Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday June 15 2018, @06:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the same-game,-different-team dept.

Trump's targeting of a New York Times journalist, explained by experts

The Trump administration took its war with the media to the next level this week when federal authorities seized years of phone records from New York Times reporter Ali Watkins as part of a federal investigation into leaks of classified information.

Watkins, who previously worked for BuzzFeed News and Politico, had a three-year relationship with James Wolfe, a former Senate Intelligence Committee aide who was arrested on Thursday and charged with lying to federal agents investigating the classified leaks.

The seizure set off alarm bells about the relationship between the administration and the media. The Department of Justice under Obama took phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors, named a Fox News reporter an unindicted "co-conspirator" in a leak case, and prosecuted multiple cases involving whistleblowers and leakers. So is what Trump doing more of the same? Or is a president who routinely bashes the media and threatens to jail leakers finally turning his rhetoric into reality?

"It's deeply alarming that the Trump administration has decided to build off of the worst of the Obama legacy on leak investigations and reporter-source protection," said Alexandra Ellerbeck, the North America program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

See also: The Justice Department Deleted Language About Press Freedom And Racial Gerrymandering From Its Internal Manual

Also at The Philadelphia Inquirer, Emptywheel, and Fox News.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived.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 bob_super on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:25AM (7 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:25AM (#693811)

    Depends on the information. If it describes the preparation of the Holocaust ? Black torture sites of political opponents ? Torture sites of terrorists ? Modern slavery cover-up ? Presidential political scandal coverup ?
    Are you, jmorris, loyal to this country's R government in the same way that you were to the previous D government? Which illegally stored government emails are worse ?
    Who do you trust with information that you really believe to be embarrassing to those in power, when they are all from the same party? We're not talking about returning the technical drawings for the latest stealth bomber, but exposing potentially dangerous activities of the people in power.

    Why do you think someone bothered to quill down those words ? 4th branch...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:23AM (6 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday June 16 2018, @02:23AM (#693827)

    I think I already explained that. You first disclose to the official channels setup for exposing government wrongdoing. Like I dunno, perhaps the GODDAMNED UNITED STATES SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. You fuckers keep eliding that little detal in all this sanctimonious bullcrap. This guy was working security for the United States Senate Intelligence Committee investigating all of this purported "wrongdoing" when he leaked selected details to the NYT whore.

    Why do you think someone bothered to quill down those words ? 4th branch...

    Show me the quilled down words about a "4th branch.." It is right there with the Right to an Abortion, in your (and the Proggie members of SCOTUS') imagination. So you fail Constitution 101. No prize will be awarded. Good Day Sir.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:51AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:51AM (#693859) Journal

      You first disclose to the official channels setup for exposing government wrongdoing.

      The New York Times and other media outlets are official channels set up by the First Amendment for this purpose as well.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 16 2018, @05:36AM (3 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Saturday June 16 2018, @05:36AM (#693865)

        Citation needed. Show me where Pinch and his foreign investors are the official designated arbitrator for whether classified information should be splashed on the front page of the NYT to juice their ad revenues and serve their un-American political activity?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 16 2018, @11:52AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 16 2018, @11:52AM (#693922) Journal
          I did say "By the First Amendment". That's the citation.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @12:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @12:43AM (#694082)

            Khallow i vant believe this but jmorris makes you look downright reasonable. Is this some shell game from you foreign cyberspooks?

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 18 2018, @04:33PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday June 18 2018, @04:33PM (#694570)

          Them goal posts got a new turbo. The ownership of the paper does not matter, unless they break other laws.
          Did you know that the owner of Fox was Australian?

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 16 2018, @07:05AM

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 16 2018, @07:05AM (#693875) Journal

      Isn't that dangerously close to telling an infamous brutal dictator that one of his men may not be fully committed to freedom and justice for all?