Reporters across The Associated Press are outraged over the Justice Department’s sweeping seizure of staff phone records — and they say such an intrusion could chill their relationships with confidential sources.
In conversations with POLITICO on Tuesday, several AP staffers in Washington, D.C., described feelings of anger and frustration with the DOJ and with the Obama administration in general.
“People are pretty mad — mad that government has not taken what we do seriously,” one reporter said on Tuesday. “When the news broke yesterday … people were outraged and disgusted. No one was yelling and screaming, but it was like, ‘Are you kidding me!?’”
“People are ticked,” said another. “Everyone supports the reporters involved.”
The behind-the-scenes anger — and heads-down determination of the AP staff members to keep doing their jobs amid the extraordinary public flap — comes as top executives from the wire service have mounted an aggressive public pushback against DOJ, calling its snooping a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” in a letter fired off to Attorney General Eric Holder. And yet something of a bunkerlike atmosphere has taken hold at the AP in Washington with no bureau-wide meetings or announcements about the DOJ’s action, AP sources told POLITICO.
The chief concern about the government probe, according to many of those journalists, is that the DOJ’s intrusion will compromise their relationships with confidential sources, some of whom now fear that their private correspondence could be obtained by the federal government.
“It’s chilling, and they owe us an explanation,” NBC News Political Director and White House correspondent Chuck Todd said on Tuesday. “This is intimidation and that’s what it feels and looks like and unless they have a different explanation, there is no other conclusion to draw than a way to intimidate whistleblowers.”
“It is outrageous, totally inexcusable,” Carl Bernstein, the investigative reporter, said on MSNBC. “This administration has been terrible on this subject from the beginning. The object of it is to intimidate people who talk to reporters. This was an accident waiting to become a nuclear event and now it’s happened. There’s no excuse for it whatsoever. There’s no reason for this investigation, especially on this scale.”
The nation’s news media were stunned to learn yesterday of the Departmentof Justice’s broad subpoena of telephone records belonging to The Associated Press. In the thirty years since the Department issued guidelines governingits subpoena practice as it relates to phone records from journalists, none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department, particularlywithout notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicialreview. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, onits own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the newsmedia and the public’s interest in reporting on all manner of governmentconduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heart of this case.
And finally, the Department should announce whether it has served any other pendingnews media-related subpoenas that have not yet been disclosed.
Funny, just a couple of months ago they were all laughing at Bob Woodward for so much as implying such a thing."Chilling" keeps popping up in news stories.
Attorney General Eric Holder, long accustomed to GOP attacks, faced bipartisan ire in the House Wednesday from lawmakers looking for answers on multiple fronts.
Most of the Judiciary Committee’s questions during the four-hour session revolved around the Justice Department’s decision to subpoena journalists’ phone records in connection with a leak investigation — but there was little new information in the responses from Holder, who announced Tuesday that he had recused himself from the inquiry.
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation — which eventually obtained records of phone calls from home, office and cellphone lines used by several Associated Press reporters and editors — “appears to be contrary to the law and standard procedure.” He pressed Holder to explain why the news organization was not given advance notice of the subpoenas.
“I do not know with regard to this particular case why that was or was not done. … I am not familiar with the reasons why the email was disrupted in the way that it was,” Holder said. “I have faith in the people who would actually be responsible for this case [that] they were aware of the rules, and they followed them. But I don’t have a factual basis to answer the question because I was recused.”
The toughest criticism for Holder on the Democratic side came from Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California.
“It seems to me clear that the actions of the department have, in fact, impaired the First Amendment,” Lofgren said. “Reporters who might have previously believed that a confidential source would speak to them will no longer have that level of confidence because those confidential sources are now going to be chilled in their relationship with the press.”
“It seems to me the damage done to a free press is substantial and will continue until corrective action is taken,” she added. “I think this is a very serious matter that concerns all of us, no matter your party affiliation.”
Holder pleaded ignorance about the details, but said he thought the department should explain its actions in more detail when the probe ends.
Several lawmakers expressed surprise that Holder had recused himself from the AP-related probe without generating any paperwork or email to document the decision.
“As I think about it, … that actually might be a better policy to have,” Holder conceded late in the hearing.
The ranking Democrat on the panel, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, began his opening remarks with a sharp criticism of the department’s foray into the AP journalists’ contacts.
“I am deeply troubled by the notion that our government would secretly pursue such a broad array of media phone records over such a long period of time,” Conyers said.
Conyers said a reporter’s shield law, which failed to pass in recent Congresses, was sorely needed. “I suggest that those of us with concerns about a free press also work together to achieve a better balance in the law,” he said, calling it a common-sense measure.
His statement did not note that the version of the bill the Senate took up in 2009 and the Obama administration endorsed contained an exception for national security cases that likely would have rendered it inapplicable in the probe that led to the AP subpoenas.
TV_Host said:What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft.
So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere. But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive
Associated Press President and CEO Gary Pruitt said on Sunday the Justice Department subpoenas of phone records was unconstitutional and is already impacting news gathering.
"Their rules require them to come to us first," Pruitt said on CBS's "Face the Nation." But instead of trying to work with the AP, the Justice Department claimed an exception that informing the news organization would have posed a substantial threat to their investigation. The Justice Department sought phone records for 21 AP phone lines that were used by approximately 100 journalists over the course of two months, he said.
"We can't understand why," Pruitt said, since the records came from an outside business and couldn't have been tampered with.
Pruitt said that the message being sent is that if officials talk to the press they are going to be sought out and monitored by the government.
"It will hurt journalism," Pruitt said. "We are already seeing some impact."
The White House did, though, ask Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to introduce a media shield bill in the Senate, which would protect journalists from being forced to reveal sources. But the version that passed the Judiciary Committee in 2009 included exemptions for national security, so might not have protected the AP in the leak case now under investigation.
the new civil rights movement?
LOL!
that'd be like the prof linking to breitbart
President Obama tries to stop the bleeding - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
eric holder's doj, with a dismissive wave of its regal wrist, simply exempts itself
ap prez pruitt: "their rules require them to come to us first, but instead of trying to work with the ap, the justice dept claimed an exception that informing the news organization would have posed a substantial threat to their investigation"
the result: a chilling stifling of news and information
stay tuned
The similar Senate measure would shield reporters from being compelled to disclose their sources, except in limited cases, such as when the evidence would help prevent an act of terrorism or when there is "significant and articulable harm to the national security."
sun link above
They just don't want dems to do it
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an emailed statement: "The burden is always on the government when they go after private information, especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources. ... On the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation."
LOL!
regardless of republican druthers, dems are doing it
ask pruitt
apparently, republicans aren't the only ones who don't appreciate the doj waiving its own rules in order to engage in this "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into the operations of a once free press
Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe
stay tuned
Sangha's sorry attempts to blame Republicans is just getting sadder. The bill in question was not opposed by the Republicans, IT WAS A REPUBLICAN BILL. The issue was that the Democrats were trying to shove sh*t down everyone's throat (again) and froze congress because they didn't want to vote on an energy bill.
Somehow Sangha expects to make an unrelated Congressional log jam more responsible for the DOJ actions than the DOJ. In other words, it is laughably ludicrous.
The publicans filibustered the bill.
It's hilarious that you are arguing that the dems were trying to shove the bill down the publicans throats
*and* claim that the publicans supported the bill :lamo And I'm still waiting for you to post evidence that the DOJ investigators who did this were dems
Would the Baltimore Sun be more to your liking?
Republican senators block 'media shield' - Baltimore Sun
"Chilling" keeps popping up in news stories. Here's what the NY Times Editorial Board has to say:
The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.
...Both Mr. Holder and Mr. Cole [a deputy AG]declared their commitment — and that of President Obama — to press freedoms. Mr. Cole said the administration does not “take lightly” such secretive trolling through media records.
We are not convinced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html?hp
Neither of which would have applied in this case.
The publicans want the govt to intimidate the press.
They just don't want dems to do it
So the GOP killed the First Amendment?
Honestly that is the big deal here. This was a flagrant shove at freedom of the press.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?