Skip to main content

View Diary: Journalist Surveillance Goes Far Beyond AP (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was talking about Kim/Rosen, not AP. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Thirteen men can't tell The People what is Constitutional and what isn't

    Conservative "constitutional scholar" referring to SCOTUS

    by jam on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:25:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK, it's a bit confusing since all three (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jam

      topics are part of the discussion.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:29:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok, but back to my original (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        The graf that I quoted follows directly from a discussion about Rosen. What would have made sense (to me) would have been:

        The message to journalists is clear. If the media publishes "classified" information that the government wants made public, those journalists receive increased access and can continue their work unfettered by invasive surveillance. But, if journalists write about government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or illegality, information the government DOESN'T want made public they should be ready for harassment, surveillance, and criminal investigation.

        Thirteen men can't tell The People what is Constitutional and what isn't

        Conservative "constitutional scholar" referring to SCOTUS

        by jam on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:38:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That looks fine to me. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, jam

          Though of course in other circumstances the info might be gov't waste, fraud, whatever.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 20, 2013 at 01:46:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Those are facts. (0+ / 0-)

          What didn't you understand about this?

          The message to journalists is clear. If the media publishes "classified" information that the government wants made public, those journalists receive increased access and can continue their work unfettered by invasive surveillance. But, if journalists write about government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or illegality, information the government DOESN'T want made public they should be ready for harassment, surveillance, and criminal investigation.
          •  "Those are facts" (0+ / 0-)

            Assuming facts not in evidence at least in this diary. Sorry, I'm just a poor engineer who likes his logic nice and simple. The facts of the Kim/Rosen case do not support the statement, IMO:

            if journalists write about government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or illegality,
            I'm sure that there are thousands upon thousands of cases that do support that statement, but the one in the diary is not one of them.

            Thirteen men can't tell The People what is Constitutional and what isn't

            Conservative "constitutional scholar" referring to SCOTUS

            by jam on Tue May 21, 2013 at 05:53:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site