Government spies on reporters using WW1 Espionage act

[August]

The Justice Department did more than seize a Fox News reporter's emails while suggesting he was a criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case -- it did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the Espionage Act. It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers. It's the law used to charge the Rosenbergs, American communists, for allegedly passing secret information to the Soviet Union -- they were executed for the offense in 1953.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2U7d295rC

I'm sure the usual suspects will be in here to claim it's no big deal but here is a second instance of the government spying on the media.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

the usual suspects

Is it really necessary to be confrontational and antagonistic right off the bat?

[Tchocky]

As GT goes, yes yes it's necessary.

[AVGWarhawk]

My thoughts are that spying is more widespread than we think.

I think the journalists should get the same treatment as Manning, how dare they leak confidential information

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

My thoughts are that spying is more widespread than we think.

I'm sure you're right. Someone mentioned in another thread the concept that people who work with laws usually manage to feel that they are above the law.

[edit] It was Armistead. "I think the problem is, those with authority often tend to think they're above authority."

I'm reminded of an early Saturday Night Live skit in which Garrett Morris storms into an FBI office, demanding to see everything they have on him. Dan Aykroyde denies over and over having ever even heard of him. Morris finally leaves, convinced they have nothing on him at all. As soon as he's gone Aykroyd pages his secretary and says "Get me everything you can find on a Garrett Morris!"

Probably not so far from the truth.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I remember back in (I think) the mid to late 90s, I attended a course for Advanced Criminal Investigations sponsored by the United States Department of Criminal Justice/FBI. If I remember correctly at that time, it hadn't been long since cell phones went from a backpack battery and brick sized phone to the smaller handheld versions. I'm sure it's old news now but even back then, before the advent of GPS phones, they were able to triangulate your cellphone conversations and get a pretty accurate fix on a users location, anywhere in the world. According to the FBI agent advising us of this, it was not common knowledge at the time and was not for public dissemination.

I'm not paranoid about the government eavesdropping on me or watching me. I've never had direct cause to be concerned. The media is the media and has to keep it's shareholders happy by printing articles that they're sure someone will want to read. I'm not suggesting that it has no bearing on whether it's fact or not but that's what they do. They sell a product, which just happens to be "The News". Personally, it seems to me that the media is becoming more and more like paparazzi than objective journalism/reporting, but that's my opinion. I've been interviewed by the media, had statements printed and have been photographed by them.

Do I trust the government? Now that's a completely different perspective of mine. Right now, I'm not afraid of the Government. Back in my early years in Law Enforcement, I was sometimes astonished by things I learned they were capable of (regarding investigative reach/power). Nothing would surprise me now.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by August

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2U7d295rC
I'm sure the usual suspects will be in here to claim it's no big deal but here is a second instance of the government spying on the media.

Ok Fox news.
Whether it is the government spying at you - some services of a certain kind tend to do that without authorization, and higher knowing.

But yes, since 9/11 the US live in a state of war, and with that all kind of eavesdropping etc. has become legal. Such things are usually allowed, in a war.
In Germany we do not need it though, we are being eavesdropped without a pretext, and most do not mind. As the people in London do not mind the surveillance cameras, and they being eavesdropped.

And, b.t.w. as i linked in another post, in the US the NSA indeed records every eMail, and every telephone call. It is not personally listened to unless there is something 'suspect' found by the algorythms used, but yes all can be read and listened to, anytime.
The new intelligence center that made this possible is in Wyoming, and i am sure you heard about it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Ok Fox news.

So you are claiming the story is false?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

So you are claiming the story is false?

FOX News, fair and balanced?

[August]

Is a liberal rag like the New York Times any more palatable?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/us...rter.html?_r=0

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Is a liberal rag like the New York Times any more palatable?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/us...rter.html?_r=0

August, all news outlets are rags......end of story.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

FOX News, fair and balanced?

And everyone knows that Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Wikipedia are never correct and always lie.

It seems to be a common game to dismiss anything by anybody we don't like.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And everyone knows that Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Wikipedia are never correct and always lie.

It seems to be a common game to dismiss anything by anybody we don't like.

Pretty much.

Six or seven months ago, by reputation alone I would NEVER listen or read ANYTHING from fox news. Honestly as domestic news sources go, I only followed CNN because I thought they were the least bias or most impartial. It was during the gun debate that I saw information and articles appear on CNN that I knew were either skewed or just plain wrong, that I start questioning it and started looking at fox news to see what else was being said.

Since then, whenever i want to check the news, I look at both, filter out the bias that both have and make my own decision. It is my thought however, that most people do what I used to do. Only look at one news source and dismiss anything else by reputation.

There is no fair and balanced, impartial or unbiased news source. They're all skewed. If you want fair and balanced, your going to have to read things that might not tickle your ears, and compare that to a news source that may tickles your ears. "Fair and balanced" is in between. Until you make yourself look at both ends of the bias spectrum, your never going to arrive at some semblance of the truth of any given story making its rounds in the news.