I recently wrote a column on the wholesale attack on press freedoms under President Obama that parallel his attack on other civil liberties and privacy principles (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). I testified on the erosion of press freedom under President George W. Bush but the assault on the free press has worsened under President Obama while Democratic members and supporters remain conspicuously silent. Reporters have not been so silent or reticent and have repeatedly tried to educate citizens of the danger to press freedoms under this President. Now one of the most respected journalists in the country, New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Jim Risen, has declared that the Obama Administration is the greatest threat to a free press in a generation.
Risen spoke at the Sources and Secrets conference in New York City and told the crowd that the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” Risen said that the Administration has actively sought to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting” while threatening to punish those who do not yield.
Risen is not just some disgruntled reporter. He won the Pulitzer prize for National Reporting in 2006 for his stories about the Bush warrantless wiretapping program. He was also a group recipient of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for coverage of 9/11 and terrorism. He is considered the gold standard for investigative reporting. In my recent column on the loss of press freedom, I referred to this time as “one of the most inspiring periods for journalism.” I was thinking of Risen and a couple of other courageous reporters who have revealed abuses under this and the prior administration ranging from torture to surveillance to secret prisons.
Previously, the New York Times editors lambasted Obama for his attack on the free press. New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson has added her voice:
This is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.
I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.
Despite efforts from many of us to warn of the lasting damage being done to such freedoms by this President, the White House has been successful in blocking any real reforms or criticism in the Democratic ranks. It has an army of enablers and apologists who quickly redirect discussions to how much worse the Republicans would be. While some Democrats and liberals are beginning to say that they do not support such policies, they still rally to the President as soon as the subject changes from civil liberties. Most Democrats and liberals refuse to join civil libertarians in opposing this President. It is bread-and-circus politics at its worst. We are trading away civil liberties for a cult of personality, but that personality will eventually be gone . . . with many of these protections that died without a whimper of regret.
All that we can do is continue to warn about the rapid loss of civil liberties and protections under Obama. Risen is the latest and one of the most meaningful voices in that rising chorus. It is likely to cause just another pause before the White House changes the subject to the relief of its supporters. However, those pauses are increasing in number and perhaps there will be enough to give members sufficient courage to fulfill their oaths and fight to protect the Constitution against a clear and growing danger.
Jill, Hollywood is first about money, then politics. There are reasons they’re so left wing and McCarthy’s assault on them is up there on the list. What they are slow to realize is their hero is worst than Nixon, a supporter of McCarthy.
nick S, What Hollywood people are on you leftist list?
Jill and Samantha, You just got the “code words” that you’re racist, or that some of us are racist, when SWM talked about people thinking the occupation by the “Obama family” of the WH is unacceptable. They’re going scorched earth.
Nick,
I don’t think they are left wing, really. They self identify that way, and you’re correct that as a society, we would have considered them that, and really, in today’s terms, I guess we would call them left wing, but not by policy choices.
It is hard to know what to say about people who self identify as left wingers but support right wing, totalitarian governments. At naked capitalism, they are called Vichy Liberals! I like that one!
Jill, Fair enough. 🙂
S.M. I did give Bush equal treatment (you can look that up) so you should definitely say the same to me as you just did about Obama.
Please do not hesitate to state that my objections to the destruction of the rule of law were all about not wanting to have the Bush family in the WH. What other reason could there be except that? Jeesh!!!
“I don’t think Hollywood is left wing???? Follow the money, honey!
The Obama sycophants know the damn has burst when the NYT attacks his blatantly unconstitutional acts. Hold on tightly, it’s going to be a rough couple years!!
Jill, I was not on the blog when Bush was president and you may very well have given them equal treatment.
S.M.
My positions have been consistent. I objected to Cheney and Bush over the same actions as I have objected to Obama. When I criticized (and still criticize) Cheney and Bush, why didn’t you say of me that: “{I} seem to find even the idea of the {Bush} family occupying the whitehouse unbearable.”
Should you not say that to me right now? I hope so, because otherwise, what you are doing is saying that one may freely object to a Republican who destroys the rule of law, but if one objects to a Democrat, then one is making an invalid argument.
So, please tell me how I was wrong to criticize Bush and how I found his family occupying the WH unbearable. Otherwise, I am going to say this is hypocritical.
I don’t think Hollywood is left wing. Right wing christian theocrats do.
samantha, I feel Obama is a right wing christian theocrat. That is, in part, because he presides over an army which has openly stated they are on a crusade to christianize Muslim lands.
I don’t agree with you or S.M. that Hollywood is left wing. Most of the powerful people there support Obama in his wars, spying and economic policies. That would make them politically right wing authoritarians even though it is correct to say they would self identify as leftists.
It’s a strange time so difficult to give names to things. People do self identify as one thing while holding beliefs and upholding policies that are actually what would have been called far right in the past.
If there were a healthy a two-party system it would create healthy competition:
Where are the Republican leaders demanding press freedoms, ending warrantless spying or closing Guantanamo?
If the Republicans upheld their oath of office, Obama would follow suit! That’s the game being played here.
samantha, Like nativity scenes at the county buildings and prayer in school?
I will agree that there have been some but we probably won’t agree on the exact number or details. There are some posters here such as ap that consistently post relevant critical articles of Obama and then there are others such as yourself that seem to find even the idea of the Obama family occupying the whitehouse unbearable.
swart, who is a right wing christian theocrat? If you suggest that I am one, you’re making another big leap. I only defend freedom of religious expression, unlike you, but in the same way that you defend free speech. Your templated thought really shows a lot.
Sorry, I mean, 10:36
S.M. You are not answering my question. I will answer yours and I hope you will answer mine. If you look above at 10:56, you will see I clearly came out against censorship of Hollywood. I wrote that before you wrote anything.
I asked you point blank if you objected to the abridgment of free speech by the Obama administration. Are you able to answer that question in an open, honest manner?
Samantha, I know the code words.
swart, I was already thinking of your predictable response, qualifying my comment with “yelling fire.” How do you make such a leap, unless you just want to antagonize? You can probably come up with more examples then I can, out of Hollywood, that are worse than yelling fire.