We 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, 2014Mr. 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.comBeth Parke
Executive Director
Society of Environmental Journalists
bparke@sej.orgKathryn Foxhall
Member
Society of Professional Journalists
kfoxhall@verizon.netHolly Spangler
President
American Agricultural Editors’ AssociationGil Gullickson
Board Chair
American Agricultural Editors’ Association Professional Improvement FoundationAlexandra Cantor Owens
Executive Director
American Society of Journalists and AuthorsJanet Svazas
Executive Director
American Society of Business Publication EditorsDavid Boardman
President
American Society of News EditorsHoda Osman
President
Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists AssociationKathy Chow
Executive Director
Asian American Journalists AssociationDiana Mitsu Klos
Executive Director
Associated Collegiate PressPaula Poindexter
President
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass CommunicationMiriam Pepper
President
Association of Opinion JournalistsLisa Graves
Executive Director
Center for Media and DemocracyRachele Kanigel
President
College Media AssociationGay Porter DeNileon
President
Colorado Press WomenSue Udry
Executive Director
Defending Dissent FoundationMark Newton
President
Journalism Education AssociationMark Horvit
Executive Director
Investigative Reporters and EditorsJ.H. Snider
President
iSolon.orgPhyllis J. Griekspoor
President
North American Agricultural JournalistsCarol Pierce
Executive Director
National Federation of Press WomenRobert M. Williams Jr.
President
National Newspaper AssociationBob Meyers
President
National Press FoundationCharles Deale
Executive Director
National Press Photographers AssociationDiana Mitsu Klos
Executive Director
National Scholastic Press AssociationMary Hudetz
President
Native American Journalists AssociationJane McDonnell
Executive Director
Online News AssociationPatrice McDermott
Executive Director
OpenTheGovernment.orgTim Franklin
President
The Poynter InstituteDanielle Brian
Executive Director
Project on Government OversightJeff Ruch
Executive Director
Public Employees for Environmental ResponsibilityGeorge Bodarky
President
Public Radio News Directors IncorporatedMike Cavender
Executive Director
Radio Television Digital News AssociationHerb Jackson
President
Regional Reporters AssociationChristophe Deloire
Secretary General
Reporters without BordersFrank LoMonte
Executive Director
Student Press Law CenterRoy S. Gutterman
Director
Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse UniversityDavid Steinberg
President
UNITY Journalists for Diversity
Perfect.
Climate change, like the universe, has existed since the Big Bang.
Climate change will exist until the Tiny Contraction.
When the next asteroid hits, you won’t have to worry about the cosmos anymore. You’ll be busy prosecuting the asteroid for murder and declaring how immoral and inhumane it was. Might be some issues on venue and jurisdiction. Then the government can pass a tax on all asteroids because they are the evil rich who do nothing but tour around the universe all day.
A campfire is pollution.
Local pollution is overpopulation and overpopulation is local pollution.
Just ask China.
When people get serious about pollution, they’ll reduce the population.
They’ll probably run out of food first, however.
Dredd,
Its within the quotes of your linked item(that i took the time to read in its entirety)
Darren Smith
Dredd, I restored your comment at 12:35.
==========================
You are a gentleman and a scholar. (But I won’t tell anyone.) ;(
Darren – you are a connoisseur of fine wines, too. 🙂 And there are damn few of us left.
Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
“…The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – John Swinton, Chief Editorial Writer, New York Times
With the concentration of ownership of mainstream media outlets by a hand-full of corporations – all of which are large donors to political agents – all with lobbyists and agendas of their own, you can assume that the news is manipulated to manage politicians and laws rather than inform the public as a primary agenda. Where the truth conflicts with a financial, PR, or political agenda, the story will be sanitized or buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
The Sauce,
IRRELEVANT. We’re comparing the target to the law, not history.
You’re about to be held in contempt.
By the way, can you explain why you have your own blog but persist on this one? One jumps to the conclusion of failure or success.
John – in saucy’s defense, there are several people on here who have their own blogs. Dredd links to his blog all the time.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – would you like to list 10 fair and balanced journalists? Please do not include opinion writers.
=======================
There aren’t that many according to some allegations.
But I feel obligated to give you one:
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!!
=======================
Laughing at your skin deep sense of history (Blind Willie McTell News) and filing it in the folder for a future post on Agnotology.
Bob, can you say attention span? Why don’t you take your ball and go home?
Oops!
*******************************************************************************************
Mes,
“democracy”
“Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Thanks, Ben.
Lest we forget, the Founders established a republic through restricted vote, not one man, one vote democracy.
The restricted vote was SO rational, the Founders thought, of course, everyone understands that citizens must meet criteria to do something as important as voting for the government. That’s why the Preamble is there, to set parameters within which the Constitution provides for extremely limited government.
No more tyranny and oppression. The Founders said, “We won’t be fooled again!” “We don’t need no stinkin’ monarchs!”
Obviously, given the complete failure of the SCOTUS, we couldn’t keep the republic.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
As JT has discussed on numerous occasions; although he may agree with this current President on policy, he does not support destroying our institution of government in the process. For anyone capable of seeing passed this administration, the means matter far more than the ends.
Freedom of the press and transparency in government are important to the security of rights for all citizens. What cannot be lost in that effort is the necessity of the citizens to recognize truth or fiction when it’s reported. If the latter is not important then the former becomes irrelevant.
Oliver – for the life of me I cannot figure out what policy of Obama’s that JT can agree with. The man is all over the board. Even polices he espouses, he violates. President speaks with forked tongue.
LaserDLiquidator
Dredd;
I take issue with the “pro-America propaganda” remarks.
Being “pro-military” is not (and has never been) “pro-American”
==========================
The phrase “pro-America propaganda” does not appear anywhere else on this thread other than in your comment.
I will have to assume, then, that you know what you are talking about.
I don’t.
Here, the administration and I part philosophical ways. The right to speak–unfettered — to government officials is a fundamental characteristic of a democracy. Requiring government employees in non-classified jobs to get permission to speak to the press strikes me as fundamentally wrong on many levels not the least of which is the First Amendment. This is an issue jeopardizing the public’s right to know and should be addressed now.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – lighten up for goodness sake. The Vortex of Doom does not censor. It is just stupid.
=================
I can’t tell the difference.
There is a diff One of Three? 😉
Dredd – at least I have shot at 7 of 9.
Had this “coalition of journalists” remained impartial and done their JOB…
Matter of fact, let’s fix this problem by picking up right where they left off.
For a story so important, two posters managed to turn this into one of the most pathetic threads ever.
John wrote “Politically driven factual alternation of the narrative in a campaign after Benghazi.”
Yeah, that’s *so* much worse than Bush trying to prevent the 9/11 Commission from doing its job.
slohrss29 wrote “W is still worse in every way as far as I am concerned. He started the snowball”
Actually he pushed multiple snowballs down our hill.
He invaded a foreign country on false pretenses. It does not matter whether the intelligence was flawed and that Tony Blair agreed. Bush was the one on watch and deserves the blame. A better president than him declared that “the buck stops here.”
He created the Wall Street bailouts which ended up transferring hundreds of billions of dollars of assets from the middle class to Wall Street.
He pushed for the Patriot Act which was the parent of Obama’s NSA spying.
And Obama is criminally incompetent for continuing all of the above.
I’ll go along with Annie. W is still worse in every way as far as I am concerned. He started the snowball. BUT, that does not a pass for Obama, he absolutely has to be accountable. The finger-pointing “he did it first!” is a defense to be left in elementary school. But, I have always been interested in the quick replies with citations. Hmmmmm.
Annie, Aside from thinking Bush is worse than Obama, do you have any thoughts on what is happening with Obama, right now, in his suppression of free speech? Does it concern you in any way? Do you feel it is acceptable?
Politically driven suppression of campaign opponents by the IRS.
Politically driven factual alternation of the narrative in a campaign after Benghazi.
Mr. Olive,
Constitutionality???
Does that equate to Manifestonality because America has an economy controlled by the government and complete redistribution of wealth?
Government regulation (i.e., control, can you say obamacare?) welfare, food stamps, utitility subsidies, public school/college, affirmative action, quotas, rent control, HUD, HHS, Labor, Education, Medicare, Social Security, union dictatorship of the proletariat, social services, etc., etc.
The Founders has all this redistribution in the CHARITY industry.
And you saying things aren’t unconstitutional. Can you name one of aforementioned that existed when the Constitution was written or did the Founders really, really, really mean freedom of the citizens, self-reliance and government limited to Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence and the PROMOTION of general welfare while endeavors, business and industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector were secured to us and our posterity?
Let’s start at the idea of a president being the son of a foreign citizen as the Founders are quoted infinitely expressing the imperative that candidates for the office be definitively precluded from “foreign allegiances” when the legal reference of the era, The Law of Nations, which was “pounced upon” by them according to Ben Franklin, requires that “parents” be citizens and goes on to require that the father be a citizen as inheritance and ownership was passed from the father, not the mother.
Americans have the right to private property (real and moveable) and the government takes money from one man to give it to another by force.
“…not every action of the government, Democrats or Republicans is unconstitutional…”
Seriously?