BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Bush Hates the Free Press. What Else is New?

THURSDAY OCTOBER 18 2007 12:00 PM

Submitted by Subrosa. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Shield Law, Bush, Congress, Josh Wolf, journalism, Free Press

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.

The House overwhelmingly approved a media shield bill Tuesday that would protect reporters from having to reveal their confidential sources in federal courts, despite warnings from the White House that it could lead to more leaks of classified information.

The measure was passed on a broad bipartisan vote, 398-21, with 176 Republicans joining virtually all Democrats to support the bill.

In an unusual alliance, senior Republican like House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo, broke with the Bush administration to join the majority in passing a bill that supporters said would bolster the freedom of the press.

"In the past few years, there have been too many instances where the pendulum has swung against the free flow of information and in favor of the government," Blunt said on the House floor. "I was troubled by the instances I've seen where reporters have been jailed or threatened with jail for simply protecting their sources."

The White House issued a statement Tuesday afternoon saying President Bush's advisers would recommend he veto the legislation unless it's changed, claiming the bill is too broad and could harm national security.

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?

"It is likely that the legislation will encourage more leaks of classified information by giving leakers such a formidable shield behind which they can hide," the statement read.

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.

25 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2007 04:12 PM

gcash056 said:
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.

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.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2007 05:21 PM

oyaji said:

[The founders] made journalists the only private occupation to have specific Constitutional protection

Not really true. The constitution never mentions "journalists," of course. Not clear that the Framers would have thought of an independent profession / occupation called "journalism." And who is a "journalist?" Is a blogger a journalist, for example?

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.

There's a better argument that the constitution set up all kinds of implied protections from those of us engaged in the profession of lawyering, too.

Such as?

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2007 05:41 PM

oyaji said:

Subrosa said:

oyaji said:

[The founders] made journalists the only private occupation to have specific Constitutional protection

I don't disagree. It's just anachronistic to say the Framers intended to protect the occupation of being a journalist. Many of the Framers themselves published journals and newspapers, but they would likely not have understood themselves to be "journalists." The activity is protected, not the profession. The federal courts have found protections, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that there are specific enumerated protections for the profession in the four corners of the document.

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.

There's a better argument that the constitution set up all kinds of implied protections from those of us engaged in the profession of lawyering, too.

Such as?

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?

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 18, 2007 06:02 PM

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

TedKoppel

Glendale, AZ

March 2004

OCT 18, 2007 06:03 PM

gcash056 said:
On the other hand, there's bullshit like the papers leaking that the CIA was tracking Osama Bin Laden through his cellphone.

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).

Skywisdom

Portland, OR

December 2005

OCT 18, 2007 09:23 PM

TedKoppel said:

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.

I Lol'd

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

OCT 19, 2007 04:11 AM

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.

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

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

So far, Mukasey has told senators he will reject any White House meddling in Justice Department matters and resign if his legal or ethical concerns about administration policy are ignored.

He also said he's resistant to passing a law shielding reporters from being forced to reveal their sources, saying it would be much easier to fix internal Justice Department practice if need be.

"The system worked passably well up until now," Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved legislation that would establish such a shield. The House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill last week, but President Bush said he would veto it.

Mukasey, a former federal judge who also has represented reporters as a defense lawyer, indicated he would side with Bush against any federal legislation.

"One thing about internal procedures is that if you need to change them they're relatively easy to change," he said at his confirmation hearing. "You can adjust the regulation, you can adjust the procedure, you can put more levels in. You can change standards. It becomes much harder when it's etched in stone in the form of legislation. And that is part of the reason for my unease."

Majority Democrats, aided by some Republicans, have urged passage of a media shield because they say it would protect reporters and government whistleblowers who reveal improper or illegal official activity. Fifty news outlets, including The Associated Press, support the legislation.

The Bush administration has issued a veto threat, saying that subpoenas for reporters are relatively rare and that a shield would make it harder to track down leakers of classified information.

Mukasey said that he has reservations about the legislation because it sets too high a legal threshold for prosecutors to meet to overcome the shield. Proving that the disclosure is needed to prevent an attack is difficult in advance, the nominee said Wednesday.

The measure also pending defines a journalist too broadly and might inadvertently protect, for example, bloggers who are also spies or terrorists, Mukasey said.

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.

Mankarlen

Columbia City, OR

June 2006

OCT 19, 2007 05:40 AM

A dictator wannabe

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 08:55 AM

emotedcreations said:
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.

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

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

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.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

OCT 19, 2007 09:09 AM

Subrosa said:
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?

It would be if they could trust that the DOJ wasn't corrupt, but I suppose they can't always do that--makes sense.

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.

Yeah, you're probably right about the "support as a measure of tameness" factor. Thanks for clarifying.

PAGE:

1 | 2