Skip to main content

Throughout the tenure of George W. Bush, many of us to the left of center warned that unchecked presidential power was putting Americans' civil liberties in jeopardy. Now with the revelations that the Obama Justice Department seized AP phone records in one leak case and monitored a reporter's communications in another, some on the right are finally furious about infringements of our First and Fourth amendment rights. Apparently, all it took for this belated conservative change of heart was a Democrat in the White House and a Fox News reporter in the government's crosshairs. After all, when Americans learned of President Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, many of the same voices called for the prosecution of the New York Times. Then, Republican Sen. John Cornyn warned in a GOP talking point regurgitated by myriad conservative mouthpieces, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Word that the Justice Department obtained emails and phone records for James Rosen of Fox News after the publication of his June 11, 2009 story which references CIA findings from "sources inside North Korea" produced a torrent of criticism from the New York Times, the Washington Post and many other liberal voices. Over at Fox News, anchors and guests announced they were "appalled" at the "dangerous lunacy" of DOJ snooping on Rosen, calling it an unindicted co-conspirator "a huge assault on the First Amendment" (Charles Krauthammer) and "Big Brothers stuff" (Sean Hannity). Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente issued a statement declaring:

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."
Of course, when Republican George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office, the shoe was on the other foot. And Fox News and its right-wing allies wanted to kick the New York Times' ass with it.

On Dec. 16, 2005, Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times reported that President Bush had ordered the National Security Administration (NSA) to intercept Americans' overseas electronic communications without first obtaining a warrant as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Three days later, President Bush raged about what he deemed "a shameful act" that is "helping the enemy" and added "the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation." On Dec. 30, 2005, that investigation was announced, when White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy told reporters that the Justice Department department "undertook this action on its own" and that Bush had only learned about it from senior staff earlier in the day. Then in May 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales suggested on ABC News' This Week that the New York Times itself could face prosecution over its publication of the NSA domestic surveillance program story:

On the talk show, when asked if journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information, Gonzales responded, "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility."

He was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which made it a crime for an unauthorized person to receive national defense information and transmit it to others.

The next month, Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew W. Friedrich told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bush DOJ thought that journalists or "anyone" could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing classified information.

As it turned out, those words came as music to the ears of Fox News and the conservative commentariat. After all, as you'll see below, they had been cheerleading for the Bush administration to prosecute the New York Times for months.

Their voices were numerous and loud. Right-wing blogs like Powerline, Red State and Riehl World News published pieces with titles like "Prosecute the New York Times" and called for charges to be brought against its editor Bill Keller and journalists Lichtblau and Risen. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media demanded, "Quit wasting time, Mr. Attorney General. Bring forward the indictments." New York Congressman Peter King argued the Times had "compromised" the program and "violated the Espionage Act." King urged the attorney general to prosecute the "reporters, the editors who worked on this, and the publisher." While Brent Bozell accused the New York Times of "aiding and abetting the terrorist movement" and Melanie Morgan called the paper's reporting of the illicit NSA program, "treason, plain and simple," Fox News regular and Weekly Standard Bill Kristol explained:

"I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution, and I think Congress can weigh in here, too, because The New York Times' rhetorical defense is well, we're exposing the Bush administration."
Commentary editor and later Romney campaign adviser Gabriel Schoenfeld agreed. In 2006, he claimed, "There are some statutes on the books, which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility." After news of the FBI's raid on whistleblower Thomas Tamm's home in the summer of 2007, Schoenfeld again called for the scalps of Risen and Lichtblau:
"With the investigation making progress, the possibility remains that even if the New York Times is not indicted, its reporters - James Risen and Eric Lichtblau - might be called before the grand jury and asked to confirm under oath that Tamm, or some other suspect, was their source. That is what happened to a whole battalion of journalists in the investigation of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame fiasco.

If Risen and Lichtblau promised their source confidentiality, they might choose not to testify. That would potentially place them, like Judith Miller in the Libby investigation, in contempt of court and even land them in prison."

For Fox News host Stuart Varney and his guest John Podhoretz, that sounded like a great idea. Just days after the NSA story was published, Varney told Fox News viewers:
"Should the New York Times be tried for treason?  In a scathing editorial today, the New York Post says the New York Times is badly in need of adult supervision and asks if the newspaper is fighting against the war on terror by exposing top secret programs... John, I just used a very strong word there. I used the 'treason' word. Would you use it?"
Radio host Hugh Hewitt and Senator John Cornyn doubtless would have been comfortable with it. "This is a violation of the Espionage Act for people to leak this kind of information," Cornyn complained in September 2006, adding, "It's subject to debate in legal circles, as you know, Hugh, whether it's an indictable offense to publish it."
"Unfortunately, some people feel eminently justified in reporting anything and everything, without regard to the negative consequences on national security. And I think that's a real, frankly, very disturbing."
Now that it is Fox News reporter James Rosen who is in the spotlight for his role in possibly exposing U.S. intelligence assets in North Korea, the conservatives' tune has changed about reporters doing their jobs. Well, not all conservatives. For its part, the blog Flopping Aces called for some consistency:
"It's clear that this is a political vendetta against Obama's enemies and it represents an abuse of the justice system as well as a suppression of journalistic investigation but let's harken back a ways. If Rosen's actions are a violation of the Espionage Act, several New York Times reporters should already have been imprisoned, if not executed."
After all, as Sen. John Cornyn used to claim, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:44 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hypocritical bastards (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MartyM, jdld, Heianshoka, Sue B

    just don't like it "up 'em"

    They are just fine and dandy with the Patriot Act, until it's provisions are turned on their asses.

    Yes it's wrong, it was ALWAYS wrong and they didn't listen.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:53:14 PM PDT

  •  Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jdld, Nespolo, Heianshoka, FiredUpInCA, retLT


    IOKIYAR.  They honestly believe they are entitled to do whatever, whenever, however and not get called on it.  I would love to know whether the other media outlets were as "chilled" back then as they are now.  

    How were they reporting this back then?  

  •  Impeach the New York Times! (0+ / 0-)

    "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Nespolo on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:26:12 PM PDT

  •  Hypocrites (0+ / 0-)

    Just as those on the other side who fail to condemn the current administration.

    Keep the TVA public.

    by Paleo on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:27:30 PM PDT

  •  Has Alberto Gonzales found a job yet? (0+ / 0-)

    Last I heard, no one would touch him with a ten foot pole.

    In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

    by Sixty Something on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:03:34 PM PDT

  •  So what? (0+ / 0-)

    Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

  •  You're still reading the NYT? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Great Diary (0+ / 0-)

    very well done

  •  These foxholes can kiss my ass. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tampaedski, Matt Z

    (Well I think that's clever even if nobody else does.)

    "This is NOT what I thought I'd be when I grew up."

    by itzik shpitzik on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:24:06 PM PDT

  •  so you're saying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catesby, Gooserock

    It's only republicans who are hypocrites.  I guess you haven't followed the comments in this blog lately.  "Fuck Fox News" (who cares about their rights} was tipped by dozens of Obama dead enders just yesterday.

    Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

    by Nada Lemming on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:32:47 PM PDT

    •  Symptom of a Frightening Reality (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming, FogCityJohn, WuChier

      The free press concept doesn't work, never did.

      We've got nothing in our traditions or history that ever provided the essential services of informing the electorate and hosting civic debate in a society at any level of advancement found in our history.

      From the moment the ink dried on the parchments, we were awash in yellow journalism throwing elections and trials, goading us into unjustified wars, and promoting economic frauds on every scale.

      The one and only period we came closest to having a journalist press was the one and only period we came close to economic justice, the New Deal Anomaly when press via severe business regulation was least free and the economy via severe business and upper-end individual regulation was least free.

      The problem you see is not that Dems are hypocritical, but that the entire system does not, never did, never can work. The free press concept is the surrender of the core services of civilization to warlords.

      What would be better? FSM knows, I sure don't. I just know what doesn't work.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:44:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was really ugly. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming, trumpeter, david78209

      It's the same rationale: "good press" deserve First Amendment protections; "bad press" do not.

      Amy Goodman, watch out.

      •  I didn't bother to watch, but don't these people (0+ / 0-)

        realize that it's a terrible can of worms trying to come up with a set of rules to define "good press"?  Even if they know exactly what/whom they want to protect, it's very difficult, and if they want to do it without it being obvious to the world that they'd set themselves up as the Thought Police, it's impossible.

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 03:17:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  but you really do care right? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean anything that even possibly makes Obama look bad is something you are more then happy to cheer on.

      Never mind there is no actual scandal

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:37:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't have much sympathy for anyone who (0+ / 0-)

      works for foKKKs, I must admit. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

      48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

      by slouching on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:59:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not going to cry for them. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      I agree that the administration is wrong to pursue journalists and their sources in this way, but I can't feel sorry for Fox.  As the diarist points out, they've spent years actively attacking anyone who attempted to expose this kind of government surveillance, accusing people of treason or of sympathizing with terrorists.

      It's really hard to feel sorry for an organization that's getting precisely the treatment it's demanded for years, at least when the folks on the receiving end were anyone other than mouthpieces for the right wing.

      Besides, I'm not so sure Rosen fits so neatly into the "journalist" category in this case:

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 23, 2013 at 11:37:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Martha

        For validating my point.  And showing your principles are based on who you like or don't.  Exactly like the Republicans the diarist mocks.  

        Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

        by Nada Lemming on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:10:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Guess you need some remedial reading classes. (0+ / 0-)

          If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd have seen the very first part of my very first sentence:

          I agree that the administration is wrong to pursue journalists and their sources in this way, but I can't feel sorry for Fox.
          See, I'm agreeing that what the administration is doing is wrong, which I thought was your principal point.  I simply noted that it's hard to feel any sympathy for Fox, since in the past the network has actually demanded that journalists be indicted for doing their jobs.  In other words, Fox has demanded that journalists get precisely the same kind of treatment it's now receiving.

          I don't think the government should be doing this at all, but then I've been saying that since the Bush administration.  Fox's objections to the practice strike me as nothing but a hypocritical deathbed conversion.  So while I continue to find this sort of surveillance inconsistent with my reading of the Constitution, Fox's views on it appear entirely situational.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:52:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm really surprised by this. (0+ / 0-)

        I agree that it's hard, if not impossible, to feel any sympathy for Fox, but to focus solely on that is to miss the larger issue of press freedoms: does only the "good press" get that or do all press get that?  And, if the former, who decides which are and are not "good press?"

        Never mind that the Rosen situation is not an isolated incident but, according to emptywheel, who I think is an extremely trustworthy source, part of a larger trend of criminalizing journalists.

        •  I'm not missing it. (0+ / 0-)

          And that's why I said in my opening sentence that I agreed that what the government is doing is wrong.  My point is that Fox is now complaining about getting the treatment that the network itself has said should be meted out to other journalists.  

          Until this incident, Fox had no problem with the government using its investigative and prosecutorial powers to intimidate journalists.  Indeed, numerous Fox commentators had actually demanded it.  In their view, the government was perfectly right to go after journalists whom Fox viewed as liberals because they had dared publish unflattering material about the Bush administration.  

          As odious as I think Fox is, I don't think even its so-called journalists should be subjected to this kind of surveillance.  But no one should lose sight of the fact that Fox was, until a couple of weeks ago, a strident proponent of what it now claims to find so objectionable.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:00:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And as I made clear, I agree with that. (0+ / 0-)

            But you went beyond that with this:

            Besides, I'm not so sure Rosen fits so neatly into the "journalist" category in this case:
            I just think that that's a real slippery slope argument of who deserves media protection and who does not, and I was surprised to see you using it.
            •  It may be a slippery slope. (0+ / 0-)

              But I don't think it's entirely irrelevant to note that Rosen appears to have been actively soliciting classified information for an admittedly political purpose.  It seems like he was looking for this information to serve a partisan political agenda, not because he was trying to uncover some kind of misconduct in government.

              Now, does that mean he shouldn't receive the protection other journalists ought to receive (but currently do not)?  If pressed, I'd probably say no, but I think there are legitimate questions raised by his conduct.  What if he weren't employed by an ostensible new organization and were, say, a Heritage Foundation or American Crossroads staffer who was looking for the same information for the same purposes?  

              I don't think there are easy answers to these questions.  My own personal view is that the government classifies far too much information and that the incessant reprisals against whistleblowers are a threat to democratic governance because they prevent the public from getting information it should know about how our government operates.  

              That said, I agree with News Corpse that there's a difference between a reporter who receives information a whistleblower decides to disclose and one who affirmatively seeks access to classified information in the service of a partisan political agenda.  The former is unquestionably a journalist doing his job.  The latter is more akin to a political operative doing opposition research.  

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:36:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is who makes those distinctions? (0+ / 0-)

                I can just as easily see someone on the other end of the political spectrum from you and I claiming that Amy Goodman "look[s] for ... information to serve a partisan political agenda."  So while I agree that Fox is more of a partisan hack job than a news organization, ultimately I'd say that there is a difference between them and the Heritage Foundation or American Crossroads.  Especially because if you ask me, and you haven't but I'll answer anyway, sometimes it seems to me that reporters from other, more "acceptable" news organizations, like the New York Times, for example, have their own political agenda as well.

                So yeah, let's point out all the problems with Fox as a news organization, but let's not go down that slippery slope.

                •  Which is why I said . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  that if pressed, I'd probably agree that Rosen is entitled to protection.  It's better to be overinclusive than underinclusive in this area.

                  Nevertheless, we shouldn't be kidding ourselves about the nature of Fox News or other right-wing media outlets.  They most certainly do have a political agenda, and that political agenda -- not the gathering and distribution of news and information -- is its primary mission, if not its exclusive one.  So if the objective of protecting journalists is to ensure that the public has access to truthful information about the operations of government, that interest is unlikely to be served in this particular case.

                  As far as the NYT and other organizations having a political agenda, one might certainly argue that they do.  I just don't think that agenda dictates whether the NYT reports or investigates certain things in the same fashion as Fox's agenda does.  The right-wing media and the left-wing media (assuming the NYT could count as the latter) are not equivalent in this regard.  Rachel Maddow has a definite political bent, but she reports actual, empirically verifiable facts.  The same cannot be said of Fox and other Murdoch properties.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  See, I would argue that the political agenda (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    of the New York Times is just as blatant as that of Fox, but with a couple of differences: 1. A different in politics (although I'd argue that the Times is not left-wing), and 2. A difference in veneer, in that the Times tries to create the appearance of neutrality, when it really isn't, and Fox doesn't even pretend to be neutral.  And while I agree with your assessment of the difference between the right-wing media and left-wing media, someone on the right who loves their Fox News is probably going to say just the opposite to us.

                    Which leads me back to my original comment.  Why even open that door about whether or not Rosen is actually a journalist, when someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from us could ask the same question about Rachel Maddow or Amy Goodman?  Sure we would say that Maddow and Goodman are real journalists, but it's likely that that person would say the same thing about Rosen.  So to me, it's better to just not go there, especially when the Rosen case isn't an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern.  

                    At any rate, I hope all is well.

                    •  Facts versus opinion (0+ / 0-)

                      That's the difference.  Sure, people on the right would argue that Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow aren't journalists.  And they'd be dead wrong.  Both Maddow and Goodman report facts.  Fox often does not.  I simply reject any comparison between reporters who are faithful to the facts and "journalists" who aren't.  Maddow actually runs corrections when she's wrong. Do you see that on Fox?

                      I agree the NYT isn't liberal and that it seeks to project neutrality, which is, of course, the be-all and end-all of today's journalism. The MSM are far more concerned with being seen as impartial than they are with being accurate.  But all viewpoints are not equally valid. Those that are grounded in verifiable fact are simply better than those that are not. The vice of the MSM is that they treat the Gospel truth and outright lies as equally deserving of attention and credence. Their desire for "balance" impedes the search for truth. It also gives the advantage to whoever is willing to tell the biggest lie.  Dick Cheney knew he'd never be called on his bullshit, so why not claim Iraq had WMD when he knew it didn't?  At most, the MSMwould report his claims with the caveat, "but some Democrats disagree."

                      So no matter what people on the right claim, only facts are facts.  A belief does not become a fact merely because it is widely held.  Real journalists dig for facts and report them as accurately as possible.  Propagandists put a factual veneer on their ideology and call it fact.  We may need to protect the propagandists so we can be sure we're protecting the journalists, but we should never confuse the two.

                      I'm well, thanks.  Hope you are too.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Gee, Fox News sure gets butthurt easily (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And their cheerleaders don't quite grasp the concept of the Goose and Gander Principle.* But welcome, conservative nincompoops, to the notion of a First Amendment. It's not just for Fox and it's not just for Times. Getting a little static for your prior "off with their heads" dimwittery is the least you deserve.

    So, are you ready to get rid of the unconstitutional AUMF and the hideously misnamed USA PATRIOT Act, and get back to a little freedom and liberty and quit being so pee-your-pants scared?

    *If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

  •  courtesy of MediaMatters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    On the June 28 [2006] broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Glenn Beck appeared to be comparing The New York Times' decision to disclose a Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions to condoning the genocide committed by the Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust. Stating that the Times is "fighting for the same thing that Al Qaeda wants," Beck added: "[C]an you imagine The New York Times coming out and saying, 'Hey, the ovens aren't so bad,' back in World War II? Can you imagine that? I don't know; sure, there are some Jews in there, but I bet they might make some good pizzas in there too."

    Beck also hosts CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, a weeknight program that debuted in May.

    From the June 28 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

    BECK: Everybody always thinks if you're in the press, you just -- you have to believe that the government is evil, don't you think? I think that's the first thing in Journalism 101 they teach you -- the government is evil and you must take them down at all costs. Or, how is it that they all have that attitude? That's what I'd like to know. That's, you know -- that's the number-one thing on the declaration of principles that I would like to see The New York Times print. Because, you know, we're always saying, "Aw, they don't understand us." Well, I don't understand them. I don't know who these people are.

    How can you be fighting for the same things that Al Qaeda wants, you know? Can you imagine -- can you imagine The New York Times coming out and saying "Hey, the ovens aren't so bad," back in World War II? Can you imagine that? I don't know; sure, there are some Jews in there, but I bet they might make some good pizzas in there too. What are you -- what? The New York Times is just -- I don't get it. I don't understand it. Except that I really truly believe that they [the NYT] believe that we're a bad nation, or at least our government is bad and has always been bad. "You know, we've been passing out those smallpox blankets to Indians."


    "our government is bad" - now Beck's fundamental schtick!  He must have taken Journalism 101!  Now Beck is "fighting for the same thing Al Qaeda wants!"

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:48:54 PM PDT

  •  meanwhile Rosen,It seems, in his dealings (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd, indie17, trumpeter

    with his source at the state dept. had the declared yet lofty goal to actually Impact U.S. Foreign Policy

    From the DOJ Docs

    Rosen to Kim:

    Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it – or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.
    Because Journamalism !
  •  Has everyone completely forgotten about (0+ / 0-)

    what Rupert Murdock's media has been found guilty of doing in the UK?  

    The Press must be free to investigate and report the news.  I agree completely.

    But that freedom is earned by being fair, honest and as accurate as possible.

    The Press keeps an eye on our Government.

    Who's keeping an eye on the Press?

  •  Excellent work! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This exposes the sort of hypocrisy that would make great material for Jon Stewart and/or Rachel Maddow.

    Meanwhile, I have pushing the "Rosen deserves to be investigated" angle.

    Please check out my new eBook Fox Nation vs. Reality
    The Fox News Community's Assault On Truth

    by News Corpse on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:13:48 PM PDT

  •  He did it to Assange, and the right cheered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They even called for his assassination!

    Now he does it to the AP, and it's a horrible scandal.  But if you thought Obama respected freedom of the press, you haven't been paying attention to the war on whistleblowers and the financial blockade of wikileaks. Maybe if the AP had stood up for freedom of the press when Assange faced an international manhunt, they'd have stopped this before it happened to them.

  •  Hypocracy at Fox? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Theodore J Pickle, trumpeter

    It's not a bug, it's a feature.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:28:36 AM PDT

  •  Man, every time I read about Fox. (0+ / 0-)

    Fox makes me sad, it really does. It's an alternate reality that they live in where everyone's wrong and they're right. Jon Stewart once referred to it as "Bullsh*t Mountain"

    Anyone who disagrees with Fox's views is a fascist(even though we like minorities), communist(polar opposite), marxist(same as communist), socialist(sometimes true), muslim/jewish(just say heathen, it sounds cooler), anti-americans(from the people who want armed rebellion).

    Please leave the normal people alone, at least we fact check.

  •  Now that there's support for a shield law on both (0+ / 0-)

    sides of the aisle, are they going to be able to write one that shields AP and Fox, and maybe the New York Times, but doesn't shield WikiLeaks and Julian Assange?  Will the effort make their heads explode?  It'll take a lot of mental contortions to avoid learning the obvious lesson from the conundrum.

    And if they manage to write a selective shield law, will Daily Kos fall into the shielded category, or will we be SOL?  And will there be enough Scalia/Thomas clones on the Supreme Court to bend the Constitution into allowing such a pick-and-choose law to stand?

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 06:26:18 AM PDT

  •  Is James Rosen (0+ / 0-)

    a co-conspirator?

    Is he a journalist?

    Is anyone familiar enough with his stuff to say?  I am not, as I avoid Faux Noise studiously, but would be willing to bet he's more the first than the second, just from guilt by voluntary association.

    He might be a reporter, but journalism seems to be a dead art at Faux.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:09:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site