U.S. Drops to 49th in World Press Freedom Rankings, Worst Since Obama Became President
The rankings drop follows the Committee to Project Journalists’ 2013 warning that “the administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”
Each year, Reporters Without Borders issues a worldwide ranking of nations based on the extent to which they protect or abridge press freedom. The group’s 2015 ranking was released this morning, and the United States is ranked 49th.
That is the lowest ranking ever during the Obama presidency, and the second-lowest ranking for the U.S. since the rankings began in 2002 (in 2006, under Bush, the U.S. was ranked 53rd). The countries immediately ahead of the U.S. are Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso, El Salvador, Tonga, Chile and Botswana.
Some of the U.S.’s closest allies fared even worse, including Saudi Arabia (164), Bahrain (163), Egypt (158), the UAE (120), and Israel (101: “In the West Bank, the Israeli security forces deliberately fired rubber bullets and teargas at Palestinian journalists”; 15 journalists were killed during Israeli attack on Gaza; and “the authorities also stepped up control of programme content on their own TV stations during the offensive, banning a spot made by the Israeli NGO B’Tselem that cited the names of 150 children who had been killed in the Gaza Strip”).
To explain the latest drop for the U.S., the press group cited the U.S. government’s persecution of New York Times reporter Jim Risen, as well as the fact that the U.S. “continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.” Also cited were the numerous arrests of journalists covering the police protests in Ferguson, Missouri (which included The Intercept’s Ryan Devereaux, who was tear-gassed and shot with a rubber bullet prior to his arrest).
It should come as no surprise that the U.S. continues to plummet in press freedoms under Obama. In October, 2013, the Committee to Protect Freedom issued a scathing denunciation of the U.S. government’s attacks on press freedoms, the first time the U.S. was ever the subject of one of its reports. Written by former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., it detailed the multiple ways the Obama administration has eroded press freedoms, and concluded:
The administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate. The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent.
That warning echoed the one previously issued by James Goodale, the General Counsel of The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers battle, who said: “President Obama wants to criminalize the reporting of national security information” and “President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”
Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
So much for the “most transparent” presidency as promised. No. Wait. I see right through this phony. He is easily the most manipulate-able president in history since it would be so easy to prove that he has produced a fraudulent birth certificate in a court of law, that is, if ever the DOJ were to become so inclined to hold him accountable. To do so would be problematic, as well, as it would fell the whole house of cards. For now, it serves the interests of the elite to not expose him. This is fascism at its finest.
As the nation drops in press freedom ranking, an increasing degree of ignorance about world events that a free press should be reporting about is growing among Americans. To deliberately starve the citizenry of information that they need to participate in an educated way in a free society, is to sabotage democracy itself.
I have written about my abuse and have had thousands read the journals. They have now removed the documentation from the Lefora forum, another way of keeping the public ignorant. And you have to wonder: why would they be so worried if the documentation is nothing but the ravings of a lunatic as they like to project their lunacy on the victims of their abuse. But I shall not be silent….
But WE shall not be silent….
Satyagraha,
RCL
I made a comment to this thread, which was removed (or never made it). I don’t think it was the intercept. My website is altered, the trailer to my last film on Youtube appears to be hacked and not viewable despite close to 6,000 viewers. Something is up. Whoever is running “the program” must be panicking.
Most of you sound like nut jobs with redundant ranting about shit outside this post. The post alone is somewhat retarded with biased stats.
as journalists, those working in Academia … freedom of the press, of speech … in “‘the’ land of ‘the’ free …” is an odd inside joke. Is has always been
if there was such a thing, then Snowden and the Intercept wouldn’t be
RCL
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Everyone claims President Obama for everything therefore much of the information it is untrue. The lack of freedom of the press started gaining ground the Bush and Chaney. It all depends on what side of the fence that you are on. It’s either you are Pro Obama or not. The Bush and Cheney administration dealt in criminal activity and cover-ups with regards to the President Bush when he took the United State to war and the press didn’t do their job because this was a war that should nor have happened. The list of lies continued and continue now, now what did you about the press and President Obama. Anyone can lie as you can see but where are the facts. President Bush all the United States look bad and it seems
“US drops to 49th in world press freedom.” Sounds dreadful doesn’t it? It is actually caused by the US news media censoring itself to obtain or preserve access to their god…Obama. They know if they objectively report on the illegal and unconstitutional activities of Obama’s regime, they will be banned from any access. The US news media also actively suppresses any stories that do not support their liberal views on race, Islamic terror, feminism, or LGBT issues. I recommend Reporters without Borders investigate how the Columbia School of Journalism facilitates and perpetuates this folly called “news reporting.”
Your reply has a considerable amount of false causality to it. We dropped to 53rd under Bush, and were worse under Nixon. I’m not condoning this, as Obama has continued Bush-era policies, but blaming this issue on left or right is a false equivalence. This is everyone’s fault, and needs to be owned and addressed by those of all political ideologies. You are playing right into their hands by starting a fight about left vs. right.
Indeed. I gotta wonder how it has come to this. Sad thing is I already knew how and why.cause the Good Lord said it would be like this in the end times. I believe that we are in the end times now but if not we sure pissed this republic down our legs.either way perilous times are ahead.
More than the usual libel, the accusations he’s been conjuring lately are so fantastically unreal that they could be delusional. He may be losing his mind.
CraigSummers protects and propagandizes on behalf of the sociopaths/psychopaths that started the illegal wars based on lies, and resoundingly and unreservedly cheers torture via humus rectal infusion, among other means.
In short, CraigSummers and the illegal warmongers and torturers are one and the same.
The idea that CraigSummers attempts to equate, time and time again, the non-reporting by Glenn Greenwald on any issue regardless of the article in question because it is not specifically what they would like to see at the time with these explicitly illegal and immoral acts is a simple red-herring argument – no more, no less – and repeatedly and resoundingly ineffective.
On the other hand, CraigSummers jingoistic and sociopathic/psychopathic water-carrying for the war criminals who started this mess is utterly unforgivable.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-psychopath-and-a-sociopath.htm
“Recently I interviewed a psychopath. This is always a humbling experience because it teaches over and over how much of human motivation and experience is outside my narrow range. Despite the psychopath’s lack of conscience and lack of empathy for others, he is inevitably better at fooling people than any other type of offender. I suppose conscience just slows you down.”
– Anna C. Salter, Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders
That is most insightful, Dr Sillyputty; perhaps that is why appeals to facts, reason, and decency never dissuade the twisted mind.
…but if I may take exception to your analysis, it is this: psychopaths can appear to be superficially charming and reasonable as they act in their own self-interest, but I find neither charm nor reason in Craigsummers’ comments. And the ruinous policies he defends are contrary to the security and prosperity of all but an elite powerful few; it’s unlikely that he is one of those. The psychopaths that foisted the wars and tortures upon us are manipulators; CraigSummers didn’t make those polices, and he isn’t likely to be benefiting from them either. CraigSummer’s posts are repugnant and unreasonable, but what he is defending is probably contrary to his own self-interest. His grotesque comments are the product of manipulation by the psychopaths for whom he carrys water. And though I know you can see the difference, Sillyputty, for the benefit of the dishonest moral cretin that can’t: this explanation – whether wrong or right – is not a justification.
“psychopaths can appear to be superficially charming and reasonable as they act in their own self-interest…” – DocHollywood
CraigsSummers behavior here is rhetorical predation, and his self-interest in writing here is in attempting to discredit views and articles, not based on their facts and what they contain, but almost exclusively on what they do not contain. It’s the quintessential ad hominem and straw-man fallacies wrapped up in cognitive dissonance.
CraigsSummers self interest ultimately boils down to fear and insecurity, and their antidote for these personal shortcomings is torture, war, and tribalism; and this pathology requires the same emotional disconnect from fellow humans as we have seen from western leaders around the world as represented in their actions on the “War on Terror.”
Regardless of whether CraigSummers is defending their own self-interest or whether they are a product of manipulation, they are, in fact, the almost a perfect exemplar of the sickness that fearful minds and ignorant policies produce: a person and eventually a government that want to track, label, catalog, and pigeonhole “others” because their own intellectual and emotional safety and security demands it.
Where I live I’m literally surrounded by people that are afflicted with this same mental illness profile. They are apprehensive, lazy thinkers in that they want a “quick fix” by their government to solve problems such as terrorism that, on a personal level, will never directly affect most of them. As you note, instead of using empathy and facts, these morally and ethically bankrupt individuals project their foreboding and trepidation into addressing these problems instead, with the predictably horrific results that we are, all of humanity, now reaping.
It’s a bitter harvest from poisoned seed, and yet, inexplicably, the CraigSummers of the world keep sowing…
“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.” – Noam Chomsky
You’ve explained it very well.
Once you recognize that CraigSummers is in all likelihood employed by some of the worst of the worst to disparage this web site (and perhaps others under other names) his views and prodigious output becomes rational.
Governments, like any other criminal organization, have secrets that they don’t want known.
They inevitably will enact policies and procedures to keep them secret.
Journalists ( using the term in the original sense rather than the corporate media whores we no enjoy) will expose these crimes.
The first amendment forbids the criminalization of such exposure.
The political filth ignore it.
Pretty simple really, and the morons here will continue to vote for the polical filth.
Where do we rank in the world’s totalitarian Police states…somewhat below free press?? After awhile, when no one is ever arrested while comitting concurrent felonies each day, any normal person would start to wonder, WTF is going on…or is the situation SO bad they hope to hide the crimes indefinitely? I’m just saying, the rule of law can be restablished anytime.
Kinda like the collapsing banks in 2008…
We’re still ahead of North Korea!
Mr. Greenwald
Your mission statement:
“…..We believe the prime value of journalism is its power to impose transparency, and thus accountability, on the most powerful governmental and corporate bodies, and our journalists will be provided the full resources and support required to do this…..”
You should either hold all governments accountable or change the mission statement to read,
“…..on the most powerful [American and her allies] governmental and corporate bodies….”.
This would of course be a more honest reflection of the scope of your publication so far. Currently- as it is written – it’s at best misleading, and a lie at worst.
So, with your reluctance to identify just ‘America and her allies’ as the most powerful governmental and corporate bodies, is this remarkable comment your formal admission that various multinational government-infiltrations and corporations control the world, including the US and her stupid allies? My God, you conspiracy theorist, you.
“Why, they even control Israel!!” Craig, shut up! Everyone will know, if you keep yappin’!
“They make me speak bullshit!” Craig, get a grip. Hush now, little fellow. Hush, hush…
Cindy
“……Craig, get a grip. Hush now, little fellow. Hush, hush……”
You are in no position to talk down to anyone. Your little rants of name calling and referring to me as “you Jew you” exposed the deepest levels of your inner self as a bigot and someone who has yet to grow up (all at the same time).
Thanks.
Craig, your use of the word “bigot” is promiscuous. In fact, it’s downright slutty. (Said the reformed prostitute.)
Cindy doesn’t even tolerate bigotry from 18th century philosophers, let alone indulge in it herself.
Good to see you hanging around Gator. You might be the only one on this site that can’t stand a word I say yet keep your responses at a downright civil level. I never thought I might look forward to hearing someone as far to the left as you…..
Take care.
You take care too, you right-wing authoritartian Zionist goy bastard.
As you well know, I called you “You Jew, you” because you spoke disparagingly about Jews, which I find offensive.
I’ll talk to you in any damn well way I like.
You’re the bigot, not me. And you’re welcome.
Well, you got me there Cindy. That’s the reason Mona always calls me a Zionist – because I disparage Jews. You Protestant you…
It was an attempt at humor on your part, a sarcastic comment mocking the kind of anti-Semitism that claims Jews ‘control everything.’ Perhaps you were just seeing if anyone would agree, which no one did. Needless to say it wasn’t funny.
“……It was an attempt at humor on your part, a sarcastic comment mocking the kind of anti-Semitism that claims Jews ‘control everything.’ Perhaps you were just seeing if anyone would agree, which no one did. Needless to say it wasn’t funny……”
Here is your comment from the Greenwald article, “NSA Claims Iran Lears from Western Cyber Attacks”:
“………It is ridiculous for you, a disgusting Zionist supporter of American interventionism………Get it through your dimwitted head: you do not occupy a moral ‘high horse.’ You are provably irresponsible internationally. What you ‘occupy’ is Palestine, and you support demonstrably genocidal actors, both in your own delusional group and in the United States establishment…….”
“……both in your own delusional group……..”
Another “you Jew you” moment Cindy?
First of all, I’m an American citizen. Second, I’m not Jewish. Third, I’m not religious in the least. However, I do believe in a Jewish right to self determination – and a Palestinian right as well. I try to keep things simple.
Thanks….you girl you.
I always thought you were American, that’s no surprise. That you’re not Jewish is a surprise. Perhaps I should have said “You Zionist, you.” But maybe you’re not even Zionist! Maybe your name isn’t Craig Summers. Perhaps you’re not even a guy. I don’t really care what you are, but (whoever the fuck you think you are) don’t speak disparagingly about any group around me without expecting an earful.
And kindly don’t support assaults on Gaza, either. Unless you want to hear the truth.
*AP Confirms Massive Civilian Toll in Israel’s Gaza War*
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/13/ap-confirms-massive-civilian-toll-in-israels-gaza-war/
Fair enough. Thanks.
“[to] impose transparency, and thus accountability, on the most powerful governmental and corporate bodies…” – from The Intercept mission statement
“the most powerful governmental and corporate bodies…”
What part of this is ambiguous in the least, CraigSummers? A reasonable person would readily see that no matter in what context this statement is made, it is an inclusive statement and not an exclusionary statement.
In other words, it’s not meant to be a label or a pigeonhole into which your personal worldview can fit neatly – but rather to address the world as it is – full of holes, one of which may certainly be Argentina, or whatever you say needs more coverage than is given in the world at this time.
I’ve already suggested that you email Glenn with your editorial suggestion (thus, cutting out the craven middlemen on here) but to no avail. Next up: why not start your own blog to cover, as you constantly are saying, the unclaimed territory that the main stream media, other outlets, and most importantly to you, that Glenn leaves undisclosed? You certainly have proven that you can form complete sentences and that you can type enough.
But can you do it without Glenn Greenwald?
Fearful? Don’t be. Rest assured – to the extent that your new blogs’ endeavor remains factual and credible and based on reality rather than ideology – you’ll get the readership, I’m sure.
In the end, and thanks to free choice and a (more or less for now) free internet, you’ll definitely get the readership that you deserve.
“A sociopath is one who sees others as impersonal objects to be manipulated to fulfill their own narcissistic needs without any regard for the hurtful consequences of their selfish actions.” – R. Alan Woods, The Journey Is the Destination
Craig, now, I want you to read this slowly — and feel free to move your lips as you do.
Glenn Greenwald is an American. Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras are Americans and co-founders of TI with Glenn. All three advocate that governments and corporations — in the abstract, and and all of them — should be held accountable by journalists who do their jobs.
Now, I happen to know that Glenn feels George Monbiot and Seumas Milne, who are British, do their jobs. Further — and stay with me here Craig, cuz this is where it gets tricky — Monbiot and Milne mostly keep UK government and corporations accountable. See how that works? Milne and Monbiot are Brits, they’re journos writing for a Brit beat, and they hold the ***UK** govt and corporations accountable.
Ok, the hard part is nearly over.
Glenn also admires some Brazilian journalists, and, can you believe it!? These people almost entirely hold accountable the government and corporations of…BRAZIL.
All of these journalists: Glenn, Jeremy, Laura, Monbiot, Milne, and the Brazilian reporters whom Glenn admires, these are — every one — operating per the TI mission statement. No matter their nationality and which governments and corporations their beats cover (tho as is usually the case, these generally cover own nation plus allies).
So you see, the TI mission statement completely captures the ethics and praxis of journalists with an American beat who — say it with me, Craig – – “Do. Their. Job.” Which is to say, the TI mission statement perfectly captures what is written here.
Mona
What you fail to grasp is the obsession with American and, to a large extent, Israeli policies that underlies the extreme left in many countries around the world. It is rightfully called anti-Americanism when its taken to the level of Greenwald. By the way, this is largely a European phenomena and Milne is a good example of far left wing anti American writer (Australian, John Pilger might be worse). The idea that Scahill, Greenwald etc. are just Americans interested in American policies is entirely bullshit. America has had a particularly important role in the world since WWII so focus on US policies is also a natural result of the US role in the world. That by itself completely obliterates the argument “they are just Americans”. The US deserves more attention. US economic and geopolitical policies are rightly subject to criticism from everyone.
The obsession and hatred extends to Israel for which you are a classic example, Mona. Greenwald is so obsessed with US policies (and Israel) that obvious injustices are ignored while focusing on US “behavior”. Greenwald has absolutely no interest in anything outside of the US, Israel and US allies. I cannot think of two stories (recently) that point out Greenwald’s (Intercept’s) obsession with America and Israel more than his ignoring (indifference) of the targeted Jews in the Paris bombings and ignoring in his own neighborhood the possible murder of a prosecutor calling for the arrest of the President of Argentina. The follow-up article by Scahill (and the apparent right winger, Devereaux) directly after the Paris bombings was remarkable in its insensitive and callous quote of Alwaki blaming Israel. I wonder sometimes if Omidyar fully understood what he was getting himself into.
You are a card-carrying Greenwald mousekateer who walks in lock-step with the boss. Only you are not pretending to run a news source. Don’t expect any changes in my obsessions either.
Thanks.
Oh my, where to begin. Greenwald and co are critical of America because they’re Americans. They’re also critical of Israel because of the ridiculous amount of pandering they do to U.S. politicians. Argentina might be located geographically near Brazil, but Glenn doesn’t write about Brazil here and Argentina doesn’t try to influence U.S. policy in anywhere near the capacity Israel does. The journalists here hold their government accountable. I live about an hours distance from the Canadian border and pick up their radio and tv stations here. They don’t look for accountability in the U.S. because our leaders are accountable to us, not to them. They might think Ted Cruz is an idiot and makes Canadians look bad, but they can’t complain that he doesn’t represent Canadian interests because he doesn’t represent them. They can hold someone like Harper accountable for making decisions completely lock-step with U.S. positions though if they don’t support them.
Craig, what can you tell us of the murder of the prosecutor in Argentina? What is it that concerns you about the incident? Why do you think should Glen be covering it?
I can probably tell you a hell of lot less than Greenwald can, but unless he can somehow tie the Mossad to the killing of the prosecutor, you will not hear about it from him. The key to remember is that it’s Israel and the US who are dangerous – and Greenwald spends a good deal of time exposing that so anything that might put Iran (or Hezbollah) in a bad light will simply be ignored by Greenwald especially in light of Israel’s opposition to Iranian and US negotiations. After all, Greenwald did quote the credible Ahmadinejad who denied Iran was seeking nuclear weapons:
“…….”Ahmadinejad: ‘Never, never. We do not want nuclear weapons. We do not seek nuclear weapons. This is an inhumane weapon. Because of our beliefs we are against that……”
This is the same gentleman that chaired the Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran and at Columbia University denied there are homosexuals in Iran. Remember also that Iran hanged two gay men in 2005 – and who can forget the brutal crackdown of the Green Revolution in Iran (despite “because of our beliefs”)? So Greenwald protects and propagandizes on behalf of Iran. That’s why he ignores this story even as the story is next door to him in South America. Greenwald is a lawyer who happens to write articles – and the brutal Iran is his political client.
Craig: Pay careful attention to “the most powerful governmental and corporate bodies…”. The US government spends approximately 4% of WORLD GDP (world GDP ~$60 trillion/yr., US federal spending ~$2.5 trillion/yr.). The US government spends more on its military than the next thirty governments put together. The US probably deploys enough armed force to fight an alliance composed of every other country in the world with a fair chance of success (presuming nobody uses nuclear weapons).
In short, if you are looking at the most powerful government bodies, the US government necessarily looms larger, by far, than any other ten governments. The government of Argentina, on the other hand, is a non-entity, which would be why the murder of an Argentine prosecutor merits very little attention.
It’s worse than you think.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4527492/rep-mcsally-discusses-presidents-aumf
Journalists have no one but themselves to blame for this. They are supposed to be the gatekeepers, the ones that keep a watchful eye on the elites and expose their wrongdoing. But this has become too boring and unprofitable so, instead, they cross the line and become “White Clowns” for the corporate establishment, punning their lies, covering their misdeeds, spreading their misinformation, creating paranoia and fear while getting paid handsomely for it but now they want to have freedom of expression too. Well…you can’t have it both ways! I truly feel but the good, honest, ethical few that remain out there and have to fight the system and be dragged down by their own peers. We have created a world for ourselves in which truth and reality have no place and those who insist on it must be destroyed by whatever the means.
Not exactly the offering I’d have expected could make someone’s head explode and start ranting, “I hate everyone and everything at TI!”
You might want to make some mental notes about the recipe, chef.
Why is it that Israel got its own little denouncement whereas Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s harshest theocraties, was only named?
Are there any Obama supporters left? I mean other than Cheney.
Mr. Greenwald
Reporters Without Borders:
“……This has been the case in the United States (46th), which fell 13 places, one of the most significant declines, amid increased efforts to track down whistleblowers and the sources of leaks. The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest…..”
Clearly my ass. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) must think that anyone who works for National Intelligence who signs a non-disclosure agreement with the government should be able to pass along information whenever they deem the information is in the “public interest”. That’s entirely false. Who elected them to make that decision, or WikiLeaks – or you for that matter? Manning certainly didn’t read every document passed to WikiLeaks, and as is especially the case with you Mr. Greenwald, the decision what to publish is entirely politically driven. We know that.
Only a two-bit politically-driven publication like the Intercept publishes a Snowden document which discloses how the US government is “teaching” Iran about sophisticated cyberattacks while ignoring the murder of a prosecutor in Argentina who accuses his own government of covering up a terrorist attack sponsored by Iran and carried out by Hezbollah. While citing Reporters Without Borders for your article, you completely ignore exactly what Reporters With Borders stands for in the case of the murdered prosecutor – and you ignore the story for political reasons. It’s nearly impossible to escape politics when discussing civil and human rights, but at least RWB makes an effort to hold everyone’s feet to the fire. When is the Intercept going to attempt to do the same?
The Intercept is already developing a history of selectively supporting human rights. For example, Jews were targeted in Paris so the Intercept responds with an article by Scahill who callously quotes a terrorist who blames Israel. So while defending the collective punishment of Muslims in the west, the Intercept apparently endorses collective punishment of Jews.
“…….Also cited were the numerous arrests of journalists covering the police protests in Ferguson, Missouri (which included The Intercept‘s Ryan Devereaux, who was tear-gassed and shot with a rubber bullet prior to his arrest)……”
This was clearly one of the worst articles I have read – even for someone from the far left. Mr. Devereaux discloses what HE knows about the Michael Brown shooting knowing full well the decision by the Grand Jury has been leaked. So Ryan – like many on the fringe left – convicted and hanged Darren Wilson – and he did it without all of the evidence disclosed to the Grand Jury. It was a pathetic, politically driven article – and gutless enough that the Intercept hasn’t even bothered to write a follow-up article i.e., a classic case of hit and run journalism.
By the way, Mr. Greenwald, have you checked where RWB ranks your country of residence, Brazil?
Craig, you don’t adhere to the U.S. Constitution, as by, for example, your obstinate refusal to state reasons for supporting the 4th amendment. So of course YOU think a non-disclosure agreement should trump that piece of tissue — The Constitution.
To a great extent, no one elected makes those drecidsions. We now have an unelected shadow government running natsec and defense in the darkest secrecy, accountable to none (save for a weakened, non-adversarial rubber-stamp-court); policies in these sectors do not significantly change depending on which member of the duopoly is in office. So, elections are nearly moot.
But Craig, you know all this, and approve. You strongly endorse torture but realize that because it is illegal it can be committed by an elite willing to ignore the law, with an assist from an elite unwilling to prosecute it.
[snort] Says he, who’s never met a constitutional amendment or human right he wasn’t willing to ignore in the service of his authoritarian Americanism and/or Zionism.
You go girl!
Oooch! I think Senor Craig Summers was just bitch slapped. That had to have hurt. Careful though Mona – Mr. Summers’ pay masters might put you on the watch list. This subservient numb nuts probably can’t tell the difference between a Constitutional document or a vacuum cleaner bag.
Hello Mona
“…….To a great extent, no one elected makes those drecidsions. We [now] have an unelected shadow government running natsec and defense in the darkest secrecy, accountable to none (save for a weakened, non-adversarial rubber-stamp-court); policies in these sectors do not significantly change depending on which member of the duopoly is in office. So, elections are nearly moot…..” my brackets around your wording
We “now” (as if this is a sudden change) is simply incorrect. You have never known what the NSA or the CIA are doing. You are not supposed to know and they have an interest in keeping you in the dark – and that interest is in your interest since they work for the security of Americans. Even Greenwald recognizes that National Security requires secrecy. That is their job. What they do with other countries is almost always outside of the law, like hacking Chinese defense contractors. It’s illegal for the US government to hack, infiltrate, steal Chinese or Russian secrets (especially from private countries), or to monitor the phone calls of world leaders – but they have been doing this a long time – and that is their job. Simple.
Thus far, there has been no consensus on the illegality of storing phone records (metadata). Whatever the final decisions by the courts – probably the Supreme Court – the NSA/CIA will continue to press the envelope on monitoring phones, internet etc. for terrorist, hacking, cyber attacks and so on. When they fail to stop attacks, they are the first ones blamed (as they should be). I support their efforts 100% without reserve. I also support jailing leakers without reserve.
Thanks.
Craig Summers arguing once again that we should have no principles simply because others may not.
He has every right to say it, and we have every right to disagree.
I’m not arguing anything about your principles. I’m just stating that national security agencies work in the dark. They have always worked that way, and they will continue to work that way. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone. That doesn’t mean they can’t change in some respects, but wholesale changes will not happen at the NSA or CIA.
Thanks.
You’re not arguing anything about my principles. I know that.
You’re not arguing anything about your own principles, either.
Because you don’t HAVE principles, Craig Summers.
CraigSummers is both right and wrong here, in that they believe:
1) That they are Dick Cheney incarnate here, and
2) That this is “Meet The Press.”
The first goes without saying anymore (it is proved thus); in that the sociopathy/psychopathy regarding allegiance to torture and the idea of unquestioning government obeisance are the same.
The second goes without saying anymore (it is proved thus); in that there is significant rhetorical and factual rebuttal to the claims that CraigSummers/Dick Cheney do make, unlike what you’ll find in most main stream media.
For CraigSummers edification – this is exactly why I dislike labels and pigeonholes: because had I labeled your ideas you’d not have pigeonholed yourself as well as your own words have. That’s also why I like freedom of speech.
It allows you the rhetorical rope by which to hang yourself…or to haul yourself up.
“The real bridle on our tongues is imposed by the everyday lying and jargon, sanctioned and promulgated at the highest levels of media and politics, and not by the awkward handful who imagine themselves revolutionaries.” – Christopher Hitchens
Oh, but I have, and I do. I’ve read voluminously on the history of the CIA, FBI and some on the NSA; their sins are legion. Moreover, there was a time a change in leadership could effect some change in the behavior of these entities. That time is past.
No elected representatives control these secret government actors; when called before Congress the spies lie, and they even spy on the Senate.
When government lies in secret, with no accountability, men like Daniel Ellsberg act for The People. Men and women like John and Bonnie Raines vindicate The People for the crimes and abuses of the FBI. Chelsea Manning alerts us to the hidden war crimes done in our names. And Edward Snowden alerts us to the Global Surveillance Apparatus spreading its tentacles throughout our communications without the knowledge or consent of the governed. Men and women like these bravely come forward when representative government fails.
In the absence of government malfeasance, do you feel Ellsberg should have been sentenced to prison if convicted as charged?
If found, should John and Bonnie Raines have been prosecuted and sentenced for bringing to light COINTELPRO and it’s vile behavior toward MLK?
Mona
It doesn’t matter how much you have read. The NSA and CIA operate in the present in secret. Again, Mona – that’s their job and their oversight will never be by the general population for obvious reasons. As long as Islamic terrorist continue to burn people alive or attack western centers of free speech, the NSA will be under no threat of having their activities severely curtained. As long as Russia wages war in Ukraine and supports Assad in his murderous war in Syria, the people who work at the NSA and CIA will be in no danger of losing their jobs. Intelligence is still a premium. They might undergo some changes, but the world remains dangerous – and most Americans recognize the important role of the CIA and NSA.
You cannot release hundreds of thousands of documents like Manning and expect a free pass – and then he gave the documents to an alleged rapist. I’m not sure I agree totally with his sentence of 35 years, but he deserved to go to prison. If Ellsberg did not get off on a technicality, I would have supported imprisoning him also. He broke the law. He might have been given a lighter sentence, but he still broke the law. If there was no punishment for national security leaks, then there would certainly be more leaks – and then why have national security? In Snowden’s case, he gave the documents to the wrong people. Greenwald simply uses the documents that promote his political agenda while ignoring stories of government abuse for political reasons – like the dead prosecutor in Argentina (a huge story right next door to where he lives). I can only imagine how many of the documents show the Iranian government in a bad light – like being ranked by Reporters Without Borders at 173rd out of 181 (even as Iran supports the murder of 200,000 Muslims).
Thanks.
Craig, do you regret that you and your fellow citizens learned during the course of the war, from the Pentagon Papers, that the American government lied chronically about the progress and events of the Vietnam war?
Do you regret that the FBI burglars revealed COINTELPRO, and the shameful treatment of Martin Luther King by the FBI? Do you feel this is material we shouldn’t have learned until many decades later — when the underlying practises had become well-entrenched — after expiry of a long declassification period?
When a citizen knows government is telling horrifically important and awful lies of enormous current consequence, and further when there exists no meaningful legal routes to alert the citizenry, do you advocate the knowledgeable citizen remain silent?
The reply lightly [edited] for accuracy:
“We” now is simply incorrect. [I pretend to] have never known what the NSA or the CIA are doing [because I ignore the substance of the many articles written about the NSA or the CIA on whose comments section I’m endlessly repeating my idiosyncratic non sequiturs. TI supports the collective punishment of Jews.] [I am] not supposed to know and [I] have an interest in keeping [myself] in the dark [to avoid cognitive dissonance] – and that interest is [not] in your interest since they work for the security of American [multinationals and elites while sowing more hatred and a growing desire for vengeance]. Greenwald recognizes that National Security requires secrecy [sometimes, which is not the same as claiming you are “supposed to be kept in the dark”, but I don’t pay any attention to the substance of Greenwald’s articles on whose comments section I’m endlessly repeating my ad hominems. He is anti-American]. It’s illegal for the US government to hack, infiltrate, steal Chinese or Russian secrets, or to monitor the phone calls of world leaders – but [I claim] they have been doing this a long time [right after claiming we don’t know what they have been doing. You defend terrorists]. Simple.
The NSA/CIA will continue to press the envelope on monitoring phones, internet etc. for terrorist, hacking, cyber attacks and so on [and I continue to claim that we have never known that the NSA & CIA are pressing the envelope on monitoring phones, internet etc. for terrorist, hacking, cyber attacks and so on]. When they fail to stop attacks, [Muslims, and brownies] are the first ones blamed (as they should be [because more hatred and a growing desire for vengeance are never a predictable consequence of US oppression and violence]) I support their efforts 100% [while claiming not to know their efforts. I don’t know what I am supporting] without reserve. [You’re a fringe far-leftist.]”
Lol Thanks Doc, always a fun read.
There you go again, Craig. Please tell the nice folks what, oh, five positions Ryan Devereaux holds that constitute the “fringe” or “far” left in the West.
Otherwise — in the absence of identifiable content — you mean this language only as misdirection and hand-waving.
Mona
I have been over this numerous times. You are a political fringe leftist as is Greenwald and Devereaux. This must be be your cue for sillyputty to show up and argue why some political labels are ok, while others are not (hmmm, I wonder what the criteria is?). Not going through the exercise again, but good idea anyway Mona.
Thanks.
Mona a leftist? You have no idea!
“This must be be your cue for sillyputty to show up and argue…” – CraigSummers
Nope. I take cues from no one here. That said – you seriously just got your ass handed to you—>CraigSummers.
Oh, and it’s a capital “S” in Sillyputty.
Thanks.
“Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.” – William Shakespeare
Hi Sillyputty
Good to see you drop by.
“…….Nope. I take cues from no one here……”
Seriously, Sillyputty? Like three-quarters of the people in this forum, you take your cue from Greenwald. You are a mousekateer. That’s obvious.
“…..Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to continually be part of unanimity…..” ~Christopher Morley
Thanks
CraigSummers writes: Clearly my ass. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) must think that anyone who works for National Intelligence who signs a non-disclosure agreement with the government should be able to pass along information whenever they deem the information is in the “public interest”.
Response: When people in the secret police either are participating in a crime or know that crimes are occurring then they should be able to do something about it. But under the system of the Pentagon, CIA,FBI, NSA etc crimes can be committed without any recourse and covered up by the secret police. There are checks and balances in the system. The secret police do whatever they want. There are no laws to limit their power and even there were such laws they would not be enforced. Congress performs no oversight except as a charade to create the propaganda impression that Congress is limiting the power of the secret police or reining in the secret police.
CraigSummers writes: Clearly my ass. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) must think that anyone who works for National Intelligence who signs a non-disclosure agreement with the government should be able to pass along information whenever they deem the information is in the “public interest”. That’s entirely false. Who elected them to make that decision, or WikiLeaks – or you for that matter?
Response: The Founding Fathers “elected” them when they passed the Bill of Rights! The Founding Fathers elected that people should have such power! The Founding Fathers elected to include such rights and protections in the Bill of Rights!
Boldly stating the obvious, he opens by announcing from where his latest rant was pulled:
Then he starts with a straw man to knock down:
…follows with a non sequitur:
…and another non sequitur:
…and then an ad hominem:
…and an insubstantial claim:
…then another ad hominem:
He posits a false analogy:
…which leads to an ad hominem:
…and still another ad hominem:
…adds more non sequiturs:
…blurts out a falsehood:
…and then another falsehood:
Only his opening was honest.
Well said, Doc!
Brilliant deconstruction once again, Doc.
There’s no shame in being ambivalent but I think your reasoning is incompatible when you on one hand condemn whistle blowing as an act of treachery but on the other hand you are gasping for any kind of information on other cases. If agencies know the truth but still don’t provide you/us with that information then who else to blame?
Selective outrage is an extremely difficult case to make, because the possible accusations of hypocrisy (of the original accuser) are endless. Why are you really worried about inconsistencies in Glenn’s outrage, for example, as opposed to that of thousands of other journalists? Is your selective outrage at selective outrage selective? Is mine? The regresses is infinite.
That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just so totally subjective (unless you have data on just how many media outlets took what angle and which ones are clearly being ignored, via the numbers) that it doesn’t say much. If there’s another side to the story, just present it and let it speak for itself.
Mr. Summers, are you paid to write all this pro-US & Israeli/anti-TI stuff? Your output here is truly phenomenal for someone who does this to get a few ideas over when he/she has a real life. If you’re paid to write, all you’re doing is spreading government propaganda and are standing on no higher ground than all the rest of their shills.
What?! Nonsense. The problem with our press is that they’re far too free. Look at Greenwald, for example, who just up and decides he’s going to start taking Saturdays off Twitter, without even asking for permission. Is anyone stepping in to intervene the way they should, if this was a just world? Nooooo, just 24-48 hours of existential sadness on my Android screen, with nary a damn citation sent his way. Not free enough? Please. I don’t wanna hear it, if the world were fair journalists like GG would be in some sort of “People Are Alike All Over” scenario where everyone could enjoy them fairly at all times as a shared resource. But no, he just wanders around the jungles of South America whenever he wants and that’s supposed to be totally ok. Don’t even start with this “not free enough” baloney, I can’t even.
49th is a little bit high since the US mainstream media has long collaborated with the state security apparatus and participated in covering up crimes and abuses of power by the secret police against American citizens. Very few journalists in America actually do their jobs in a legitimate way. More American journalists collaborate with the Washington Regime than those that do not collaborate.
While journalism is surely your bailiwick, this article could have noted the close relationship that the freedom of the press has with freedom in general. All of our freedoms seem to be under assault and this Press Freedom Index only points out one of them. Are there other organizations who have similar indicators or indexes for other liberty related issues? I know there are rankings for best and worst places to live.
I would like to see the whole list
I know America’s reporters (the media) has too much freedom. They lie very, very well. They open doors and draw maps for our enemies to come after us. They let the world know how much hatred many of the people who live here have for certain cultures. As far as knowing (what we should as citizens) I know more about what is actually going on in my country. A true reporter tells the real truth not make their personal opinions sound as though they’re the real facts.
” Even as light displays both itself and darkness, so is truth a standard both of itself and of falsity.”— Baruch Spinoza
The latest press freedom index published by Reporters without borders displays not only government’s attacks on press freedoms but also true courage and nobleness of the targeted journalists.
Indeed some of our times most influential courageous whistle blowers and journalists are of american origin.
not at all surprising you get the first black president in all the racist politicians and millionaires and billionaires go on a treacherous and treasonous assault on the Constitution and the office of the presidency simply because there’s a black man in the White House sick
“Hugo Chávez was elected President of Venezuela four times from 1998 through 2012 and was admired and supported by a large majority of that country’s citizens, largely due to his policies that helped the poor. King Abdullah was the dictator and tyrant who ran one of the most repressive regimes on the planet.” Glenn Greenwald
Venezuela Press Index: 2002 = 77, 2012 = 146, 2015 = 137.
Somebody in Venezuela is attempting to reach Saudi Arabia high score of 164.
Non sequitur. Chavez was a popular, benevolent, democratically-elected leader, unlike any ruler in Saudi Arabia or in many other leaders supported by the US.
“Chavez was a popular, benevolent, democratically-elected leader” whose bad record on press freedom should not be scrutinized by other journalists such as Glenn Greenwald. Is that your point?
No, such scrutiny is fine, but you’re deflecting from the point of this article. Venezuela’s lackluster press freedoms don’t negate or excuse those of the US or of its allies.
Do you care to address the shoddy state of press freedom in the US, or do you to keep playing Whatabout?
I think you should read the article to determine who is playing “what about”. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Israel? What about Egypt? I just added ONE country that has been doing very very bad and that has been mentioned in other articles by Glenn Greenwald. I think it deserves a spot among those above.
Or, Venezuela is rapidly moving toward the heights of our tight pal Israel at 101, while the U.S. leaves the top 3 — Finland, Norway and Denmark — ever further behind.
Why do you suppose Greenwald didn; t discuss, say, Norway? Or Eritrea
Venezuela has already passed our “pal” level with regards to press freedom according to RSF.
You will have to ask your Great Leader why he didn’t discuss Norway, a strong US ally that supports military interventions in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.
Please list all the countries you believe “deserved a spot” in Glenn’s articles that he did not include. Then please explain how these pertain to Glenn’s article on the relative place held by the U.S. and some of her allies in the Reporters Without Borders rankings.
I am not here to do your Great Leader’s job. That is his choice to include whatever he wishes in his articles. However, some readers, including Alpha brown!! find it very interesting that he has a habit of omitting information. For instance, disregarding the poor record of an anti US government on press freedom while raising the red flag on the poor record of pro US government. Both Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have been led by “benevolent” leaders, both countries receive substantial money from the US through oil trades, and both have a poor record when it comes to press freedom.
Are defense contracts from the US the prerequisite for countries with low press freedom to be listed by Greenwald?
Meanwhile, as exemplified by today’s New York Times, the US MSM is focused on minimizing the damage to its image caused by the evocation of fantasies of NBC’s prime mouthpiece, Brian Williams. While it is quite right to focus on the consistent efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations to curtail honest reporting, their success is due in no small measure to the timidity and corruption of the management in MSM organizations.
It’s the third lowest ranking. The US was ranked 48th in 2007.
49 is a bigger number than 48.
Ugh. I was looking at #46 in 2014 because it was at the top of the list. Thanks, Kitt.
Test – bb ii ss uu 1 2
Another reason for the ranking, and written about by Greenwald numerous times, must certainly be the hideous double standard of Obama’s own administration leaking classified information that is positive about or will glorify Obama in some way, and the extreme treatment given whistle blowers and journalists–in direct opposition to his 2008 campaign pledges–who reveal negative or unlawful actions by the administration.
I see comments about how the Government controls the press.
How about a few about how the press controls the Government.
Presidents come and go, politicians come and go but the press remains.
If a journalist is hard pressed by the Government, the MSM say silent.
who ranked number 1?
Military security should be protected. I think of when the US Forces were coming ashore in Somalia and the press was there, with video cameras and lights, with a live feed that was broadcast around the world. Not only were they putting the troops at risk by illuminating them, they were announcing to the warlords the activities taking place. It has become commonplace for reporters to make known what our military is in the process of doing, thus placing the whole mission at risk as well as the lives of our troops. That should never happen.
“the second-lowest ranking for the U.S. since the rankings began in 2002”
Yeah, it makes sense that they would start measuring the US just as the US juggernaut began pitching its plan to leap-frog across the middle-east. But all the firings have already been done now, and the “liberals” such as Phil Donahue that were lost in the purge were never rehired so it almost can go unnoticed that in discussions of things like the situation in Ukraine and Syria there is essentially one debate now….”How should the US get its way?”
So for me, really, the focus is not on how is the US government harming the free press, for me, the question is will the press do a good enough job informing the public, to make defending them against the government, worth the public’s effort. (this is where I could add to the RSF ranking, a Pew poll showing that public esteem for journalists has dropped ten points in the past few years)
…and of course I’m making sweeping generalizations about “the press” and how bad it is. An example of good journalism is this, a very good interview of Stephen Cohen on the Ukraine situation and other things Russian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCcR8pEm3g
Cohen is a long standing Russia expert in the US…so naturally I had to go to a web show, “the Young Turks”, in order to find a good interview of him.
Here’s CNN for comparison, they have a budget that is a hundred? Or is it a thousand times the Young Turks. Here they are giving Stephen Cohen a chance to utter two sentences (in between efforts to fend off some woman who thinks as do the two anchors, that Obama is doing a bang up job):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQyBSG5FIEo
CNN has 24 hours to present the news, but somehow don’t have time to listen to someone who knows what they are talking about. What is the silver lining? That the average age of CNN/NBC viewers is approaching the seventies? Then the fight will be how to prevent news on the open internet from being turned into what is bad about TV news.
“That the average age of CNN/NBC viewers is approaching the seventies?”
Being a member of that age group, not all of us watch CNN, at least my wife and I don’t. RT, FSTV, and link, besides local for local news are our choices. It’s very sad when I trust a Russian state sponsored TV channel more than a US non-state sponsored channel or are they really non-state. The lines are quickly becoming blurred between News, Big Business, and government.
But getting back to the direct US attack on journalism, I could add this:
““We are facing a number of challenges from entities like Russia Today which is out there pushing a point of view, the Islamic State in the Middle East and groups like Boko Haram” – Andrew Lack, the newly-appointed chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).
I swear this is not a misprint. The head of a notionally independent US federal agency, responsible for the supervision of all US government-funded international media actually said this in a New York Times interview. The BBG supervises US propaganda networks such as RFE/RL and the Voice of America and had a 2014 budget of $733 million. He believes that little RT (2014 budget $291 million) is not only an existential threat to the US media but he equates the danger it poses to that of barbarous terror organizations. “
http://rt.com/op-edge/225767-us-establishment-attack-rt/
Yes, Obama’s man Lack, just lumped RT in with Boko Haram.
You’ve got to hand it to those commies at RT. They’ve worked out it’s cheaper to tell the truth. Hell there’s even a market for it.
Speaking of James Risen, I strongly recommend his latest, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War, about the breathtaking crookedness involved in the War on Terror. It’s an accusatory book based on diligent news-gathering and well worth reading (even if it does spike your blood pressure). On point in this discussion.
Haha Benito, are you for real, or was that comment just a bad joke?
While many will blame the US government for this low ranking, it is clear that US journalists are equally to blame.
Journalists used to exercise discretion. They respected the limits of what the government wished to reveal and didn’t overstep their bounds. Now, unfortunately, the proliferation of media outlets has resulted in new entrants to the field who haven’t received the proper training, and believe that telling the truth is sufficient justification for publishing information. Of course the US government is forced to step in, demand they reveal their sources and threaten to prosecute them for contempt of court when they refuse. This makes the US look bad in the freedom of the press rankings, but would be completely unnecessary if journalists were more deferential and submissive to government authority.
Journalists can be free, or the press can be free – but not both.
“Journalists can be free, or the press can be free – but not both.”
That is one of your better ones Benito. I hope to soon see the book….”Fascism Made Pithy”
So that freedom of speech thing in the Constitution — just a guideline, right?
The US press freedom rating has been sinking like a stone – but it’s important to appreciate that everything is completely in compliance with the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits prior restraint, but in no way prevents the government from jailing unauthorized leakers for life, or jailing reporters who refuse to name their sources for contempt of court, or even for conspiracy.
In my view, it would be kinder simply to pass a law prohibiting certain types of reporting (being critical of the government, for example). People would know where they stood, and would avoid the trap of publishing and then spending the rest of their lives in prison. However, I realize this is a minority opinion and many prefer to abide by the letter of the Constitution, regardless of the toll in human suffering.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” –attrib. to George Orwell
The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, remember?
“…more deferential and submissive to government authority.”
How much more deferential and submissive could journalists in the United States be?
“Deferential” is the key. In fact, US journalists have ample freedom if they stick to safer subjects, like car chases, celebrity gossip and sports news. Certainly the demographics — the American public — seems to prefer that. Exposé of government misbehavior? The true pity is that the public might not care, or their editors might not back up the reporters. Who today remembers Peter Arnett or Phil Donohue in the runup to the Iraq War? Who remembers what happened to NYT reporter Raymond Bonner in 1981 after he reported on the El Mozote massacre?
(BTW, Bill O’Reilly was also on that El Salvador beat, and yet he played it safer and went on to greater things. See how the profession rewards go-getters?)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/197401/did-bill-oreilly-cover-war-crime-el-salvador
And now you know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say.
Perez Hilton’s entire existence is a case in point. Gossiping about celebrities is considered journalism here, and a cushy career to add. For more serious reporters, cozying up to TPTB and masquerading as a serious journalist is a good gig too, and gives off the illusion of credibility.
Re: Network quote: just as true today as it was 39 years ago, if my local media news is any indication.