Journalists Attack Obama Administration For Being Ridiculously Secretive And Vindictive

from the most-transparent-administration-in-history dept

Earlier this year, then NY Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson called out the Obama administration for being the most secretive in history, despite the claims of Obama himself that his would be “the most transparent administration in history.” Not only has this administration used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more times than every other administration in history combined, it’s currently fighting a legal battle to put NYT journalist Jim Risen in jail for refusing to reveal a source. It’s also denied more FOIA requests than any other administration in history. The White House has ridiculously tried to defend its “most transparent in history” claims by pointing to the fact that unlike previous administrations, this one releases visitor logs. Whoop. De. Doo.

At a big journalism confab in Chicago, apparently anger about the administration’s unprecedented level of secrecy boiled over as journalists vehemently criticized the lengths to which this administration will go to block journalists and to create significant chilling effects.

“The White House push to limit access and reduce transparency has essentially served as the secrecy road map for all kinds of organizations ? from local and state governments to universities and even sporting events,” Brian Carovillano, AP managing editor for U.S. news, said during a panel discussion.

Reporters noted that sources are now afraid to talk to them, given the crackdown on leaks — though, again, it only happens on leaks the administration doesn’t like. When the leaks make the White House look good, no investigations, hounding or prosecutions happen. However, if you leak something the administration doesn’t like — such as blowing the whistle on corrupt government practices, the administration has an official policy that you are “aiding the enemy.”

And while some might claim (incorrectly, usually) that there’s a legitimate argument there when it comes to leaks involving national security, the crackdown goes way beyond that:

The AP’s Washington chief of bureau, Sally Buzbee, said the Obama administration’s efforts to control information extend even to agencies not directly involved in intelligence gathering. Some sources, she said, have reportedly been warned they could be fired for even talking to a reporter.

“Day-to-day intimidation of sources is also extremely chilling,” she said.

Buzbee said she’s frequently asked if the Obama administration, when it comes to transparency, is worse than the administration of President George W. Bush.

“Bush was not fantastic,” she said. She added, “The (Obama) administration is significantly worse than previous administrations.”

We tend to agree that the following statement is a ridiculous one in most situations, but since government officials seem to use it all the time, it seems worth asking: if they’ve done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Journalists Attack Obama Administration For Being Ridiculously Secretive And Vindictive”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

If the Media....

really did not like it they would spend time trashing the white house.

This is just a few Journalists with enough integrity to at least get off Obama’s nob long enough to wipe their faces and figure out all they have been doing is slobbering Obama’s nob.

I tend to not feel sorry for them. When you hear a politician talk themselves up like Obama, then you can rest assured the opposite is the truth.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

We expected better?

They have plenty to hide. Start with the NSA and work your way through the maze that is Washington.
Read a story not too long ago that states that there are huge numbers of people leaving Homeland Security because the morale is just plain shit, and nobody wants to work there any more.
Top-level turnover:

So it’s affecting all of this administration..and it started with the Bush administration. So very long ago.

And if they’re unhappy, there’s something very wrong in the system. Security people are usually the last to bail out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: We expected better?

Actually, when all the “good people” leave an organization, it usually becomes overrun by the worst-of-the-worst.

For most for-profit corporations, this usually results in losses in customers and profits. For a government-run organization, this usually means they go rogue, and this is where we’re at.

How do you stop an organization that makes its own rules and answers to nobody?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: We expected better?

It’s true that many “good people” have left. But fortunately for all of us, “jackbooted thugs” are not the only ones left. There are still many people with intact moral compasses in government, the military, and the law enforcement. And although it certainly seems true that there are an increasing number of lawless, power hungry, greed driven thugs currently calling the shots, it is only a matter of time before they can no longer deny with any efficacy the immorality of their actions and will face the consequences. To them I say, continue abusing your power, keep breaking just and moral law with your secret lawless laws, keep denying your actions only to be proven again to be liars, keep up your fear mongering and perpetual war to justify your budgets and ever increasing power at the cost of everyone else’s money and freedoms – keep it up and see what you get.

They are currently being exposed for what they are and we’re just getting started. We’re all in this for the long haul and it’s going to be a long/tough fight. But it’s a fight they will lose in the end.

So let them go after the press, let them go after whistle blowers. The more they tighten their grip, the more they oppress, the more they show themselves for who they truly are, the more all that info they don’t want anyone to see is going to flow – and like a tidal wave it will wash their stain off our democracy.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: I really don't see an issue with the secrecy

Congratulations then, you are exactly the kind of person that the government loves: someone who believes that if the government says something is classified, that’s good enough and there’s no need to question them on it.

The government lies, they’ve been caught out on it numerous times since Snowden stepped up, so they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt when they say ‘That’s classified, and releasing it would be a threat to national security’, since more often than not ‘national security’ has been nothing more than ‘Our ability to do anything we feel like in the name of ‘National Security’.

The NSA was and is conducting mass spying on US citizens, the only ‘enemy’ possibly helped out by that being exposed is the public, as they now know that their own government is spying on them and can take steps to compensate for that with increased security.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: I really don't see an issue with the secrecy

We don’t need to know everything, if we do, the enemy does. Think about that for a while…

No, we don’t need to know details. What you’re talking about is called Operational Security (OPSEC). OPSEC relates to very specific things.

Here’s an example. If I post on Facebook that I’m getting deployed to Afghanistan, that’s not a violation of OPSEC. There are plenty of unclassified channels where an enemy could learn that information. Now, if I said I’m deploying on X date on Y flight with Z number of people, that’s where the problem comes in.

The vast majority of classified information involves specifics of known information. For example, it’s not classified that we have electronic warfare devices that are used to remotely explode IEDs using frequency jamming. You can read about it on Wikipedia. The exact effective radius of devices currently in use on military vehicles, however, is classified.

The issue people have with transparency is that we’re hiding general information, not because knowledge of it would allow the enemy to counteract it, but because if people knew about it they would not approve of it. That is an illegal reason to classify government information. So when we find out that the government is doing it on a massive scale, and actively trying to surpress that information, not because it would aid the enemy, but because the American people would not approve, we’re a little upset.

I don’t need to know the effective range of our counter-IED vehicles, and I don’t need to know the 10 digit grid of our nuclear submarines, and I don’t need to know the names of our operatives in Iran. I do need to know when my government is torturing people, spying on citizens not suspected of any crime, and in general abusing its power.

The fact is that terrorists already assumed we had the capability to track their communications. Our military does this regularly; it’s why we use callsigns on encrypted radio communications. We don’t know if the enemy has broken our encryption, but if they have, we’re not going to make it easy for them to find out more. Extremist organizations would have to be insane to operate under the assumption that their electronic communications were perfectly safe.

So who’s really upset about the whole thing? The American population. Did this hurt the U.S. reputation? Certainly. But that’s because it’s bad, and because we shouldn’t have been doing it, which is not a reason to classify information.

There isn’t a problem with secrecy. There’s a problem with illegal and immoral behavior being allowed because we’re too afraid of the terrorist threat to challenge our own government.

Anonymous Coward says:

We will be rid of the garbage soon

What a truly criminal president. Everything he has done has been to the detriment of the citizens of this country.

I would vote for someone who walks in and says they are going to kill puppies and hang senior citizens before I would ever vote for someone who would make the promises he made. What a liar, what a scam artist, what a piece of crap our president is.

Is it wrong to want to donate to the defense fund of anyone who tries to make it to the white house?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Perhaps they need reminders that they are supposed to be working for the people. That when you start/continue programs that SPY on the people who idiotically put you into power you need to be a little more forthcoming and stop sputtering but but but terrorism to deflect everything.

If you threaten to fire people for merely talking to a reporter, one has to wonder why.
You have such little faith in the oaths you make them take?
You are terrified that they might point out the Constitution is being violated yet again?

Maybe what they need to do is look at what they have done without the lenses sold to them by those who stand to benefit from extraordinary budgets being dumped into chasing pipedream that do nothing for security but sure as hell erode freedom.

ECA (profile) says:

This isnt the first time..

It took 30 years to find out 1/2 the things that happened in Korea and vietnam..
WHo started this mess?? Cant say BUSH did.. It started before him, but HE added to it.
ASK the congress and representatives, HOW easy it is to make something SECRET.. they just ASK..thats why you wont find Tons of information about some of our laws..

90% of those in Wash. DC, need to be FIRED.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: This isnt the first time..

how many of you know/knew that Bin laden, had been asking for assistance BEFORE he bombed anything..
WHo knows when he STARTED bombing things?
WHO knows when we TRAINED HIM?? yes we did..
There are TONS of things this nation does not tell us, and it has gotten WORSE over the years.

WE are as bad as Britain, WAS..until we told them to QUIT IT..

And 1 more point..For all the democracies the USA has created and well as those the USA had nothing to DO many of them have only 2 parties with POWER..

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: This isnt the first time..

how many of them have only 2 parties with POWER..

This is actually an absurd by itself. Sure other countries with more parties have seen the same pseudo-polarization the US has (seriously, if we talk about right/left there are two far-right winged parties in the US competing to see who will give more of the US to the corporations) but at least there is space for smaller parties to try and raise awareness.

Last time the politicians couldn’t agree on the budget the public services went boom… If there are more parties agreements have to be reached to take such absurd step.

Anonymous Coward says:

although i agree with what is said here, it seems to me to be other countries as well. for whatever reason(s), the aim seems to be to ensure that the government is able to track every single one of their persons, along with their letters, texts, calls and speech, as well as every movement/journey they make. this is being done for a reason and when that reason reveals itself (maybe have every right removed and be treated like slaves, just so the corporate planet, which the Earth is fast transforming into, can make money for a very elite few), we are definitely not going to like it! Fascism was defeated years ago. it doesn’t mean it is dead!

Ninja (profile) says:

We tend to agree that the following statement is a ridiculous one in most situations, but since government officials seem to use it all the time, it seems worth asking: if they’ve done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?

It’s not ridiculous when it concerns the Government. They should be displaying most things in the open and it is obvious by now that usually they will try to hide stuff when they are wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Remove the ability to receive money in DC with exception of a salary ,remove money as having speech, and you remove those that are looking to dissect our laws for financial reasons, remove the idea that our elected officials are businessmen and our country is a business and you bring back the rights of the people and treat them less like a walmart employee.

Anonymous Coward says:

World News Picking Fights

A lot of agencies have been itching for fights and being like the fat dog on the porch provoking the younger dogs to get out and pick some fights.. Now that the US is intent on killing every damn isil son of destruction, some of these angencies still aren’t satisfied and instead are whining and complaining about the legality and policy etc.. That frosts me.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...