Will Skybird get "listed"?

[Skybird]

Gulp...! :huh:

Just imagine what this wiould mean: foreign corrspondents to the US will get handoicked so that only positve and cleaned info about the US leaves the country, while critical voices are easy to be filtered out. Perfect censorship, for it will be argued it is no censorship at all: "Your country has send correspondents and they free to work, aren't they?" But more and more alws are already hindering free investigative journaislm of Us journalists on the US, and they also have no legal claim anymore to protect their sources whom trust them only on the basis of remaining unnamed and protected.

This is pure Orwellianism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/us/04monitor.html

[SkvyWvr]

Gulp...! :huh:
Just imagine what this wiould mean: foreign corrspondents to the US will get handoicked so that only positve and cleaned info about the US leaves the country, while critical voices are easy to be filtered out. Perfect censorship, for it will be argued it is no censorship at all: "Your country has send correspondents and they free to work, aren't they?" But more and more alws are already hindering free investigative journaislm of Us journalists on the US, and they also have no legal claim anymore to protect their sources whom trust them only on the basis of remaining unnamed and protected.

I don't understand your point.

[The Avon Lady]

Gulp...! :huh:
Just imagine what this wiould mean: foreign corrspondents to the US will get handoicked so that only positve and cleaned info about the US leaves the country, while critical voices are easy to be filtered out. Perfect censorship, for it will be argued it is no censorship at all: "Your country has send correspondents and they free to work, aren't they?" But more and more alws are already hindering free investigative journaislm of Us journalists on the US, and they also have no legal claim anymore to protect their sources whom trust them only on the basis of remaining unnamed and protected.
I don't understand your point.
Essentially it means that someone can be declared an undersirable traveller to the US based on an opinion expressed in any way against the US in offline or online data.

The solution is simple. Everyone in the world, with no exception, must now badmouth the US. Then the US can decide whether to kill tourism is one fell swoop or not. :smug:

[Skybird]

You must not even ban unwanted correspondents from visiting the US. If they simply do not get any appointments with official representatives anymore, it already would massively sabotage their work, and leaves them vulnerable to accusations that they have no souces that could be considered reliable, and "knowing", and thus they do not know what they are talking about - for nobody would talk with them.

The efforts to silence unwanted and too critical journalists really have reached a climax under Bush. All in the name of WOT and homeland/national security, of course - that silences all opposition, doesn' it.

[The Avon Lady]

The efforts to silence unwanted and too critical journalists really have reached a climax under Bush. All in the name of WOT and homeland/national security, of course - that silences all opposition, doesn' it.
I disagree on the whole. What cases are you referring to?

[Konovalov]

You must not even ban unwanted correspondents from visiting the US. If they simply do not get any appointments with official representatives anymore, it already would massively sabotage their work, and leaves them vulnerable to accusations that they have no souces that could be considered reliable, and "knowing", and thus they do not know what they are talking about - for nobody would talk with them.

The efforts to silence unwanted and too critical journalists really have reached a climax under Bush. All in the name of WOT and homeland/national security, of course - that silences all opposition, doesn' it.



Sky,

What you describe could be viewed as a tool used by totalitarian states. In light of that don't you feel that your analysis is a little over the top. I would view the current Bush administration as one of the most secretive in US history but I don't see the evidence to support the viewpoint that it goes out of it's way to "silence all opposition" as you say. Could you elaborate a little more please on this argument? :)

[Skybird]

You are right, Konovalov, I speak about nothing else than tools that are used in dicatorships to control the free information gathering by medias.

The right of journalists to protect their sources already have been limited by new laws in the last years. Journalists already have been taken in coercive detention to motivate them to name persons and sources that leaked them information the government considered to be "sensitive", but from another perspective contained critical and damaging information nor relevation at the cost of the government.

Of interest is also the situation of journalist's source protection during investigations of a grand jury, the famous Judith miller case. "Neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law provides protection for journalists' confidential sources in the context of a grand jury investigation. If any such common law privilege exists, it is not absolute." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/043138a.pdf This in reference to the Judith Miller-Lewis Libby-case. It may have a wider innerpolitical context (amongst other questions the jury had to clear the question if the lifting of the identity of a CIA agent has been a deed of revenge directed from inside the administration), but nevertheless illustrates that source protection by journalists can be denied - and is denied. Whicn massively undermines the needed basis of mutual trust between source and journalist. The possebilities of abusing it for politcal opportunistic reasons are many, and alraedy seem to have been exploited.

the climate in the US has been discribed in a multitude of media output as one where nowadays potential "sources" think twice to lay their fate into the hands of journalists, knowing that these can no longer guarantee their anonymity and safety. The situation therefore already projects a preemptive indimidation. This is a very dangerous developement and directly damages the freedom of the press which so far has been an accepetd and needed instrument of democratic counter-copntrol and checks-and-balances in democracies.
Checking international medias and intenret activities for patterns that may be hints towards planned terrosist activities is all fine and well - I miss the needed efforts to make sure that such tools are not abused for oportunistic reasons by party, politicians and administrations. the red line between legitimate scanning for crimes, and intimidation and indirect censoring of free press is an extremely thin one.

THERE IS NO FREE PRESS WITHOUT PROTECTION OF A JOPURNALIST'S SOURCES. If the state is to decide what information journalists do have access to, and what not, free press and thus forming of free opinions is no longer possible.

http://www.rcfp.org/

Also, search for "Josh Wolf". He is one of the latest examples where free press and interests of law enforcement are colliding and are decided against journalistic source protection.
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,429842,00.html (German)

[Drebbel]

THERE IS NO FREE PRESS WITHOUT PROTECTION OF A JOPURNALIST'S SOURCES. If the state is to decide what information journalists do have access to, and what not, free press and thus forming of free opinions is no longer possible.

In every society only a fraction of the information is free. The rest is controlled (by companies, private persons, military, or government) and kept away from the press and only given to the journalists because they want them to know it. Most countries have many laws in order to keep most info private, (they do not just protect our privacy from the big commercial conglomerates but also from those press mosquitos that have their own agenda), and out of the public domain. I would not want it any other way.

Journalists are nice to have. They do a great job and have even bigger F-ups. Simply because most of them are not journalists but are simply making a living. A doctor or minister will help you for free, a journalist needs money.

:arrgh!:

[The Avon Lady]

Also, search for "Josh Wolf". He is one of the latest examples where free press and interests of law enforcement are colliding and are decided against journalistic source protection.
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,429842,00.html (German)
Joshua Wolf? Think again (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/23/josh-wolfs-misguided-crusade/). :down:

[SkvyWvr]

Of interest is also the situation of journalist's source protection during investigations of a grand jury, the famous Judith miller case. "Neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law provides protection for journalists' confidential sources in the context of a grand jury investigation. If any such common law privilege exists, it is not absolute." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/043138a.pdf This in reference to the Judith Miller-Lewis Libby-case. It may have a wider innerpolitical context (amongst other questions the jury had to clear the question if the lifting of the identity of a CIA agent has been a deed of revenge directed from inside the administration), but nevertheless illustrates that source protection by journalists can be denied - and is denied. Whicn massively undermines the needed basis of mutual trust between source and journalist. The possebilities of abusing it for politcal opportunistic reasons are many, and alraedy seem to have been exploited.

I understand the point you are trying to make however the document you ref. shows that there has always been limits. Much like the old argument concerning freedom of speech, having it dosen't mean you can run into a crowded theater and shout "Fire".

[Skybird]

"A doctor or minister will help you for free, a journalist needs money."


Doctors are manipulated by the pharma lobby and provided with those samples of products that should be sold, so they are vulenrable of not acting freely due to their choices being manipulated; ministers do not help me for free, but try to solve problems that without them would not even exist - and they take money for it, and I still insist that you need journalists being able to protect their sources, and that free press is free in that regard that issues that do not directly - hm, how to put it: here is where the problem begins! They are not allowed to report the access codes for a nuclear warhead in a given bunker, but they are free to investigate what company makes the biggest profit by producing them and pushing a government to produce more of them than might be good fopr a given pollitcal agenda. So, the point is that we have seen many cut backs to source protection concenring issues that are not vital to the interests of the many, but that are damaging the selfish interests of a few. Let'S put it that way and still keep it in a somewhat generalising phrase.

Again: http://www.rcfp.org/. Just in case someone wants to exlusively focus on only Josh Wolf for whatever a reason. As I said, he is one example only.

These anti-journislistic laws are nothing else than the next step that comes after an attitude that argues like this: "This article is from the XYZ paper? Must be BS, that paper is lefty/commie/socialistic/anti-this/pro-that". People often do that here on the board. But the motivation is the same like in this adminsitration'S limitations opf source-protection by journalists: "correct news can only be what suits my interests, all others must be badmouthed, or silenced".

On the other hand, journalism can abuse it's position too, take Germany'S BILD-newspaper for example, europe's storngest newspaper today. They have become so powerful that they do no longer just report what they obsereved , and their readers building theirmopinion - they directly influence politicians (exploiting their need for popularity and avoiding bad headlines), and have adopted a style that is suggestive and sensational - if you do no cooperate with them and stand agauinst their interests, you will see them raising all hell against you. It is a newsppaper of extremely bad standard, but it is by far the most inluential one in Germany today. Other newspapers more and more need to copy parts of it'S presentational style if they want to survive. It is red by almost all politicvians in the bundestag - in earlier times it were papers with a far better and more serious reputation. BILD does not report about politics - it now makes them by manipulating the masses and individuals as well.

Say what you want, in the end it comes down to simply this: THERE IS NO FREE PRESS WITHOUT PROTECTION OF A JOURNALIST'S SOURCES. The right of free speech is worth nothing if you are hindered to form an educated opoinion. Access to information is a necessary prerequisite for that. That'S why they have the Freedom of Information Act in the US, which also is hollowed out more and more, it seems.

Labels are shadows only, the content of a law is what counts. Again, Germany as an example: we just got a new "consumer protection and ionformation law". Sounds nice. Consumer can look into long lists and data bases of food producers and find out who is using genetical manipulated ingredients, or who is part of the latest foul-food-scandal. but: interests of the companies are also taken into account. If the release of an identification of product or producer could cause that producer economical losses - the information will be turned into an anonymized piece of worthless data without ID. Then you know that amongst those thirty differnt types of a given product, six are bad - but you can't say which one. And you know that there are people who sold rotten meat - but to find out what companies that are, and what compynies received it would need you to go to the courts in several years long processes to neutralizes the offender's legal rights to hide hisr identity for reassons of not damaging hisr economical interst. What has that to do with "consumer protection and information"...???

And what has journalism to do with no guarantee to protect the sources? Would you still go to confession if you know that the priest will give away what you said at the first opportunity somebody is demanding that from him? Would you take a risk if you know about something fould going on if you know that you risk penalty when revealing an illegal action of a psrty, politicians, institution, government...? Most of yoj would think twice, and decide against it, even more so when you have families. You woulöd be intimidated, and remain silent about criminal acts taking place that you do know of. Journalists are depending on you not do so. The function of the press as one extremely important element of the system of checks-and-balances is neutralized if it cannot guarantee the anonymity of it's sources. the bias of this or that media - is countered by the huge diversity of different media outlets available - as long as none of them get censored by limiting and filtering their access to "sources". Seen that way, the internet's invention (despite the overwhelming ammount of crap available on the web) has been one of the most valuable contributions to the spreading of democracy ever.

I am surprised that this even must be discussed, and became an issue in this thread. The event itself - is alarming.

[SkvyWvr]

Sky,
Those same checks and balances you mentioned also apply to the press. What's to stop them from putting out bad information and hiding behind an imaginary source? Grand Juryies conduct investigations in secret. If a source is revealed and everything is legit, their identity is safeguarded remember "Deep Throat".

[TteFAboB]

Yes, removing Josh Wolf is good. There are two kinds people who demand freedom of the press: those who believe in the right of anybody to own, run and publish a newspaper, magazine, blog, website, etc. And those who want to use its protection to safely fight against freedom, only their opinion is legitimate and anything contrary to it has no right to exist. These "journalists" could be deported to North Korea for all I care.

Now, the problems of freedom are solved by even more freedom, as Skybird demonstrates:
the bias of this or that media - is countered by the huge diversity of different media outlets available - as long as none of them get censored by limiting and filtering their access to "sources". Seen that way, the internet's invention (despite the overwhelming ammount of crap available on the web) has been one of the most valuable contributions to the spreading of democracy ever.

Just guess why there is no internet in Cuba and North Korea (except to the priviledged ruling class) and why there are attempts to block the best parts of it in China and Iran and even some democratic governments have made attempts to strike at it.

I understand why any government would attempt to rip out the source of a journalist. It's alot easier than discovering who's the source by internal investigations. When impossible to define who's a real journalist and who's a poser, when it's far from obvious, then we must assume defeat in the name of freedom. That's what governments do: act incompetently (with varying degrees of intensity), give them more powers and they'll act more incompetently than before.

Now, there are matters of security indeed. World War 2 was not won with ultimate freedom of the press, it was won in the name of it, to guarantee it would actually exist in continental Europe. If every German reporter or journalists from any other nationality were free to publish every single secret, statistic, data, number, figure, map and etc WW2 would've taken alot longer to end. The battle with terrorists, while completely different from that conflict still has similar aspects, afterall it is just the next stage of a war as old as mankind. But Skybird has covered this too, yes the nuclear codes must remain a secret. Now government spending, for example, must be openly scrutinized. If a source has information on corruption or embezzlement schemes, he will not talk if threatened to death and you will never know your tax money goes to the drain which means that you continue'll to pay taxes happily believing the money is being put to a good use.

Do not count on the government to win the "war on terrorism". It can't. The government can protect the secrets that do indeed need to be protected and prosecute the journalists who violate these. But preventing massive terrorist attacks is not enough. Nor is dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war on Islamic-terrorism, a war that has not started yesterday but that has been declared ipso facto as soon as the Declaration of Independence was signed, is a war of values. Civilization against barbarity. Liberty against slavery. Free will against submission.

Keep your military secrets, keep our vital security secrets a secret by demanding the releasing of the source in secret. But I will stand against generalized source-violations as much as I will stand against Islamic-terrorism, not because I sit on an ivory tower of duality, hypocritical neutrality and false impartiality. But because I know the Bush administration only exists today and has the liberty to poke against the extremely biased lefty/commie/socialistic/anti-this/pro-that media because we have the right to remove him from power if so we wish but more importantly, if the law requires. And only if the USA remains a Republic rooted and faithful to the values it was founded upon will the future Head of States continue to be democratic men, with all their problems and vices, and guarantee me the right to start my own blog and do my own investigative work if I ever wish to do so and punish me if I am retarded enough to violate national security secrets.

[Immacolata]

The application of that software is conjecture as far as I can see. It looks like a program to do the work that is already being done by consulars and diplomats all over the world everyday. Intelligence gathering through news reading or watching. There is nothing odious about it as far as I can see. Besides, you wouldnt go to USA carrying the name Skybird, would ya? :)

[Yahoshua]

The solution is simple. Everyone in the world, with no exception, must now badmouth the US. Then the US can decide whether to kill tourism is one fell swoop or not. :smug:


You forget that the beauracracy here in the states is beyond the definition of a nightmare to deal with.

They just might do it.:dead:

Of course I'd also like them to try and figure out which end of the gun is the dangerous end and pull the trigger, but I fantasize a bit more than I should be.