Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

Coalition of Journalism Groups Denounce Obama Administration for “Politically-Driven Suppression of the News”

100px-Society_of_Professional_Journalists_logoPresident_Barack_ObamaWe have previously discussed the attacks by the Obama Administration on civil liberties and privacy. Obama has also been accused of attacks on press freedoms — resulting in a sharp decline in the standing of the United States on press rights. Now 38 journalism groups have denounced the Obama Administration for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”

The letter to President Obama is led by the widely respected Society of Professional Journalists. The media has previously denounced the Nixonian surveillance on individual journalists ordered by this Administration. The letter singles out Obama’s breaking of his campaign pledge to have the most transparent Administration in history. Instead, the Obama Administration has equalled or even surpassed the Bush Administration in secrecy and hostility to public or press access to information. While cutting of access of the media, however, these media organization accuse the Obama Administration of giving wide access to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”

Once again, the White House has a virtually army of commenters and blog surfers who continually deflect such criticism by referring to how much worse the Republicans are or simply changing the subject. However, the mounting attacks on civil liberties by this Administration has gutted the foundational principles of the Democratic party and virtually destroyed the American civil liberties movement. What is left the power of personality over principle. However, this will not our last president. When he leaves, he will leave little in his wake beyond hypocrisy for those who have remained silent in the face of the abuses. It is the victory of the “blue state/red state” construct that maintain the duopoly of the two parties. Each party excuses its failures by referring to the other as the worst of two evils. For years, Democrats and liberals have supported Obama as he has attacked the defining values that were once the Democratic party. The fact that this letter is even necessary is a shocking statement on the state of American press freedom.

The letter is below:

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C
July 8, 2014

Mr. President,

You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government. You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in.

Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees. This trend has been especially pronounced in the federal government. We consider these restrictions a form of censorship — an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear.

The stifling of free expression is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring “a new era of openness” to federal government – and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about.

Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis.

In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.

Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a “press vs. government” issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions.

It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others — lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money — without these controls and without public oversight.

Here are some recent examples:

• The New York Times ran a story last December on the soon-to-be implemented ICD-10 medical coding system, a massive change for the health care system that will affect the whole public. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), one of the federal agencies in charge of ICD-10, wouldn’t allow staff to talk to the reporter.

• A reporter with Investigative Post, an online news organization in New York, asked three times without success over the span of six weeks to have someone at EPA answer questions about the agency’s actions regarding the city of Buffalo’s alleged mishandling of “universal waste” and hazardous waste.

• A journalist with Reuters spent more than a month trying to get EPA’s public affairs office to approve him talking with an agency scientist about the effects of climate change. The public affairs officer did not respond to him after his initial request, nor did her supervisor, until the frustrated journalist went over their heads and contacted EPA’s chief of staff.

The undersigned organizations ask that you seek an end to this restraint on communication in federal agencies. We ask that you issue a clear directive telling federal employees they’re not only free to answer questions from reporters and the public, but actually encouraged to do so. We believe that is one of the most important things you can do for the nation now, before the policies become even more entrenched.

We also ask you provide an avenue through which any incidents of this suppression of communication may be reported and corrected. Create an ombudsman to monitor and enforce your stated goal of restoring transparency to government and giving the public the unvarnished truth about its workings. That will go a long way toward dispelling Americans’ frustration and cynicism before it further poisons our democracy.

Further examples on the issue are provided as well as other resources.

Sincerely,

David Cuillier
President
Society of Professional Journalists
spjdave@yahoo.com

Beth Parke
Executive Director
Society of Environmental Journalists
bparke@sej.org

Kathryn Foxhall
Member
Society of Professional Journalists
kfoxhall@verizon.net

Holly Spangler
President
American Agricultural Editors’ Association

Gil Gullickson
Board Chair
American Agricultural Editors’ Association Professional Improvement Foundation

Alexandra Cantor Owens
Executive Director
American Society of Journalists and Authors

Janet Svazas
Executive Director
American Society of Business Publication Editors

David Boardman
President
American Society of News Editors

Hoda Osman
President
Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association

Kathy Chow
Executive Director
Asian American Journalists Association

Diana Mitsu Klos
Executive Director
Associated Collegiate Press

Paula Poindexter
President
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

Miriam Pepper
President
Association of Opinion Journalists

Lisa Graves
Executive Director
Center for Media and Democracy

Rachele Kanigel
President
College Media Association

Gay Porter DeNileon
President
Colorado Press Women

Sue Udry
Executive Director
Defending Dissent Foundation

Mark Newton
President
Journalism Education Association

Mark Horvit
Executive Director
Investigative Reporters and Editors

J.H. Snider
President
iSolon.org

Phyllis J. Griekspoor
President
North American Agricultural Journalists

Carol Pierce
Executive Director
National Federation of Press Women

Robert M. Williams Jr.
President
National Newspaper Association

Bob Meyers
President
National Press Foundation

Charles Deale
Executive Director
National Press Photographers Association

Diana Mitsu Klos
Executive Director
National Scholastic Press Association

Mary Hudetz
President
Native American Journalists Association

Jane McDonnell
Executive Director
Online News Association

Patrice McDermott
Executive Director
OpenTheGovernment.org

Tim Franklin
President
The Poynter Institute

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project on Government Oversight

Jeff Ruch
Executive Director
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

George Bodarky
President
Public Radio News Directors Incorporated

Mike Cavender
Executive Director
Radio Television Digital News Association

Herb Jackson
President
Regional Reporters Association

Christophe Deloire
Secretary General
Reporters without Borders

Frank LoMonte
Executive Director
Student Press Law Center

Roy S. Gutterman
Director
Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University

David Steinberg
President
UNITY Journalists for Diversity

229 thoughts on “Coalition of Journalism Groups Denounce Obama Administration for “Politically-Driven Suppression of the News””

  1. Rove has one company that Andrew Kreig pointed out – pays professional hackers/attackers – $250 an hour – to obliterate truth telling.

    UpWorthy has a successful formula in not allowing comments;
    and WSJ has become so biased – it averages less than 10 per item.

    Its a sad state of affairs – that we can’t get anyone to do the truth – unvarnished!

    BUT – Robert Redford just signed on to be directed by Vanderbilt;
    about the Dan Rather/GWB debacle.

  2. Jill;

    You make my point for me; while trying to assuage all from seeing “the points”!

    One would be extremely hard pressed (at least I hope so) to find a better post-child case for WSJ white collar fraud, being “too big to jail”, of issues of federal venality and corruption of the integrity of the judicial process – with anywhere as near “Public, federal, archived Smoking Gun, Proofs”

    and yet – no msm (or any law proof who sees it all clearly);
    will dare tell the tale.

    What does it matter if we are been fed bull crap;
    when no one really cares to see the nastiness of the surreal!

  4. Paul

    That’s improper.

    You are right – she is left – there’s no hiding such;
    and it doesn’t mean either person is bad “because”!

  5. That’s one of my points Annie.

    The banter (professional diffusive’s) make the fact that I’m pointing out that the media (including the owner of this realm) suppresses what they wish.

    I concur that Obama’s administration is not perfect;
    but at least he did not make up reasons to go to war.

    Or torture – or give Haliburton and Blackwater profits beyond compare.

    ————————–
    Yet, Obama’s Eric Holder isn’t much better (and way more hypocritical with his “No one is too big to jail” rhetoric).

    Suppression of the news is defined as any one and/or entity refusing to tell a newsworthy story. Such as Romney’s family owning voting machines during his election!
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investment-ties-to-voting-machine-company-that-could-decide-the-election-causes-concern/

    —————————

    MItt practically bragged that “we kind of had to steal the GOP nomination”

    Do you really think they’ll blow it this time around?

    1. Laser – there is nothing improper pointing out the obvious. I have been accused several times of being a paid shill for the Koch Bros. We know from Snowden that the Obama administration has paid shills working on blogs to push their agenda.

  7. No one has to pay me to bring up the fact Bush was worse in every way.

    1. Annie – I have always had my suspicions about you. 😉 However, I am not surprised about your Bush comment.

      1. Yes John, really. “not everything is” also means “not everything isn’t”. Much of what qualifies these days as debate doesn’t pass the most basic requirement to prove anything. Many who post here would argue against water being wet if it was claimed to be so by someone from the “other side” of the political spectrum. This particular thread is about suppression of the news and I question the importance of that when truth to the average reader seems to depend more on who’s reporting it than what is being reported. Once facts become relative then all that matters is the personality reporting it.

  8. Bob, One way this occurred was through manipulation. Still, there is a connection between Bush and Obama as there will be with the next president.

    If the serious nature of suppression of information is not addressed by all citizens, the situation will keep getting worse. It is very bad right now. I worry because we don’t come close to understanding the level of misinformation, lies and suppression which this administration uses to maintain its power (really the power of a small group of elites).

    Our discourse is stunted into the red/blue state ideology. This works to enhance our ignorance (as JT wrote about). We definitely need to break free of govt. imposed ignorance and thought management. We are having difficulty seeing what is really occurring. We need to break free and try to see this. It is my hope that anyone who is able will start to put together the money and connection trail. That would make things clearer for us all.

  9. When I read these blogs it’s apparent those making comments fall predominantly into one of four categories:
    1. Supportive of government regardless of party
    2. Supportive of the Democratic party only
    3. Supportive of the Republican party only
    4. Supportive of the citizens regardless of party

    Regardless of whether anyone is willing to admit it; not every action of the government, Democrats or Republicans is unconstitutional or an infringement of unalienable rights. That being said, the lost entity in nearly every thread is the fourth group.

    Professor Turley provides a great example of how each of us should seek to defend the institution of government ONLY as it supports and defends the constitution and ALWAYS as it secures the unalienable rights of its citizens. It is incumbent on each of us interested in defending our favorite party, politician, policy or ideology to never take our eye off of the original purpose for government:

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    For those that disagree with this purpose or focus, it will be business as usual.

    1. Dredd – lighten up for goodness sake. The Vortex of Doom does not censor. It is just stupid.

  12. Media elite like these folk, who wrote the letter, have always been stooges for the military, the CIA, and the FBI:

    Later that year [1948] Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): “By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles.”

    In 1951 Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird’s “principal operative”.

    One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), C. D. Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), Walter Winchell (New York Daily Mirror), Drew Pearson, Walter Lippmann, William Allen White, Edgar Ansel Mowrer (Chicago Daily News), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Whitelaw Reid (New York Herald Tribune), Jerry O’Leary (Washington Star), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles L. Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman) these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

    (Mocking America). They are these days more than ever.

  14. Steve H. – “Laughing my butt off watching Dredd and LaserD illustrate a key point in Mr Turley’s article:

    “Once again, the White House has a virtually army of commenters and blog surfers who continually deflect such criticism by referring to how much worse the Republicans are or simply changing the subject.”

    Classic! Exactly as scripted by the White House!

    All hail Emperor Obama!!”

    Steve, you beat me to it. When I read that part of Mr. Turleys’s article, I wondered how many posts it would take to see President Bush’s name mentioned.

  15. How did we leave questioning this administration’s lack of openness towards the press and go back to previous administrations behavior with regards to the media. I admit that I am hardly a liberal lefty, but Professor Turley is spot on. Keep up the good work Prof. T..Bobby D.

  16. Steve, I agree. I think this is exactly the point. It is true that the administration pays people to make posts on social media. It also has AI and multiple “personalities” controlled by the military for purposes of shifting the discussion in the direction which pleases the govt. AI isn’t quite perfected yet, but it’s darn good!

    Paul, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about what we are experiencing on this blog right now.

  17. Jill and the (quaint) poster as “Steven H” are the one’s diffusive.

    I’m pointing out that all the President’s nix the press to their own agendas.

    My problem is the USA who shut down the public corruption task force was GWB’s flying buddy Tom O’Brien (not even an attorney) and this was followed up (speciously) by Obama getting the “Deal”aware protecting Joe Biden as VP

    No msm media (and even this blog that hypocritically attacks suppression) will dare tell the tale that is begging to be told.

    When I go to D.C. in a few weeks and sue Eric Holder for his Section 1331 violation of saying “No one is too big to jail” – I expect the bullseye upon my back will glow in the dark.

    Then – who will tell the tale?

    Certainly not this realm or anyone here upon!

  18. How is telling the facts – “information suppression”?

    Everything there is public docket record;
    we’re even blessed with confessions to intentional fraud on the court.
    (again – see Disgorge Motion link parts 18, 19 & 35 in Fact 7 above)

    The Asst US Trustee who wrote the disgorge motion then resigned when his underling (Mark Kenney) put in a Stipulation to Settle the Disgorge Motion that openly breaches his fiduciary duty (under “color of law”) and betrays his public oath as his promises Traub’s TBF that;

    “WHEREAS, the United States Trustee shall not seek to compel TBF to make additional disclosures”

    http://petters-fraud.com/US_Trustee_Motion_Feb24_2005_2giveTBF_immunity.pdf

    (btw – this obvious effort to cover up more serious crimes is what led me to the discovery that MNAT {while being eToys Debtors counsel} was openly representing Bain in the Kay Bee case. When I reported that crime, DOJ EOUST Director Friedman then put in his resignation)

  19. Jill: I agree with you that LDL (and a couple others) degrade this blog with off-topic rants. But isn’t that the objective? Mr Turley has been critical of Emperor Obama and his courtesans, and so, Mr Turley’s voice must be silenced, if only by raising the noise level.

  20. Paul, Laser is doing information suppression. This tactic is explored in part, in Greenwald’s book referenced above. It’s truly fascinating to see how controlled the govt. would like us to be. Govt. AI and propagandists are ready, set go on using the tools of distraction, lies, obfuscation etc. We are experiencing what JT wrote about, right at this moment.

    1. Jill – if you have been following the thread of Laser’s posts, he is also talking about control of the press and courts by any administration. I really do not think Laser is a government stooge. However, I have been accused of being a paid anti-Obama stooge. Sadly, it does not seem to pay well.

Comments are closed.