attributing them to everyone else first."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]