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
How very like you Paul C. typing from a position of ignorance.
Please point out the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia link provided in my comment from 5:39PM.
John wrote “Lest we forget, the Founders established a republic through restricted vote, not one man, one vote democracy.”
John wants to return to the good old days when white men could own non-white men and woman, white men could rape their female slaves at will, and only white men with at least 50 acres of land could vote.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – Obama is the President of the United States, but he is not my President. I voted for Mickey Mouse both times.
=================
Mickey would have to face Dopey who runs the joint, just like the rest of them have and will.
Dopey is the ruling dealer.
saucy – blacks owned slaves as well as Indians and whites. The population that actually owned slaves in the South was relatively small because a major plantation required hundreds of slaves.
Wyoming gave women the right to vote while they were a territory but when they became a state the women lost the right to vote.
Lets not forget that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 an amendment found in section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 allows the US government to disseminate propaganda domestically.
An unnamed Pentagon official who was concerned about the 2012 law version stated: “It removes the protection for Americans. It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”[44] The montly magazine The Atlantic echoed those concerns by pointing out to two USA Today journalists who became target of a smear and propaganda campaign after they reported that the U.S. military “information operations” program spent millions of U.S. dollars in marketing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq criticied as ineffective and poorly monitored.[38][47] As it turned out one of firm leaders who executed the marketing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan admitted to be a part of the smear and propaganda campaign against the USA Today reporters.[48]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013
Please, please, please. I beg of all of you, do not use Wikipedia for anything important.
John wrote “The Sauce,”
Saucy Mugwump is a nom de guerre. Making fun of it does not hurt me.
“IRRELEVANT. We’re comparing the target to the law, not history.”
Four people were killed in the Benghazi attack, while the 9/11 attacks killed almost 3000. It must be difficult for you to go through life being incompetent with basic math. And neither have anything to do with law, just being unprepared for attacks, covering up afterward, and two-party politics.
“By the way, can you explain why you have your own blog but persist on this one?”
I write long blog articles which require research and inspiration. Google refused to allow me to place Google Ads on it due to the politically incorrect nature of it, so I write what I want, when I want. I write short comments here because it is amusing to tweak hillbillies.
“One jumps to the conclusion of failure or success.”
One hopes you jump from a tall building.
Max, if the world keeps progressing then how would you know if you weren’t progressing along with it anyway? What does progress look like? How did your 85 y/o grandfather manage to live this long life without the sage advice from his grandchild?
John Oliver – Max-1’s father may just be nodding appropriately to keep the peace. 😉
“Yep the founders restricted it to white, wealthy, landowners.”
Mespo, what is your source for this?
John Oliver – I cannot speak for every state, but most had poll taxes that had to be paid and many had a property requirement that had to be meet to vote. It was within my lifetime that renters were allowed to vote on bond issues (which affect property taxes).
mespo,
I had to explain to my 85 y/o father that the world keeps progressing and we have to keep progressing along with it…
… Such is life.
Progress is not always good and we do not always have to keep up with it. It is called freedom of choice.
John:
“Lest we forget, the Founders established a republic through restricted vote, not one man, one vote democracy.
****************************
Yep the founders restricted it to white, wealthy, landowners. Yearning for the “good ol’ days” there, John?”
Things change.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – at least I have shot at 7 of 9.
======================
Or she has a shot at you.
“Lower your shields … you will be assimilated … resistance is futile.”
Dredd – if 7 of 9 wanted me to drop my shields, I would willing. 😀
Paul C. Schulte
…
President speaks with forked tongue.
=======================
That is why they call it doublespeak all these many decades.
The only Native Americans (the rest of us are all immigrants) put it like this: “Forked man speak with white tongue.”
Paul C. Schulte
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.
====================
American policy is “we own the world by God and if you don’t think so we will bomb you into the stone age (unless you have nukes, and we are working on that)“.
How would you want your president to go about changing that?
Dredd – Obama is the President of the United States, but he is not my President. I voted for Mickey Mouse both times.
Paul C. Schulte
John – in saucy’s defense, there are several people on here who have their own blogs. Dredd links to his blog all the time.
=====================
Yes.
It takes up less space on JT’s blog plus you can scroll by my link of only one line easily, instead of having to scroll by 500 lines if I were to presume to put my pages on JT’s posts.
You know, textual courtesy.
Some folks do not grasp that.
Darren Smith
It does become tiresome to hear the willingness by many to simply change the subject when news of the administration and President Obama’s misdeeds are published and take away from serious debate on the issue.
Then there is the second one of “Bush was worse” and again nothing substantial in the criticism of President Obama’s problematic actions and even what many argue as lies or abuses of office. There is always someone “worse” in any situation. But here we see that in effect those arguments inevitably lead to giving President free reign with only token criticism at best, enabling more such indiscretions by this Administration.
Someone needs to put an end to these malfeasances by presidents and stop providing cover by political allies.
And due in large part to the political back and forth between factions not forcing politicians to be held accountable through the ballot box and other means such as the media and speaking out, the status quo of not ending corruption and malfeasances of office will continue indefinitely.
The current members of Congress and the Administration generally will not arrive at self policing their actions to place these malfeasances in the past and hold members accountable. We have allowed 536 individuals the ability to do as they please regardless of what the citizenry wants. It is obvious through the federal politicians’ constant fighting that it is going to be up to the people to reign them in and demand that they adhere to their oaths of office. But as long as what I have described in the first two paragraphs in this comment is allowed to continue by bickering, mudslinging, and deference by the voters, we are not going to see any reforms of our federal government any time soon.
We should be concentrating on the present for a better future, not preserving the status quo by placing the blame on the past.
========================
Unless the blame really does lie in the past.
Nevertheless, you make a succinct summation for a nation that has a responsive government before a slow but sure coup turns that once-governing dynamic into a puppet front.
And that is the thrust of my criticism of those who blame a single president for the coup that took place long before they were selected by TPTB to run for president.
We are clueless if we think our votes for government officials are the critical mass of our national experience and direction.
That has not been true for a long time.
What we have now is an illusion, a pre-planned duopoly in the form of a Shakespearean play designed to divide and conquer us as it supplies the bread and circuses.
Just as it did in previous societies that Toynbee observed:
– A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee
The argument that “Obama, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, and eventually the next two presidents did it” is not part of a substantive debate.
Rather, it is bread & circus entertainment in a petty back-biting free-for-all engendered by those who Bernays identified well.
Nothing in our national debates is substantive, except for rare occasions, when the real national structure is being analyzed.
The loss of the common good is what should be mourned, rather than the weakness in or of a faux debate.
John Oliver, This is so well said: “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.”
On a related note, this information from Greenwald also interested me. He has released the names of 5 people whose only crime is being Muslim, whom the govt. spied on 2002-2008. Interestingly, during a Republican presidency, one of the people spied on was a Republican presidential candidate. Nothings says deep state and the irrelevance of worrying about party politics than that.
The numbers of people being currently surveillance are staggering. I see this as yet another way in which people are silenced. Reporters have said their sources are afraid to speak up. Ordinary citizens can be silenced as well.
LaserDLiquidator
Dredd,
Its within the quotes of your linked item(that i took the time to read in its entirety)
===============
I have several and would appreciate a zoom into the text and the link if you care to have a reply.
If not, well at least you read stuff before replying.
Which is good.
It does become tiresome to hear the willingness by many to simply change the subject when news of the administration and President Obama’s misdeeds are published and take away from serious debate on the issue.
Then there is the second one of “Bush was worse” and again nothing substantial in the criticism of President Obama’s problematic actions and even what many argue as lies or abuses of office. There is always someone “worse” in any situation. But here we see that in effect those arguments inevitably lead to giving President free reign with only token criticism at best, enabling more such indiscretions by this Administration.
Someone needs to put an end to these malfeasances by presidents and stop providing cover by political allies.
And due in large part to the political back and forth between factions not forcing politicians to be held accountable through the ballot box and other means such as the media and speaking out, the status quo of not ending corruption and malfeasances of office will continue indefinitely.
The current members of Congress and the Administration generally will not arrive at self policing their actions to place these malfeasances in the past and hold members accountable. We have allowed 536 individuals the ability to do as they please regardless of what the citizenry wants. It is obvious through the federal politicians’ constant fighting that it is going to be up to the people to reign them in and demand that they adhere to their oaths of office. But as long as what I have described in the first two paragraphs in this comment is allowed to continue by bickering, mudslinging, and deference by the voters, we are not going to see any reforms of our federal government any time soon.
We should be concentrating on the present for a better future, not preserving the status quo by placing the blame on the past.
Jim22
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.
=========================
It is pathetic to quote journalists as proof of anything other than “they reported” …
Quoting a letter from for profit journalists is a lure for jingoists hiding in the rocks visible only by their forked tongues emerging into the light from time to time.
Here, for free, is the source of your matrix (The Ways of Bernays). “Those who do not know of the life of Edward L. Bernays do not know American history.”
If you do not know American history, you are hopelessly lost in the matrix of the duopoly, like a jury of bigots.
It is like a judge concluding in the judgment, if you know what I mean.
What speaks for itself, is the fact thst we/U.S. are the main stream media of today; and i almost cant blame JT staying away from the powers that be. As such play mean.
Just a shame one inept as I os left to tell this great tale of woe. Robert Redford doing Dan Rather,s story on GWB now – simply documents U.S. trying to win a battle of the war “they,ve” already won!
George Santayana –
“Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it,”
Can you say Pravda and Izvestia?
Truth and “News?”