NEWS: Bush Hates the Free Press. What Else is New?

POLITICS: Bush Hates the Free Press. What Else is New?

I know, I know, guys. Writing articles about Bush is sooooo 2005. Forget outrage fatigue, I know most of us are bordering on outrage catatonia at this point. But for a moment, try to harken back to that fall of 2004 when you thought that George W. Bush was the Most Evil Man in the Universe and that the Neo-Cons would rule for ages and ages to come. You know, back to when Bush was polling above even his own pathetic IQ.



Back then, if Congress had gotten up the balls to pass a Federal Shield Law by an overwhelming majority and Bush said, "Fuck it, I like putting journalists in jail," wouldn't that piss you the hell off?



Welcome to Tantrum Town. Population = You.

Here you've got a bill with about 95% of the House of Representatives voting for it that is designed to aid the free flow of information to the public. The free flow of information happens to be something that the founders of our country thought was so important that they made journalists the only private occupation to have specific Constitutional protection. Moreover, it's a bill that that would enact a law that is already working comfortably for thirty-one states and the District of Columbia. And then the President comes along and says he's gonna veto it. What a twat, right?



But wait, there's more! Want to know the reason why Bush threatened to veto the bill?

Oh that is fucking rich. Just ask Scooter Libby and Richard Armitrage how much the President cares about leaking classified information. Can't have the press finding out about another flap like the NSA wiretapping program, can we? God damn, they're pricks.



The real reason we're getting pushback from the White House on the proposed federal shield law is that enacting one would lessen the power of the executive to strong-arm reporters into giving up their sources. Thus, the Administration loses a crucial end-run around actually doing their jobs. Why waste time investigating crimes yourself when you've got the press to do it for you? And if they don't, well, throw them in jail like you did with Josh Wolf or Judith Miller, or like you threatened to do with Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada.



Look, I'm all in favor of the sanctity of the judicial process. It bothers me when, like in the BALCO case, sealed grand jury testimony gets leaked. And I understand the "Law and Order" viewpoint that often the only way to find illegal leakers and prosecute them is to go through the reporter they leaked the info to. I'm sympathetic to those concerns. But that doesn't mean they should trump the ability of the Fourth Estate to do their jobs. The public has a right to know and journalists have a right... nay, a goddamned Constitutional responsibility to tell them. If that means some people get away with breaking the law in certain circumstances, so be it.



I recognize that we live in a time where the mainstream press is so coagulated, so docile, so lazy and so institutionalized that wealthy benefactors have to set up non-profit press corps to insure that true investigative reporting actually gets done. I recognize that the mainstream press is so laughably bad that two shtick-y comedians who do almost nothing but poke fun at the press are pretty much universally perceived as having more integrity than the whole lot of 24 hour news networks combined. The profession of journalism needs a massive overhaul, starting with a "Ma Bell" style de-consolidation of the media conglomerates. That much is certain. Another part of the solution is to ensure that reporters don't risk jail time for seeking out important stories. This bill would do that.



Luckily, if the support that this bill received in the House is at all translated to the Senate, we won't have to worry about President Gargamel's veto pen. Thank goodness for that. This Federal shield law has been a long, long time coming.

An eloquent and incredibly passionate entry. Articulated just so, perfectly tinged with the seeds of contempt and anger and unadulterated frustration that I also share. When my mind is racing backwards, forwards, sideways, longways and I can feel myself getting lost in this emotional outrage, this beckoning sea of quietly building fear that tells me to scream "Revolution" and "Freedom" and plain make an angry ass of myself- I can find but one rock to hold on to- blogs like this one. Moments where although outraged by so many things in our country I see that so many of us are still reading and fact-checking and forming *gasp* our own opinions of what's right and wrong with the country. And though I literally ache for days when I can celebrate our ferocious conquests over this administration and all it represents.. I remember that great battles are won with small victories.. and I can feel the march of feet, the drums of protest, the raging winds of change... slowly forming, delicately seeping into the general *ignorant* populous.. and I know this fight isn't in any way close to over.


*Oh my - Always a great appreciator of rants, I'll leave my confusing masterpiece where it stands.. and offer this reader's digest version: Great job!!! I loved reading it!

Excellent article, and bonus points for using the word "coagulated".

Of course, Bush will almost certainly claim that his Magical Unitary Executive Commander In Chief Signing Statement Pen allows him to ignore the shit out of this if it ever becomes a law.

Call me simple minded, but I love it when I see her tongue on the boards!
Thanks Subrosa for encouraging cagedesire, and once again contributing such a well thought out and presented piece.

I don't really get politics, but I thought it was funny when you made a Smurfs reference.

Indeed. His proposed AG nominee is not so much a fan either.

Luckily for me, I am a spy and a terrorist. So I'm OK.

I loathe those who would irrespobsibly and often illegally leak important information, especially info that endangers lives! But I have to say that freedom of the press must be protected, even if the occasional asshole gets off scot-free.

Well-written and goddammit you used the name President Gargamel so this is the best thing I've ever read.

Goddamnit, we need that so fucking bad. Maybe they'll try it again in a year and a half if the jackass does manage to somehow kill it.

Wearing questionable t-shirts to the airport doesn't count.

On the other hand, there's bullshit like the papers leaking that the CIA was tracking Osama Bin Laden through his cellphone.

That's the sort of thing that should get a reporter 20 years in the Federal slammer.

I have yet to meet a journalist that had more than a room-temperature IQ.

I have yet to meet a journalist (besides www.theregister.co.uk) that knew the SLIGHTEST FUCKING thing technical. I'm surprised most of them can operate a ball-point pen. Anything about computers, science, space, etc is mangled beyond recognition and about 90% just WRONG. Not simplified, just wrong.

In the dozen or so instances where I've seen something that was later reported in the paper, it was about 50% wrong.

If a newspaper/TV journalist says the sky is blue and the ocean is wet, I'm damned sure stepping outside for a look before I agree with him.

They don't deserve such a law.

+1

everyone at work is staring at me wondering why i'm laughing for no apparent reason

Well, the Dems hate AM radio so I guess it's all even.

Try here.

I must have missed the time when Nancy Pelosi threw Michael Savage in jail.

Simply because you don't care enough to seek out good reporting does not mean it does not exist. Regardless, even if it didn't the fact that most reporters are tools does not mean they don't deserve protection to help them fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities. I happen to think most Congressmen are morons, but I'm completely fine with protecting them from civil and criminal liability for their moronic actions in the House or Senate.

Well, when I said "journalist" there, I was referring to "the press" of course. Whether a blogger is a journalist is another issue entirely, but I'd argue that the Framers certainly intended there to be express protection for those who widely disseminate information of national import, whether it be for profit or no.

Such as?

But if you're making your living in the pursuit of the activity, what's the difference? Certainly, journalists don't get extra protection against worker's health and safety violations, but when they're actually engaged in press-ery I'm not sure there's much of a difference.

I was thinking mainly of the sixth amendment.

But wouldn't it be more the attorn-ing that would receive that implied protected than the attorney?

Fair point about the clergy and/or artists. I concede the point.

Yo.

I'm not too worked up about this just because the veto will almost certainly be overridden with that kind of majority, unless I'm missing something. But a funny note. Here is Bush's veto record:

1. Government funded stem cell research.
2. Setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
3. Stem Cells 2: Electric Boogaloo.
4. Health insurance for children.

And potentially this. Sometimes it's like he stumbled in from another dimension where black is white and left is right (and "conservatives" are all about throwing around money and using troops for nation building).

I Lol'd

I don't even see why he'll bother attempting to veto (he's already on the record as disagreeing with it) this unless the Senate is more sharply split. Short of that, looks like this is going to pass either way.

I'm all for protecting the right to a free press, helping protect journalist's sources, and all (short of overt threats to national security), but do you not see at least some merit in the argument Mukasey is trying to make? I'm obviously not as familiar with the inner-workings of the judicial process and the justice department as you are, so could you explain why you think he's so wrong? Is it just because of the potential for abuse? I agree with him in principal as far as keeping the process effective and manageable (while protecting rights of course), but I'm not familiar with the specifics.

A dictator wannabe

Well, I think his argument about Justice Department regulations is hogwash. Sure, it's easier to change regulations, but that's exactly the reason why we need the law. If reporters have to just hope that the current DoJ won't come down on them if they feel like it, then that's not true protection, is it?

As for his other to arguments (that it sets too high a bar for federal prosecutors to overcome and that it casts too wide a net), I don't know as I haven't yet read the entire proposed legislation. I'm guessing though, from the overwhelming support it got from the House (even the vast majority of House Republicans voted for it), that it's a relatively tame bill.