Freedom of Information, or not?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/hayspress.html



This article, by Tom Curley, President and CEO of the Associated Press is essential reading, and extremely scary. Our bigger and ever more intrusive government is becoming more and more paranoid, and less and less accountable towards their bosses, ie we the people who pay their salaries. Secrecy is becoming the order of the day, and Atty Gen. Ashcroft has issued a directive to the States that the Freedom of Information Act is to be, in effect, reversed. The FOIA (simplistically) defines government information to be publicly accessible unless it can be shown that it must remain secret. To reverse the FIOA would render gov't information secret by default, whereby anyone needing official information will have to jump through hoops to get it. True conservatives would be as infuriated and disgusted about this as liberals.



In its first 9 months, the Bush administration was like a becalmed ship, without clear direction. Then came 9-11, and suddenly there's an Islamic terrorist around every corner. We are now at war on several fronts. The "Patriot" (!) Act was passed without reading in Congress (!), OR a murmer of dissent just days after 9-11, its 342 pages having been written and honed well before the attacks, just waiting for the right opportunity when it would be acceptible, and welcomed by fearful Americans who dare(d) not criticize the administration for fear of being tarred as unpatriotic. Fear is the order of the day.



Four more years of this administration, and America will continue its inexorable morph from a democratic republic into something unrecognizable, and very ugly.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    For those that didn't read it, you have the CEO of the Associated Press making public some deep seated concerns, backed up with specific examples.



    He then calls on other media bodies to join him in a lobbying body to counter certain and increasing threats to basic freedoms of the press instigated by the US government.



    Guys, do you not seeing what is happening to your country?
  • Reply 2 of 14
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,421member
    I think you guys have some anger issues.



  • Reply 3 of 14
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    The CEO of the Associated Press calls for a lobby group of media professionals to counter the reduction of freedom of the press at your government's instigation.



    I say you should find this worrying. You fucking should find this worrying.



    But for some reason, for pointing this out, I have issues.



    Oh boy.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    It's hilarious that he rails against HIPAA. He can't even get the name of the law correct. HIPAA is a bad law that really does nothing to protect patient privacy.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I think you guys have some anger issues.







    Is this how you reply????



  • Reply 6 of 14
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    edit: a post that wasn't helping the thread one little bit, albeit I felt better for posting it



    edit: put the post back in as best I could remember it just to piss off nick



    edit: took it back out again to prevent a tap from the banning stick. hopefully
  • Reply 7 of 14
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Isn't it weird how Harald and Hassan always post in total agreement, in the same threads, at almost the same time? I wonder if someone can check their IP numbers.



    First I read the article and most of the complaints from the AP President and very little of what he said truly seemed to hold merit.



    I think this right here is the key phrase of the whole complaint.



    Quote:

    Gone were expedited FOI procedures for reporter requests to many agencies.



    So is he claiming that he would never be able to get the information, or that government sources are no longer willing to help the media hold trials on the newsrooms instead of in the court?



    The former President Ford angle was laughable in it's near hysterics.



    Quote:

    ?All I could think of was this: one of the five living former presidents might no longer be living, and we have no idea.?



    No idea, why, because people have a right not to have their health and medical state disclosed until they, themselves choose to do so? Are we to honestly believe that no spokesperson for Ford would update the press, or inform them if the former president had died?



    What this is truly about is getting a scoop, which means prying where you shouldn't and getting people to leak. The hospital wouldn't mention Ford being there because of his privacy. People have a right to privacy.



    I look at the other examples and see much of the same complaint.



    Quote:

    As Scalia spoke, a United States Marshal stepped in front of Denise and demanded that she turn over the digital recording she was making to back up her notes. She tried to say no, but the marshal ignored her and erased Justice Scalia?s words from memory on the spot.



    He fails to mention that Scalia has a long standing policy of not having his personal speeches audio or videotaped and people do have this right.



    I went and saw Jerry Seinfeld go do stand up in December. I went through the most thorough search I have ever been through because they allowed no cameras, vidoe or audio devices into the room. Jerry gets to control his image, and so does Scalia. This is typically understood and respected by the media as well. If you go to any political function where there are details being discussed that they do not want the media to have access, even with a speaker, then there is no right to enter or record.



    I've seen this on both sides of the political fence. If NARAL is having a forum with public speakers for NARAL members, and we know the rhetoric is going to be heated, and maybe even a little over the top, they have the right to stay off the record or deny access.



    Quote:

    One day earlier a judge had ordered the media not to identify or publish pictures of the grand jurors. Our photographer was across the street from the courthouse shooting images of peoples? feet and backs as they lined up to go into the courthouse.



    A sheriff?s deputy demanded his camera, flipped through his images, and deleted the ones that the deputy decided would violate the judge?s order. I should add that ? leaving aside the question of whether the judge?s order was constitutional -- neither Michael nor the deputy really knew which of the people in the photos ? if any ? were actually grand jurors.



    Again how is this wrong? How can the grand jury members do their work if they, themselves are the story? Could their verdict change if say, Jackson knew who they were and attempted bribing them, or threatening them?



    These complaints would be akin to complaining that I wouldn't report about my child being born. When looking at the complaints, they would be that they wanted access to the labor room, want to take photos and video of the actual procedure, get access to my wife's medical records so they could have expert commentary on hand to give insight on any possible "complications" and hold an instant poll to assign popularity to various names for the child "leaked" from my family members.



    The reality is they would have to wait until the child is born, given a name, birth certificate, and WAIT until we hold a press conference. The reality is, that the press doesn't want to wait.



    When I went to the Republican National Convention in 1996, there were three members of the press there for every delegate there. The media is even larger today. There are multiple 24 news organizations that need to fill their airtime 365 days a year. They are large and ever more intrusive.



    Businesses have limits, government has limits, even speech has limits, and that includes the media.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Isn't it weird how Harald and Hassan always post in total agreement, in the same threads, at almost the same time? I wonder if someone can check their IP numbers.Nick



    That would be lovely. Would someone please check our IP addresses and let me know if we're posting from the same machine or network? That would be really great.



    If only it were so easy to see if Nick has a tattoo of George Bush on his perineum, as I suspect.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    If only it were so easy to see if Nick has a tattoo of George Bush on his perineum, as I suspect.



    Comments like that are what people are complaining about here in AO! It's unnecessary and inappropriate! I've reported you to a moderator.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Comments like that are what people are complaining about here in AO! It's unnecessary and inappropriate! I've reported you to a moderator.



    Thank-you.



    I'll probably be banned again, and I probably deserve it.



    But damn, a deserved ad hom attacks feels good.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I think you guys have some anger issues.







    I have 1st amendment issues, in that I like to see it protected.



    Why don't you?
  • Reply 12 of 14
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    It's hilarious that he rails against HIPAA. He can't even get the name of the law correct. HIPAA is a bad law that really does nothing to protect patient privacy.



    Um.. so it's "hilarious" that he rails against a law that you think is "bad".



    "He can't even get the name of the law correct", which I suppose indicates that he's....what? A fool? An unreliable source?



    Is it just that he's arguing against an aspect of the Bush administration's policies that oblige you to dis him, or do you disagree with the substance of his article?
  • Reply 13 of 14
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    That would be lovely. Would someone please check our IP addresses and let me know if we're posting from the same machine or network? That would be really great.



    If only it were so easy to see if Nick has a tattoo of George Bush on his perineum, as I suspect.




    You know, as ad homs go, this one seems awfully discrete.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Guess what? It's another locked thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.