Obama Administration Opposes Shield Law Protecting Reporters

New York Times:

The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a "media shield" bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[DCBarrister]

08:37 AM on 10/02/2009

What's President Obama trying to pull?

Replacing all the major news outlets with Leno, Letterman and Conan?

Keep the change.

Hillary 2012

[deepfreezevideo]

12:08 AM on 10/02/2009

Smacks of Bush tactics!

[DCBarrister]

08:17 AM on 10/02/2009

You mean there are people who still think Barack Obama is a Democrat?

Barack Obama was an African American liberal Democrat just long enough to win the election. Now he's back to being Barry, the self absorbed Reaganite.

Who was GW Bush's political idol? Yep, you guessed it. Ronald Reagan.

Keep the change.

Hillary 2012

[SpeakingTruth101]

10:13 PM on 10/01/2009

This is a bad idea, folks. Forget Judy Miller. This is an anti-whist­le-blower law. And this is coming from a die-hard progressiv­e. The shield law is absolutely necessary.

[FHTB]

03:20 AM on 10/02/2009

Read more here:


Obama administra­tion publicly dissatisfi­ed with Senate's federal shield bill

The Obama administra­tion proposed substantia­l changes to the pending federal shield bill that would weaken its protection­s against compelling journalist­s to testify in the interest of national security, The New York Times reported.

The administra­tion told Congress that the federal shield bill being considered in the Senate should include a new, broad exception in cases involving government leaks that would cause “significa­nt” harm to national security and that judicial review of such claims would defer to the executive branch as to the degree of likely harm, the Times reported. Previous versions of the bill allowed judges themselves to determine whether the potential harm of disclosure of the informatio­n outweighed national security concerns.

Media advocates noted that previously Obama had co-sponsor­ed a version of a media shield bill as a senator and Attorney General Eric Holder indicated that he generally supported such legislatio­n.

One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., told the Times that the administra­tion’s proposed changes were unacceptab­le and would impair meaningful judicial review. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., another sponsor who had already narrowed the legislatio­n’s reach, called the proposed change “an unexpected and significan­t setback" that would "make it hard to pass this legislatio­n.”

The House of Representa­tives passed another version of a federal shield bill earlier this year. The Senate's version has stalled in its Judiciary Committee.

— Cristina Abello,

COMPLETELY unacceptab­le.

[WeMustSpeakOut]

10:24 AM on 10/02/2009

Another reach by the L O N G arm of the imperial presidency that remains alive and well in the White House.
It's insane to remove judicial review and hand it to the executive! Didn't we get more than enough of this with Bu$h?! Obama has already done more than his fair share of throwing around "national security" to obfuscate numerous government wrong doings.
What this will do is effectivel­y gag the few real investigat­ive journalist­s we have left.
The media is the message and what we have is corporate/­government controlled media that spoon feeds us whatever serves them best.
This is incredibly troubling, and pathetical­ly predictabl­e.

[janehenry]

09:28 PM on 10/01/2009

Good

[Truthahn]

08:14 PM on 10/01/2009

I applaud this. This is one of the few things that might jeopardize the MSM's obscene love affair with Barack Obama. Maybe now the American people will be treated to some reporting on Bagram , a.k.a. Barack's Gitmo. God knows Gitmo got plenty of coverage under Bush. Bagram gets zilch under Obama.

[DCBarrister]

08:36 AM on 10/02/2009

Amen!

The blind, schoolgirl crush on Obama that the media had during the Democratic primaries is the reason we have other Republican in the White House.

Vote the bum out in 2012.

Hillary 2012

[LiberalDemIda]

07:57 PM on 10/01/2009

Oops! Fixed News, and their lackeys like Judith Miller and Krauthamme­r, aren't gonna like this ONE BIT.

Now *this* is change we can believe in.

[FHTB]

03:23 AM on 10/02/2009

HUH?

[DCBarrister]

08:32 AM on 10/02/2009

Oops, and whistleblo­wers who are uncovering Barack Obama's use of signing statements to break federal law (a Bush tactic) who are uncovering Barack Obama's continued use of secret prisons and refusal to close GITMO, who are uncovering Barack Obama's cowardice and refusal to keep his word on Don't Ask Dont' Tell, DOMA and scrapping the USA Patriot Act are now going to face prosecutio­n for daring to report the truth to the American people...t­hat Barack Obama is a phony, a Reaganite who was never a Democrat and never planned to deliver the "change" he barked about on the campaign trail.

Way to go, Bush lite.

[LiberalDemIda]

10:00 AM on 10/02/2009

You're a Clintonite so of course you'll spin everything Obama does in a skewed way, but the fact that you support Hillary for Prez says enough about your opinions.

Clintons were the leaders in creating a BlueDog caucus in the Democratic Party. They headed and strongly supported the corporate wing of the Democratic Party - the DLC. Fact of the matter is, Hillary made one HUGE mistake: she voted for the IWR and Pres. Clinton argued in favor of it.

No way will I ever vote for Hillary because of it. As for Obama, we'll see. I don't expect miracles like you do, within 8 months. Perhaps you need to understand how our government works before casting such opinionate­d aspersions on Pres. Obama. It would make your argument less BIASED.

So, how is the lawsuit against the Clintons doing in CA?

[blimie]

07:29 PM on 10/01/2009

Change you can believe in slogan was wrong. They should have straight up said they were good with the Bush agenda.

[DCBarrister]

08:30 AM on 10/02/2009

Change you can believe in was wrong...so was voting for Barack Obama.

[JennieB]

07:09 PM on 10/01/2009

Good. After that appalling piece of trash from the NY Times refused to name her source of an ILLEGAL and TREASONOUS claim, it's time to change the law.

Reporters clearly can't differenti­ate what's legal or illegal. Or just don't care.

[karmafriend]

04:23 PM on 10/01/2009

Grrrrrrrrr­rrrrrrrr

[Spencaa]

09:20 PM on 10/01/2009

This argument of reporters protecting sources is horrible. You know why? Because it's what Judith Miller tried to claim after she leaked Valerie Plames identity in order to protect Scooter Libby.

[Polly Esther]

04:00 PM on 10/01/2009

Now all we need back is the fairness doctrine! and media reform!

[Chili4me]

04:47 PM on 10/01/2009

You only want to silence voices of dissent.

There is all the airtime you want out there, use it.

If no one listens, it is because you aren't worth listening to.

[mummblemouth]

05:53 PM on 10/01/2009

Nope, just want real journalism back and not the lies and innuendo that FOX news fought for the right to disseminat­e as 'news'.

[justice11]

03:59 PM on 10/01/2009

The way things are now, especially with ALL the false info Fox puts out I agree with this!! Make them accountabl­e for whatever comes from them!

[hypnotoad72]

04:51 PM on 10/01/2009

Seconded.

Ah, the glory days when news COULD be believed at face value.

[konybvg]

03:40 AM on 10/02/2009

I totally second this. The media is going crazy and is willing to report national security informatio­n just for rating. I don't think they will care about national security when it comes to reporting for ratings and fox news will report anything to undermine this administra­tion. I know we want freedom of speech but National security is more important for our well being.

[Polly Esther]

03:56 PM on 10/01/2009

I agree with the administra­tion on this one. You hear that Fox News Channel!

[Ashamed-in-Texas]

03:45 PM on 10/01/2009

I'd like to know how they define "reporter.­"

[OverIt]

03:39 PM on 10/01/2009

National security is paramount.

An administra­tion official's derelictio­n of duty and violation of of the law should not be compounded and, at the same time, sanitized by safe harbor laws for journalist­s who then release this sensitive informatio­n without regard to the safety of the people or specific persons that could be put in danger.

[MyNameIsJames]

04:04 PM on 10/01/2009

The problem is that national security gets defined in a politcal way. This means that administra­tions can actually break laws and violate the Constituti­on and claim that the American public doesn't have a right to know.

This does no one any good.

This is another example of the Executive Branch taking power for the Legislativ­e and Judicial branches it is very scary whether it is Obama or Bush.

It is sad that people don' t understand the principles that underly our nation. The Press is - the mechanism that reports to the citizenry what elected officials are doing in the name of the American people. If you don't get it from the Press - where else do you get it?

National Security is paramount for EVERY NATION -So what separates the Democracie­s from the Dictatorsh­ips.

Transparen­cy!

The President is breaking from his promise for more Transparen­cy - probably at the behest of the military and spy agencies. More "Change we can Believe In"

[OverIt]

06:28 PM on 10/01/2009

I think the impetus here is not so much what you describe but the ambiguity about what constitute­s "the press" these days.

Journalist­ic ethics have gone out the window.

And I don't even know how to describe FoxNews. All I know is that it is NOT journalism­. They not only have a very definitel point of view but a clear, subversive agenda (in relation to the current administra­tion). I would certainly not want any sensitive shared without concern with FoxNews for instance.

[DCBarrister]

08:35 AM on 10/02/2009

Barack Obama is a fraud and clamping down on the media's ability to expose this closet Reaganite for who he always was doesn't help.

[Grunty1]

03:35 PM on 10/01/2009

While I can certainly understand protecting reporters, I'm against ANY law that applies a blanket shield to ANY group.

Just imagine what the "reporters­" at Faux News would do if they were immune from any prosecutio­n?

[mummblemouth]

05:49 PM on 10/01/2009

Keep making stuff up and attributin­g it to their anonymous sources?