Justice Dept. spied on reporters in sweeping surveillance

[thatsmystory]

I don't know if the AP would count as one of the corporate news publications such as the kind that might be employed to reinforce the public narrative.
The AP is more of a primary resource as opposed to almost every single 'news' outlet currently in operation in the US, which I agree are already in place to divide the public - half the truth comes out of the 'left media' and the other half comes out of the 'right media' and they laugh because the US population will NOT look at both sides - ever - and therefore they'll never see that the whole truth is right before them.

However, I digress.

The importance of NOT spying on journalists and their sources (wow, can anyone older than 20 even believe this has to be explained?) is laid out pretty well in the three articles I posted after 82's post.

I understand the importance of journalistic freedom. What I am reacting to is the fact that most journalists make a mockery of this freedom by toeing the line. For example I have followed 9/11 news for years. Pretty much every journalist that gets access to government officials never uses that access to get answers. A specific example is the HBO documentary Manhunt which details the CIA effort against al Qaeda from the 90's to Abbottabad. Director Greg Barker and all the media outlets that wrote about the documentary and interviewed CIA agents involved all followed the same narrative. CIA agents did their job. They were unfairly blamed by politicians. Torture was awful but saved lives and probably helped find Bin Laden. Terrorism is still a major threat and thus we should all be grateful the CIA is still dedicated to protecting the Homeland.

[Canadian_watcher]

sure, anonymous sources do cause problems in the way IanEye just demonstrated, that's for sure.

The difference is though that in one case we're talking about a chickenshit editor/reporter who swallows injustice in order to keep one aspect of his job intact rather than *do* his job and report THAT as well as the rest of the story,
or
in the other case a reporter who finds out the next morning that their source shot themselves twice in the head without ever knowing that s/he was being spied on the whole time.

I don't care if this is something the right does as well as the left. That's a fucking no brainer, obviously they both do it. What I care about is how dangerous and counter to freedom it is. Spying on journalists is wrong. ALL THE TIME, by anyone and it's not only wrong, it is criminal in the civilized world.

[Canadian_watcher]

I don't know if the AP would count as one of the corporate news publications such as the kind that might be employed to reinforce the public narrative.
The AP is more of a primary resource as opposed to almost every single 'news' outlet currently in operation in the US, which I agree are already in place to divide the public - half the truth comes out of the 'left media' and the other half comes out of the 'right media' and they laugh because the US population will NOT look at both sides - ever - and therefore they'll never see that the whole truth is right before them.

However, I digress.

The importance of NOT spying on journalists and their sources (wow, can anyone older than 20 even believe this has to be explained?) is laid out pretty well in the three articles I posted after 82's post.

I understand the importance of journalistic freedom. What I am reacting to is the fact that most journalists make a mockery of this freedom by toeing the line. For example I have followed 9/11 news for years. Pretty much every journalist that gets access to government officials never uses that access to get answers. A specific example is the HBO documentary Manhunt which details the CIA effort against al Qaeda from the 90's to Abbottabad. Director Greg Barker and all the media outlets that wrote about the documentary and interviewed CIA agents involved all followed the same narrative. CIA agents did their job. They were unfairly blamed by politicians. Torture was awful but saved lives and probably helped find Bin Laden. Terrorism is still a major threat and thus we should all be grateful the CIA is still dedicated to protecting the Homeland.

yes, I agree with that - it'd be very very nice if they'd grow some balls.

[Simulist]

There is more than one way to catch a fish: among other things, you can use a single, dedicated line with a hook on it, or you can cast a wide net.

The Internet is a very wide net, and it is the best surveillance tool ever conceived. Each of us is caught up in "the Net."

Now if the Associated Press is just now figuring out that surveillance is happening — not just "to everyone" but also to them, specifically — then their little wake-up call is a pretty darn good thing. And tragically overdue.

[thatsmystory]

There is more than one way to catch a fish: among other things, you can use a single, dedicated line with a hook on it, or you can cast a wide net.

The Internet is a very wide net, and it is the best surveillance tool ever conceived. Each of us is caught up in "the Net."

Now if the Associated Press is just now figuring out that surveillance is happening — not just "to everyone" but also to them, specifically — then their little wake-up call is a pretty darn good thing. And tragically overdue.

The DOJ is trotting out the usual "criminal probe necessity" excuse. Typically US media loves to sell the public on the validity of this kind of bullshit government explanation.

[Canadian_watcher]

let's not forget that the crime here is not noticing that crimes are happening to you until late in the game.

like those little old ladies that fall for the Nigeria Scam. the Nigeria scam is already well and truly known so anyone caught up in it has no right to complain, let alone experience outrage or believe somehow that the scammers are actually in the wrong.

[Hunter]

The protection of sources, sometimes also referred to as the confidentiality of sources or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. Simply put, it means that the authorities, including the courts, cannot compel a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many people would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists. As a result, problems such as corruption or crime might go undetected and unchallenged, to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole. In spite of any such legal protections, the pervasive use of traceable electronic communications by journalists and their sources provides governments with a tool to determine the origin of information.[1] In the United States, the federal government legally contends that no such protection exists for journalists.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

You beat me to it, I was about to post this, thanks for that!

[Canadian_watcher]

partcularly apropos starting at 50 min, but the whole thing is good.

[compared2what?]

AP is a huge organization with a lot of reporters, some of whom do good work, but rotten in many ways. They're actually more influential wrt narrative than almost any other single print news source (arguably more than the NYT most of the time) just because they're always out first, last and everywhere while everyone else is still struggling to get to the scene.

But. On the other hand. They can afford to do stuff -- sue for FOIA info that's being withheld, or whatever -- that very few other news organizations can do. And they're not easy for the government to take out or intimidate because they're spread so widely all over the place and they're not advertiser-dependent. Not all good or all bad, in short. The whole news-gathering-and-delivery system is fucked-up and inadequate, but that's not for simple reasons. It's more a new-paradigm-needed type of a thing.

There's really no paradigm where it would be good for the government to be able to get that much information about who the press was talking to that easily, though. They should have to sweat blood for months and send Judith Miller to jail before they get that stuff. She was doing it for totally the wrong reasons. Abusing the privilege, even. But it's still the only way.

[MinM]

2001 -2008

Karl Rove calls up reporter, says a bunch of lies. says he wants all quotes as "anonymous" or said reporter will never gets access to White House again.

reporter prints lies, credits anonymous sources.

Dick Cheney makes the rounds of the Sunday morning news shows. says same lies, and adds, "If you don't believe me, this was also reported in the Washington Post." then cites the lies Rove said to reporter.

rinse, repeat.

Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and the CIA
Strange Bedfellows
by JIM HOUGAN

...One of the most lasting consequences of the Watergate affair has been its corrosive effect upon investigative reporting. Through its unquestioning embrace of Deep Throat, Hollywood and the press have romanticized the anonymous source and, in doing so, legitimized him. The results are there to be seen in your daily newspaper: story after story, attributed to no one in particular. "Speaking on condition of anonymity, " "White House sources denied," "A Pentagon official said."

As sources disappear, the news becomes more propagandistic. Ambitious and calculating pols drop innuendos and send up trial-balloons, without ever having to take responsibility for what they’ve said. Or not said. In the playground of anonymous sources, the public is increasingly informed by creative writers like Jason Blair (formerly of the New York Times), Stephen Glass (ex-New Republic), Jack Kelly (gone from USA Today), and, ironically, Woodward’s former protégé at the Post, Janet Cooke. Not surprisingly, the public becomes increasingly skeptical.

The problem with anonymous sources is not just that they might be "composite" characters, or that they might not exist at all, but rather that the source’s motives remain beyond scrutiny. So the story is necessarily incomplete...

viewtopic.php?p=339118#p339118

Deep Throat: Shallow story hides deeper history

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary ... 5chin.html

...Watergate was not, as the stereotypical myth and breathless legends go, a great moment for democracy in which a corrupt president was brought down, and a great "investigation" reformed Washington. It was an inside coup d'état, and a limited hangout, that saved Nixon and his cabal from true exposure and jail time, and helped preserve—not reform—the system that made his crimes possible. Felt must be judged against this context.

Watergate gave the naïve public a false sense of security—the fallacy that "they" (Washington) were "cleaning up"—and ushered in a new era of corruption. Gerald Ford, J. Edgar Hoover's right hand man on the Warren Commission, became president. Ford pardoned Nixon, and selected Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. The CIA learned how to do a better job covering up their activities and controlling information. America's corporate media, long infiltrated and controlled by government operatives, would be increasingly corrupted and corporatized, and made into the voices of the White House. The Washington Post, never a paragon of investigative reporting, became even worse with time. Bob Woodward became a buddy stenographer for the Bush presidents, and the author of stomach-turning George W. Bush 9/11 myths...

viewtopic.php?p=456789#p456789

[compared2what?]

^^That's the kind of not-so-simple I had in mind.

Watergate did not have a corrosive effect on investigative reporting. There's no cause and effect there.*** Mark Felt might not even be Deep Throat. There might not, in fact, be one. But there was a problem. It was uncovered. And if it was a limited fucking hang-out, it was still better than the nothing that was the other realistic alternative at the time. What do you want? To time-travel to the early '70s and wait to prosecute the hypothetically more corrupt actions that still haven't been uncovered in enough detail for anyone to pay the consequences lo unto this very day?

Woodward's been a nightmare ever since. But separate problem.

Anonymous sourcing is a problem because the privilege is abused. But you have to have it. They should just be required to meet some fair criteria first.
____________

***ON EDIT: Just to clarify: The rising acceptability of anonymous sourcing predated and led to Watergate, not the other way around.

[Canadian_watcher]

really, anyone who is confused about the importance of a free press, including the journalistic privilege ought to listen to the excellent Q&A that makes up most of the video I posted a couple of posts back. I'm sure no one here is averse to trying to understand the arguments, are they?