Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the nobody-think-of-the-airplanes dept.

An agency that owns a number of black helicopters has derided "conspiracy theorists" who have spoken out against the DHS's plans to monitor journalists:

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday pushed back against a report warning of the agency's plan to compile a list of media professionals and influencers as part of a "media monitoring" effort.

The plan outlined in a FedBizOpps.gov posting by DHS this week says the agency will create a database of "any and all media coverage" related to the agency or specific events, with a list of more than 290,000 global news sources searchable by location and individual reporters.

[...] Responding to a tweet from the Committee to Protect Journalists, which shared the Forbes report, DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton suggested that critics who cited the department's news tracking plan as a supposed attack on the press were "conspiracy theorists." "Despite what some reporters may suggest, this is nothing more than the standard practice of monitoring current events in the media," Houlton tweeted. "Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists."

Also at CNN and CBS.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by arcz on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (2 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (#664135) Journal
    Nonetheless, he had a right under natural law to expose that video. That does not make him a traitor. No government has the right to kill people and conceal that fact. National law be damned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @03:36AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:36AM (#664174) Journal

    We disagree, arcz. Manning's first loyalty should be to his country, his second loyalty should be to his unit. He betrayed his unit. I'll not forgive or forget Manning's betrayal - nor will I forgive or forget his motivations. Manning was a discipline problem long before he betrayed his unit, going so far as to strike a senior non-commissioned officer. Manning betrayed his unit out of childish spite. He had no higher motivations than to embarrass his mates.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @03:54AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:54AM (#664183) Journal

    Nonetheless, he had a right under natural law to expose that video.

    Natural law like the strong rule the weak? And what rights exist under natural law? I have to agree with Runaway here. What right exists when he had sworn not to do what he did, and no actual law was broken?