Journalists Attack Obama Administration For Being Ridiculously Secretive And Vindictive

from the most-transparent-administration-in-history dept

Earlier this year, then NY Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson called out the Obama administration for being the most secretive in history, despite the claims of Obama himself that his would be "the most transparent administration in history." Not only has this administration used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more times than every other administration in history combined, it's currently fighting a legal battle to put NYT journalist Jim Risen in jail for refusing to reveal a source. It's also denied more FOIA requests than any other administration in history. The White House has ridiculously tried to defend its "most transparent in history" claims by pointing to the fact that unlike previous administrations, this one releases visitor logs. Whoop. De. Doo.

At a big journalism confab in Chicago, apparently anger about the administration's unprecedented level of secrecy boiled over as journalists vehemently criticized the lengths to which this administration will go to block journalists and to create significant chilling effects.

"The White House push to limit access and reduce transparency has essentially served as the secrecy road map for all kinds of organizations — from local and state governments to universities and even sporting events," Brian Carovillano, AP managing editor for U.S. news, said during a panel discussion.

Reporters noted that sources are now afraid to talk to them, given the crackdown on leaks -- though, again, it only happens on leaks the administration doesn't like. When the leaks make the White House look good, no investigations, hounding or prosecutions happen. However, if you leak something the administration doesn't like -- such as blowing the whistle on corrupt government practices, the administration has an official policy that you are "aiding the enemy."

And while some might claim (incorrectly, usually) that there's a legitimate argument there when it comes to leaks involving national security, the crackdown goes way beyond that:

The AP's Washington chief of bureau, Sally Buzbee, said the Obama administration's efforts to control information extend even to agencies not directly involved in intelligence gathering. Some sources, she said, have reportedly been warned they could be fired for even talking to a reporter.

"Day-to-day intimidation of sources is also extremely chilling," she said.

Buzbee said she's frequently asked if the Obama administration, when it comes to transparency, is worse than the administration of President George W. Bush.

"Bush was not fantastic," she said. She added, "The (Obama) administration is significantly worse than previous administrations."

We tend to agree that the following statement is a ridiculous one in most situations, but since government officials seem to use it all the time, it seems worth asking: if they've done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?

Filed Under: chilling effects, journalism, obama administration, secrecy, sources, transparency, vindictive, whistleblowers

Many Pulitzer Prize Winners Demand DOJ Stop Threatening Reporter James Risen With Jail If He Protects His Sources

from the chilling-effects dept

For a while now we've been following the troubling story of NY Times reporter James Risen, whom the DOJ has been bullying and threatening with jail for daring to keep his sources confidential. Despite Eric Holder pretending to say that the DOJ won't put a reporter in jail, he's made it quite clear that only applies to a "reporter who is doing his job," and it's pretty clear that the DOJ apparently doesn't think protecting your sources is part of the job. Unfortunately, the court process has gone against Risen, so the only remaining question is if the DOJ will really seek to put Risen in jail.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation has put together a petition for Risen, but perhaps even more interesting is that it further got over a dozen Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists to speak out on Risen's behalf. Here are just a few:

DANA PRIEST, Public Service, 2008 / The Washington Post; Beat Reporting, 2006 / The Washington Post:

If the U.S. government were so concerned about the information revealed in Jim Risen’s stunning chapter on a now 14-year-old CIA operation against Iran gone wrong, it would have moved quickly to resolve this matter eight years ago when it was first published. Instead, it seems obvious now that what officials really want is to hold a hammer over the head of a deeply sourced reporter, and others like him who try to hold the government accountable for what it does, even in secret.

As Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama classified more and more of the government’s actions over the last 14 years, denying the public critical information to judge how its democracy is faring, it has fallen to reporters like Risen to keep Americans informed and to question whether a gigantic government in the shadows is really even a good idea. We will all be worse off if this case proceeds.

DAVID ROHDE, International Reporting, 1996 / Christian Science Monitor; International Reporting, team coverage, 2009 / New York Times (now at Reuters): 

The Justice Department’s pursuit of James Risen puts the lie to President Obama’s claim that he “welcomes” debate regarding his national security policies and leads “the most transparent administration in history.”  The administration should immediately end its pursuit of Risen and respect all journalists’ first amendment rights.

MARCUS STERN, National Reporting, 2006 / Copley News Service:

No press shield, no freedom. It's about the great values embodied in the First Amendment and whether they will be undermined at this moment in history or endure for future generations. The fate of James Risen and his anonymous source is our fate and our grand-children's fate. Please, get it right.

JASON SZEP and ANDREW R.C. MARSHALL, International Reporting, 2014 / Reuters:

It is scandalous that James Risen faces jail time for doing what every good journalist working in the public interest does: protect confidential sources. President Obama and Attorney General Holder should halt all legal action against James to demonstrate that their “war on leaks” is not an assault on the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

It's a travesty that this situation is still occuring. It creates a real chilling effect for both reporters and for sources, and seems like a clear First Amendment violation, even if the courts still disagree on this fact. The DOJ could put an end to this, but has not.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, eric holder, jail, james risen, journalism, pulitzer prize, sources

Words Mean Something: How Eric Holder Pretends He Won't Put Reporters In Jail Without Actually Saying That

from the watch-those-caveats dept

The DOJ has been claiming that it will be more respectful of journalists and their rights after two scandals from last year, involving spying on AP reporters and claiming reporter James Rosen was a "co-conspirator" in order to get access to his phone and email records. However, it's pretty clear that the DOJ still has no problem using questionable legal moves against reporters, such as in the ongoing situation with James Risen (note the one letter difference from the different reporter, Rosen, above). As we noted recently, the DOJ is still trying to send Risen to jail.

In a meeting with reporters (on a different topic), Holder was asked about Risen, and said: "no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail." This resulted in the NY Times and others suggesting that the DOJ wouldn't send Risen to jail if he continues to resist giving up his sources in one of the DOJ's many "leak" investigations.

However, it's important to note that Holder chose his words carefully, and might not actually be saying what some in the press seem to think he's saying. Note the caveat: it only applies to a "reporter who is doing his job." And, given the way the DOJ treats these things, it doesn't seem to think that reporting on leaks is a legitimate part of a reporter's job.

Kevin Gosztola, over at Firedoglake, further notes that the administration has been playing word games concerning Risen for a long time, including the repeated assertion that they're not prosecuting him. He points to this interview between Ken Auletta and the top lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence, Robert Litt:

KEN AULETTA: Do you agree that Jim Risen ought to be prosecuted for...?

ROBERT LITT: Jim Risen is not being prosecuted.

AULETTA: ...Not revealing his sources?

LITT: He’s not being prosecuted. He is being subpoenaed to give evidence as other people. The courts have determined that—to this day at least—that he doesn’t have a privilege against giving that information.

There was discussion in the last panel of a media shield law. That’s a law that President Obama has endorsed. I am not going to speculate as to how that would’ve applied to his particular case, but if there is a media shield law that’s passed, that’s another thing that the courts can do to enforce it.

There’s never been a reporter prosecuted. I don’t think there ever will be a reporter prosecuted because I think every president is aware of the adage about not getting into an argument with somebody who buys printer’s ink by the barrel. I think that as a practical matter, but it’s very different in my mind to go after the people responsible for leaking the information. [emphasis added]

So, he's not being prosecuted, and he won't go to jail if he only focused on "doing his job." But as long as he's involved in writing about leaks, he may not be "doing his job" and it seems quite likely that he may go to jail.

Filed Under: doj, eric holder, james risen, james rosen, reporters, sources

As Government Officials Continue To Shed Trustworthiness, Journalists Continue Placing More Trust In Government Officials

from the they're-supposed-to-earn-it-before-you-give-it-to-them dept

Despite the current administration's track record on transparency (completely lousy from nearly every angle), there's little being done by the majority of the press to work around the roadblocks being set up by the government. While the administration has offered a few half-measures aimed at reining in the NSA in the wake of the leaks, the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) has gone the other way, forbidding employees from speaking to the media about even unclassified information.

The media claims to be more interested in exposing government wrongdoing than ever before, but it is less willing to get its hands dirty doing it, according to a study by the Indiana University of Journalism.

One of the most surprising developments over that period over the past ten years, is the steep decline in the percentage of journalists who say that using confidential documents without permission "may be justified." That number has plummeted from about 78 percent in 2002 to just 58 percent in 2013. In 1992, it was over 80 percent.

That's even more notable given that the survey took place from August to December of last year, not long after Edward Snowden became a household name for stealing classified documents that revealed the extent of NSA surveillance. The journalists who worked with him to share that information with the public won the Pulitzer Prize last month.

There are several theories as to the drop in the number of journalists willing to publish leaks or push reluctant individuals for information. Some of that is the political climate. The report notes that journalists identify themselves as Democrats at a rate of 4-to-1 over Republicans, so there may be some deferral to the "home team" administration. Backing this theory up is the fact that the highest numbers listed here were recorded during the two Bush presidencies.

Then there's the general chill against whistleblowing, one that has never been colder than it is right now. It's been well documented that the Obama administration has prosecuted more than twice as many whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. Post-Wikileaks and post-Manning, there aren't too many journalism outlets willing to sacrifice freedom for a story.

Other, more questionable methods (hidden mics, confidential informants, buying documents), are on the decline as well. Again, the administration's aggressive push to snuff out leaks is partly to blame, as well as the legal ramifications of questionable tactics deployed by UK tabloids, which have raised the ire of both that nation's politicians as well as the targets of these "investigative" efforts. Better safe than jailed/fined/sued, it would appear.

But there's another downside to this, one that plays right into the hands of the self-declared "most transparent administration," as Kevin Gostola at Firedoglake points out.

The Associated Press found, when conducting its annual review of responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, that the "government more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully denied access to them, in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. On 196,034 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper." The media organization concluded the "government's efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office."

First, you seal off the documents. Then, you start threatening the access. Faced with this, it appears many journalistic entities have decided to defer to authority and simply publish unquestioned statements from officials unwilling to back up their words with a name.

The number one complaint most New York Times readers tend to have is that reporters are overly reliant on anonymous sources for information. Public editor Margaret Sullivan has written about this issue, suggesting "readers are right to protest when they see anonymity granted gratuitously" but also acknowledging the crackdown on leaks by the Obama administration may have something to do with people unwilling to talk to reporters on the record.

The number of "anonymous officials" is on the rise, partly due to the administration's own dim view of sharing info with the press. But this makes any statement made completely questionable. If the official is afforded anonymity, there's no accountability. And yet, these statements are delivered by the press in a largely credulous fashion.

What Gostola sees this boiling down to is the most cherished of journalistic tools: access. Journalists are unwilling to sacrifice access for better, harder-hitting reporting. Being shut out means falling behind, even if your integrity remains intact. And an anonymous source is still one more source than is available to those locked out due to their aggressive reporting, even if the statements are little more than rephrased talking points.

The problem is that, despite this evidence, the media still believes it's an effective means of government accountability, even as this same government has convinced many of them that they have neither the expertise nor the right to publish leaked documents or otherwise route around official outlets. Two journalistic outlets went the other way and received Pulitzers for doing so, but in the eyes of many others, publishing leaks still "isn't journalism." But somehow, taking anonymous statements at face value is.

Filed Under: government, journalism, leaks, sources, trust

Are Other NSA Employees Leaking Documents Under The Cover Of Snowden?

from the could-be-useful...-could-be-disinfo dept

While we were just suggesting that there are ways that NSA employees who believe the organization has gone too far can make a difference without also leaking documents, some are beginning to suspect that Snowden's activities may be creating at least some copycats -- and the interesting tidbit is that they may be less likely to get caught, because everyone assumes any new leaks are from Snowden. Matt Blaze recently noted that the most recent bombshell concerning the NSA's catalog of exploits, didn't actually name a source. And Glenn Greenwald has hinted strongly that the information is not from Snowden.

That doesn't mean that the information isn't from Snowden. It could very well be from him and just no one's said so. Greenwald's statements may actually be an attempt to solicit further leaks by making it clear that other leakers may be able to hide under the cover of Snowden. Blaze also points out that this possibility certainly runs the very real risk of someone providing false information to credulous reporters. That could come from those just pulling a prank or, more sinisterly, from an intelligence community looking to flood the press with disinformation to dilute and attempt to discredit the Snowden leaks. The intelligence community has certainly been involved in such campaigns in the past.

That said, this is a real opportunity for others who would like to blow the whistle from within the intelligence community to potentially do so under the cover of Snowden, allowing them to leak without everyone searching for the new leaker, believing the information is actually coming from Snowden. Still, if that's happening, I hope that the reporters receiving those documents heed Blaze's advice to be exceptionally careful to authenticate the documents, to find additional sources and also to disclose any uncertainty about the authenticity of the documents.

Filed Under: ed snowden, journalism, leaks, nsa, sources, surveillance

Court Fines Patch Editor $300 Per Day For Not Revealing Sources

from the chilling-effects dept

The war on journalism isn't coming from just the federal government. Over in Illinois, a judge has fined Joseph Hosey, an editor for the AOL-owned hyperlocal news site, Patch, $1,000 plus court costs, plus $300 per day for refusing to reveal his sources on a certain story. This is pretty important. Having a journalist reveal sources basically ends that reporter's career as a serious investigative reporter because no source will trust that their information will be secret again. By definition, having the government require someone to do so certainly seems like a First Amendment violation, as it's a clear restriction on the freedom of the press. In addition, while we're skeptical of journalism shield laws (and how they can be used to exclude journalists, rather than include them), Illinois does have a shield law. Thankfully, Patch is appealing this ruling.

Filed Under: joseph hosey, shield law, sources
Companies: aol, patch

Once Again, Will People Say That Reporters Revealing Details Of US Intelligence On Syria Be Called Criminals?

from the just-wondering dept

We've pointed out many times now how the old guard media seems to hate the new guard, in part because they're not getting their stories the "old fashioned way" -- which is buddying up to government officials and having them as "sources" where the reporter acts as an unofficial press officer for the government. Instead, when a Glenn Greenwald comes along, and gets information from Ed Snowden, he's accused of criminal acts. People keep insisting that Snowden's leaks revealed sources and methods, but so far they really haven't.

Yet, when more detailed leaks come directly from more obvious government sources, no one bats an eye. We pointed out how clear this was in the past with Barbara Starr, the CNN reporter that Greenwald has jokingly referred to as "the Pentagon spokesperson who works at CNN." She was among those who keep publishing reports from "inside sources" claiming that Snowden's leaks were incredibly damaging.

And yet, here is the very same Barbara Starr, reporting from an anonymous "U.S. official," details about what kinds of communications the US has intercepted by Syrian military leaders.

CNN has learned the United States has intercepts of conversations among top Syrian military officials discussing the chemical weapons attack after it took place last week, according to a U.S. official.

The intercepts form a key basis for the conclusion that the Syrian regime was behind the attack.

Right, so just as the US is pushing to intervene militarily in Syria, suddenly we get a "leak" revealing details of intelligence intercepts of Syrian leaders? Wouldn't you think that's the kind of thing that the government would most want to keep secret? But, of course, in this case, the hope is that this "leak" will help bolster the government's case for bombing Syria, so it's "okay." Yet, how come we don't hear the normal Snowden and Greenwald attackers calling for investigations into this "leak" and suggesting that Starr is a criminal?

Greg Mitchell has a succinct update of Richard Nixon's famous "if a President does it, it's not illegal" statement for the modern era. Apparently, "if a President leaks it, it's not illegal."

Filed Under: barbara starr, intelligence, journalism, leaks, nsa, reporting, sources, syria

NY Times Reveals NSA Searches All Emails In & Out Of The US; Will It Offer Up Its Source For Prosecution?

from the just-wondering dept

This morning, the NY Times' Charlie Savage broke yet another story concerning the NSA domestic surveillance efforts, revealing that... the NSA does a scan of every email going in or out of the US:

The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.

The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.

Again this is the kind of thing that many people had assumed was going on, but it hadn't been confirmed until now. Of course, the NSA's response was not to talk about whether or not this was true, but to claim, yet again, that everything it's doing is "authorized," which is a way of deflecting the fact that it's almost certainly unconstitutional. In this case, the claim is that the NSA isn't storing these emails, but rather: "temporarily copying and then sifting through the contents of what is apparently most e-mails and other text-based communications that cross the border," and the whole process only takes "a small number of seconds" before the records are deleted.

This report raises a whole bunch of issues, but let's focus on two of them:

1. Right, so remember that last post, where Barack Obama claimed that there is no domestic spying program? Yeah, so about that... Here's a bit more evidence of just what a lie that is.
2. Here's the bigger one, though. Just yesterday, the NY Times published an astounding editorial that suggests that the US should punish Russia for not sending Ed Snowden back. It is effectively calling for the prosecution of a key whistleblower concerning NSA surveillance.
   
   So, I'm wondering, does the NY Times editorial board believe that Charlie Savage's source -- who is revealing information not unlike that which Snowden revealed -- shouldn't be protected, should be revealed and should be prosecuted? Because I would imagine that both Savage and that source would find that very uncomfortable. At this point, if you're a government whistleblower, why would you ever go to a reporter at the NY Times when they're supportive of prosecuting sources and whistleblowers?

This latest revelation is important, and it's great that Savage was able to get the information and reveal it -- but why would his own employers so undermine his ability to do that kind of reporting by supporting the prosecution of other whistleblowers and leakers?

Filed Under: charlie savage, email, nsa, nsa surveillance, searches, sources, whitleblowers
Companies: ny times

Court Says Reporters Can Be Compelled To Give Up Sources In Whistleblowing Cases

from the uh-oh dept

Right. Remember last week when the DOJ said that it was going to be a lot more careful about spying on journalists, or using them as a way to find their sources concerning government whistleblowing (or, in the DOJ's mind "evil leakers who are aiding the enemy")? Yeah, so a bit awkward on the timing here, as in the DOJ's fight against James Risen (the NY Times reporter that the DOJ has been trying to force to reveal his sources concerning earlier NSA leaks), an appeals court has now said that Risen can be compelled to testify and reveal his sources.

The two judges (out of a three judge panel) who felt this way seriously twisted previous precedents concerning whether or not someone could be compelled to testify if you "witness" a crime. But the point of the laws there are basically if you see someone dealing drugs, you can be compelled to testify about it. With a reporter talking to a source, where that source is blowing the whistle on the government, then yes, the whistleblower may be technically "breaking the law" in providing info to a journalist, but it's an entirely different situation than say a journalist reporting on drug dealers (the precedent case that the court relied on). But, the court ruled otherwise.

There is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify by the prosecution or the defense in criminal proceedings about criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in, absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other such non-legitimate motive, even though the reporter promised confidentiality to his source.

It is difficult to overstate the chilling impact this particular ruling will have on investigative journalism, especially when it comes to reporting on government abuse and corruption. Even if a journalist promises confidentiality and completely means it, this ruling means the government can just drag that journalist to court and force him or her to reveal his or her sources. That's going to completely freak out whistleblowers. While the court disagrees, I have a hard time seeing how this does not, fundamentally, violate the First Amendment's protections for press freedom.

Given that, I agree with Judge Gregory, who wrote a strong dissent.

Today we consider the importance of a free press in ensuring the informed public debate critical to citizens’ oversight of their democratically elected representatives. Undoubtedly, the revelation of some government secrets is too damaging to our country’s national security to warrant protection by evidentiary privilege. Yet the trial by press of secret government actions can expose misguided policies, poor planning, and worse. More importantly, a free and vigorous press is an indispensable part of a system of democratic government. Our country’s Founders established the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press as a recognition that a government unaccountable to public discourse renders that essential element of democracy – the vote – meaningless. The majority reads narrowly the law governing the protection of a reporter from revealing his sources, a decision that is, in my view, contrary to the will and wisdom of our Founders.

The dissent is really worth reading, going into great detail on how this ruling appears to contradict previous rulings protecting the right of journalists to keep sources confidential.

In the past, Risen himself has said that he will appeal such a ruling and, further, that he would go to jail before revealing his sources. Either way, yet again, we see the Obama administration's all-too-aggressive war against whistleblowers and the impact it has. Various national security reporters have already been talking about how sources have been clamming up lately, and this is only going to lead to more of that -- and much less oversight and reporting on government fraud, abuse and corruption.

Filed Under: 4th circuit, doj, first amendment, investigative journalism, james risen, journalism, leaks, press, sources, whistleblowing

DOJ Unconcerned About The Constitution, Obtained AP Reporters' Phone Records

from the freedom-of-the-press?-ha!-what's-that? dept

We've talked quite a bit about how the federal government has been pretty aggressively shattering any remnants of the 4th amendment, and while there are some parts of the 1st amendment that are still respected, our government doesn't always seem so keen on that one either. Apparently, they've decided to kill two birds with one stone recently, in obtaining a broad collection of phone records concerning Associated Press journalists, which is almost certainly in violation of the law. The AP only just found out about this on Friday, despite the data already being obtained, and covering more than 20 separate phone lines (including work, home and mobile phones) for multiple AP journalists -- and a period covering approximately two months in early 2012. The AP has sent a quite reasonably angry letter to Attorney General Holder about this collection.

There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.

That the Department undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation, is particularly troubling.

The sheer volume of records obtained, most of which can have no plausible connection to any ongoing investigation, indicates, at a minimum, that this effort did not comply with 28 C.F.R. §50.10 and should therefore never have been undertaken in the first place. The regulations require that, in all cases and without exception, a subpoena for a reporter’s telephone toll records must be “as narrowly drawn as possible.’’ This plainly did not happen

The AP also (again, quite reasonably) notes that this appears to be a "serious interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news" and demand that the government destroy all copies of the data it received.

This really is an incredibly broad move by the government. Especially when it comes to reporters, the government has generally respected the right for reporters to keep their sources private, even if this administration has been known to threaten reporters if they won't reveal sources. In case you're wondering the law here is pretty clear about the limitations on getting this kind of info.

There should be reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is essential to the successful investigation of that crime. The subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible; it should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period. In addition, prior to seeking the Attorney General's authorization, the government should have pursued all reasonable alternative investigation steps as required by paragraph (b) of this section.

I'm sure that Eric Holder will try to tapdance around this one as well, but the claims here are very serious. On the positive side, perhaps this will finally help the press wake up to the continued expansion of the federal government's surveillance operations and their general disdain for the constitution if it helps them go after whoever they want. The press likes to go nuts when some startup accidentally leaks some data or tracks what people are doing online, but routinely ignores how the government seems to feel entitled to any bit of private data about anyone, often without a warrant. Perhaps having the press have their records taken will wake some of them up to the fact that it impacts them as well (perhaps even more than others).

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, confidentiality, doj, eric holder, reporters, sources
Companies: associated press