Quantcast
U.S. & World

Journalists criticize Obama administration, say Fox News' James Rosen targeted 'for basic reporting'

Comments

Return To Article
  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    May 20, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    This is definitely the most open and transparent administration of all time!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    More evidence of liberals thinking they can bully anyone who disagrees with them.

    And it all represents the leader of their party, barack obama

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    May 20, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    This administration is completely unhinged. We get what we elected.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 20, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    First attack the second amendment and soften people's ideals about the constitution, then target the first amendment while they believe the rhetoric about how antiquated constitutional ideals are. Looks like this administration is running things by the liberal playbook, and losing in the process...maybe they aren't so "progressive" and "forward-thinking" after all.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    It would appear that investigative journalism by perceived administration enemies is becoming criminal. That's not a good sign for liberalism. They are joining several past Republican administrations in having an enemy list.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    Don't blame me, I voted for Mitt

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    Mr. Obama is inspirational, but so were many politicians who have gone awry. As the truth emerges about Mr. Obama and his administration, slick rhetoric has given way to stylistic changes, opacity, deception and stone walling. Having voted for Mr. Obama four years ago I am the most betrayed. His supporters are defensive, his enemies are delighted and those of us who actually expected a change are very disappointed.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    May 20, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    4601
    I hate to tell you this but we did get change, a banana republic.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    Does anyone now doubt that Obama's administration has "intimigate" in full force? Are we a Third World country now, with no people with any scruples in charge?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    May 20, 2013 11:44 p.m.

    @4601

    Those who actually expected change didn't bother looking at the label. He's from Chicago. It is the dirtiest political scene in America. Intimidation and corruption are legendary there. I am not surprised by this at all.

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    May 21, 2013 4:09 a.m.

    Obama does seem to operate like a dictator of third world country. This is his mindset. This is what he knows. Use government to bully and intimidate.

    I think we are going to start seeing "I Voted For Mitt" bumper stickers.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    May 21, 2013 5:19 a.m.

    To Conservative Scientist, Coach B, Chris B, Hemlock, BrentBot, Ute Alumni, 4601,
    Cougsndawgs, and Uncle Rico: I couldn't have said it better myself.
    Similar to Uncle Rico, I also say, I also voted for Mitt. Many of us did not allow Obama to pull the wool over our eyes. We knew his "hope and change" were really hopeless and bad change. But I honor those such as 4601 who show us that repentance is possible.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 21, 2013 5:27 a.m.

    This is just another example of how the media feels it can report on items of national security, that they can put peoples lives in danger, so that they can have a by-line. I wish we had more facts about what the top secret materials were that had been passed to this journalist.... it may be nothing. Or it may have been information that could have put us anti-terroist operations in danger. We just don't know yet.

    What I do know though is this was a breach by a news organization that was forced to close its paper in England for hacking into peoples personal email and voicemail accounts - in one case hacking the phone number of an abducted young girl - deleting the saved messages - and monitoring the families communications.

    Freedom of the Press does not include breaking and entering, violating others privacy, or putting the public in danger. They are subject to the same laws everyone else is. It is amazing the outrage from the NRA types about the publishing of public documents about gun owners, yet if top secret government documents are published - it is the governments fault for trying to stop the leaks.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    May 21, 2013 5:28 a.m.

    How does this differ from the "Patriot Act" law?

    Classified info is being fed to a newspaper. Don't you want to find the spy? Just how many violations of our privacy has occured since 2000, or is it we want it both ways? I will enjoy it when the mean old white guys are voted out, then we can have a discussion in Washington.

  • sixpacktr Murfreesboro, TN
    May 21, 2013 5:58 a.m.

    I just have to ask the question of why we are still putting up with this administration? We have Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the wiretapping of journalists. Add the coming story of gunrunning to Syria thru Turkey via Libya, and you have an overwhelming case of a government and administration completely out of control. And the excuse by the Dear Leader? 'I didn't know about ANY of this'. That is disturbing no matter how you slice it. Either 1) he's lying (my personal opinion) or 2) he is so incompetent that he lets anyone and everyone run wild doing whatever they want.

    And yet 47& think he's doing a bang up job and will support him against the 'racists' that dare criticize him. The real problem isn't Obama--it is a complicit press and apathetic voters or those with their hands out wanting whatever they can get that are the real problem....

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 21, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    Let's focus on the law that has been broken. It's called the Supreme Law of the Land. It's also called the Constitution.

    1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Obama does not believe that he is bound by the Constitution. He believes that his authority supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Article 2, Section 4 requires that the President be removed from office for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 describe the process to be used.

    Can restricting the "freedom of the press" be considered anything but high Crimes and Misdemeanors? That Amendment protects us from a President who would keep us from knowing what he is doing as President and how he is doing it.

    It's time that Congress did its job and started impeachment hearings. No man is above the law, especially the man who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 21, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    We had a chance for something better. We didn't make the right choice. Now we are living with the consequences. Will we learn our lesson? I don't know.

    Oh, but I forgot. The President only learned about all this stuff from news reports.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 21, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    So Blue Devil, have you ever been to or seen film of a Pentecostal church service where one individual starts to celebrate and worship by shouting, dancing, and crying and then pretty soon someone else starts, then another, and then another until the whole congregation is eventually jumping, shouting, and singing? Well that's exactly what the Republican party and the contributors to this blog remind me of.

    It started with the screams about talking points, moved on to low level bureaucrats, now it's circling the press and it's secrets about national security. This from the party who created the patriot act. But I guess what else do they have. The posters here keep using the phrase "an administration completely out of control". What's evident here is a segment of society that has lost the control they thought they had and are fighting like a drowning cat to try and gain back what they think they have lost.

    What's ironic is in modern Republicanism we can lie, invade countries, crush the constitution, and oh yea, leak national security secrets including citizens names, but all the Democratic Presidents need to be impeached.

  • my two cents worth Ridgefield, WA
    May 21, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    No journalist has been prosecuted for reporting and the Justice Dept. will not prosecute Rosen. They had a search warrant not a subpoena. There was a criminal investigation going on and the DOJ was going after a potential traitor (not Rosen). A judge signed off on the warrant.

    Hypothetically, what should you think be done if there was a mole in the government who was sneaking out nuclear bomb info to a reporter who reported the details with the agenda of reporting it because they were both anti war? What if that reporter were aligned with a middle eastern radical group? Would you be this angry at the FBI and DOJ (and therefore Obama) for using a search warrant?

    Where is the line?

  • IDC Boise, ID
    May 21, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Obama and his administration have made a lot of mistakes as all presidents have. I don't like Obama and I think he has the wrong vision for America. That being said, the real problem is big government. The government is too big and too powerful. We are losing our freedoms.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    May 21, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    It is ironic. If Obama is successful in muting the press, then how will he learn what is happening in the World? He only sees it on the news.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 21, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Sorry, folks, but I don’t see the press as the victim here. Publishing classified documents obtained by means of questionable legality is not just “doing their job” as some are trying to make it sound. If any private citizen tried to pull something like that, you can bet that Federal law enforcement would be all over them.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 21, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil,

    "Freedom of the Press does not include breaking and entering, violating others privacy, or putting the public in danger. They are subject to the same laws everyone else is...."
    ______________________________

    Well said, UtahBlueDevil.

    There have always been news reporters who test the limits of the First Amendment as it pertains to a free press. Some have claimed legal privileges that the courts do not recognize such as the legal right to keep news sources confidential, even when certain documents obtained by a reporter have been subpoenaed. Some reporters have gone to jail screaming about their rights. The fact is, it’s illegal to withhold evidence in a criminal investigation or court proceeding. I couldn’t get away with it myself.

    Freedom, in our country, has never meant unrestricted license. The First Amendment right of freedom of the press was never meant to grant the press a special dispensation from the rule of law.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    May 21, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Here comes the newest in manufactured scandals.
    Fox News....isn't it the station that is sanctioned by only the wonderful of the wonderfulist?
    Now they would not do this sort of thing, would they? They have never filled their newscasts with disingenuous news concerning ourPresident!
    Has our world ever noticed that whenever people are trying to vilify our President, a higher power, along with mother nature, seem to get in their way, and the true colors and love of our country comes through?
    Other issues, naturally, are put on the back burner during these times of disaster.
    Politicians and other groups tend to appear extremely silly and dishonest in the light of what is really important.
    Just ask Chris Christie about this sometime.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 21, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    Having lived in Germany after WWII, there was still a significant feeling in that country at how Hitler was able to take over their country and isolate through their system a certain class of people through a governmental process of registering and tracking. The impact of that act is known for the 6 million plus besides their families and friends. How Hitler got to power and how he maintained power through his tactics and schemes is also known. We relive history but a lot of the history that is available is not taught anymore. We get into our own little world of media devices and don't even talk to people anymore. We don't read books with thoughts and ideas from others as to why a certain civilization came into power and then went out of power. There are people with evil designs. President Bush mentioned the evil axis and then got into a war that took his eyesight off of those targets. This President said he would do a lot of things in 2008 that haven't happened as he had an agenda that is different from what he proposed. We need his real agenda to prevent history reliving.

  • sixpacktr Murfreesboro, TN
    May 21, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    And thus we see the absolute willingness to look the other way by our fellow countrymen such as 'pragatist' and 'twocents' that will defend the Dear Leader to the death.

    I wonder what they will be saying when it all falls apart and chaos reigns? When our rights are a distant memory and we are living in fear to speak our minds? Because that is exactly where this is going, and if you can't see that, then there is no real hope for you. Luckily, there are enough that are vigilant that will create a place of refuge when it all hits the fan...

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 21, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    @Mike

    and yet another day of you making claims you have no proff to support while crying about the unfair treatment of swallow.

  • mightyd Hurricane, UT
    May 21, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    to all those saying that the reporters are not above the law, and should have there records sought out, well, THATS why we have subpoenas.....makes sense huh...
    and lets not be giving a pass to obama here....lets try to be subjective...it always amazes me how we can turn a blind eye when its "our" guy in office...there seems to be a pattern here.......eh?????

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 21, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    As usual, too many rush to defend Obama before they even read the article.

    The article states: "Under U.S. law, it is not illegal to publish classified information," Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Guardian. "That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the U.S. government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the U.S. government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ — that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information — is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself."

    Did you get that? It is NOT illegal to for a newspaper to publish classified information.

    If it were illegal, when the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, that entire news organization would have been indicted. According to Wikipedia, the Times house council, "James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy."

    By the way, it wasn't until 2011 that that report was de-classifed and released to the public.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 21, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" it is funny that you are so concerned now about putting lives at risk by what news organizations publish. The fact is that liberals cheered when the lives of soldiers were put at risk by publishing pictures of the Iraq prisons. Then again they cheered when the Wiki leaks came out. Why is it now that your ilk cares about protecting lives? Where were you when soldiers were being killed because of the actions of the press?

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    May 21, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    @Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The press certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and I would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent. While they cannot solicit classified information, they have every right under a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press to receive it unsolicited from anyone, including and especially whistleblowers.

    The well established practice by which our government ferrets out inappropriate leaking of classified information is by subpoena, and they have to make a case that the journalist should be legally required to divulge the source. Journalists then often have to make a choice between their journalistic integrity or their loyalty to a sometimes heavy-handed government.

    The actions of the DOJ to characterize James Rosen as engaging in illegal activity to a judge has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and whistleblowing activity, and is probably illegal, even if he was never officially charged with anything. These actions are being roundly pilloried by nearly all major news organizations.

    Giving up critical rights to a powerful government seems a small matter to many of our citizens today.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Hillary won't stand for this when she's President.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 21, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    DSB - '@Craig Clark and UtahBlueDevil - you know not of what you write. The press certainly does have rights to collect and report information that you and I would not have the right to do. It is well established precedent"

    So. if the press were to gather the names of all those who had conceal and carry permits - and publish those in a news paper.... that's ok? right.... shoe fits on both feet? I do recall a national outcry when a Northeaster paper did so... and legislation by a republican was pushed to ban such a practice. So where is the line for you...?

    @Redshirt - I am pretty sure you would classify me as a liberal - and yet I didn't cheer at any of those events you mentioned. So I don't know which liberals you are referring to. No more so than I have seen Klan like characterizations of Obama - and seen people cheer those - do I subscribe those peoples behavior to all conservatives.

    There are always people who are outliers to any group who do things that don't represent the populous as a whole. That is no less true for liberals or conservatives.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 21, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    We may believe that the first amendment or any amendment isn't important but they are vital for an open and transparent government. We know Presidents Nixon and Johnson had problems and Nixon got impeached and departed. However, Daniel Ellsberg was an important part in helping the Vietnam war to close down along with helping security become more realigned during Nixon's time. Maybe it even started the Nixon process becoming history, also.

    Anyway, in late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Daniel Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of classified documents to which he had access and became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that the Democrat government had knowledge, early on the Vietnam war could most likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, as a New York Times editor, he wrote much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance". Integrity is vital or no trust exists.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 21, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    @utebluedevil
    If a newspaper wanted to publish the names of those with concealed weapons permits, and received that information without solicitation, yes...they would have the right to publish it under the first amendment. Of course there will be outcry and they will have to deal with it. Our first amendment rights don't include immunity to the natural consequences of our actions. The press has to realize that there will be an outcry and fallout from certain stories they publish. What you're insinuating is an argument between what's ethical and what's legal. I don't believe it's ethical to report classified information, especially pertaining to national security. But it is legal under the first amendment, and taking that right away from the press is tantamount to suppressing and oppressing the publics ability to hold a powerful and corrupt government accountable, regardless of who holds office.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 21, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    @mike richards
    Yes, by all means, investigate all misdeeds. In the case of the AP and IRS scandals, how about also investigating those who are demanding that the president be removed from office? What is their agenda? What do they have to gain? Who benefits most when the waters around the president’s office is muddy? Who benefits most when he cannot do his duty? Somebody does not want him to be able to do his job? Who is that person or persons? consistency Mike thats all anyone is asking for.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    May 21, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    @Cougsndawgs - nice tag teaming. Exactly the response I would have made, only you made it better. And if potential whistleblowers were fearful of approaching a journalist in the future, people like UtahBlueDevil would be unable to make the connection to the heavy-handedness of our current DOJ in fostering that climate of fear.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil: Prior to the election there were all kinds of top secret leaks showing up in the liberal Obama favoring press. Of course these leaks were all favorable to the Obama campaign for re-election. There were so many that both congress and Romney questioned the risk to national security. So i guess as long as the leaks are flattering to Obama and reported in that light by the liberal press it's OK, but if the leaks are detrimental to the Obama image and reported by the conservative press they are criminal. How convenient.