Trump WH Dislikes Freedom of Info, Blocks NYT, CNN, BBC, Politico, Buzzfeed from Gaggle

Reporters from Time magazine and The Associated Press chose not to attend in protest of the White House’s actions https://t.co/0kixlsnzVu

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 25, 2017

"We have great respect for the press when it comes to government. That is something you can't ban an entity from – Conservative, Liberal or otherwise. I think that's what makes a Democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship." Sean Spicer December 16 2016

On Feb 24 2017 the White House held a press gaggle  instead of its daily press briefing and barred NYT, Politico, CNN, LA Times, Buzzfeed, BBC, the Guardian and Daily Mail from attending. Allowed to attend were Breitbart News, Hearst, McClatchy, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, One American News Network, AP, Time, and TV networks CBS, NBC, Fox and ABC. 

AP and Time heard in advance and boycotted the gaggle. Alarmingly, when some journalists gathered outside in frustration, they were removed by Secret Service, on the order of the White House.

It's not unusual to hold in camera press gaggles, but it is unusual to cherry-pick who can attend. Gaggles with the press secretary usually limit the pool of reporters when they conflict with the president's travel arrangements, in which case they often happen on Air Force One.  

This gaggle, however, simply replaced the daily press briefing. The motive was ludicrously transparent. They wanted to avoid uncomfortable questions about the FBI's refusal to accommodate the White House demand that coverage of possible relationships between Trump staff and Russia be censored. They also wanted to minimize damage done by Donald Trump's manic, rambling, non-sequitur-packed, contradictory, nonsensical  tirade against the media at CPAC, where he revved up the crowd of adoring fans into virtual hysteria.

Much like Mitch McConnell's attempt to muzzle Elizabeth Warren in Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing, and as all the Trump Administration moves have done so far, this one backfired on the White House. Interest in the Russian connection has ballooned and liberal outlets have gotten good publicity already over this gaggle. Public outrage has flared up again, and legitimate media are expressing their disdain. 

Wall Street Journal issued a statement saying that it had attended not knowing about the exclusions and "had we known at the time, we would have participated, and we will not participate in such closed briefings in the future." Executive editor of  McClatchy Washington said the same.

Marty Baron, Executive Editor of The Post  called it appalling and added "This is an undemocratic path that the administration is travelling… We are currently evaluating what our response will be if this sort of thing happens again."

The Committee to Protect Journalists and the National Press Club condemned the move and  White House Correspondents Association president Jeff Mason said, "We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff."  New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker wrote to the WH press corps email list, "Congratulations to Time and AP for not attending today's gaggle in protest."

Ben Wizner, Director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union said that this is "Another disturbing example of the Trump administration’s contempt for the vital role a free press plays in our democracy."

Is there a sector of western democracy that the Trump Administration has not assaulted in some way in the  past month? Each one is worse than the last as Bannon gains power and Trump believes more and more that he can get away with anything.

It's clear that they and their close team are trying to replicate Vladimir Putin's assault on freedom of the press. But they're missing a couple of important factors, the first one of which explains why they're missing them. Putin is a nasty and dangerous man but he's really intelligent, insightful and strategic, which none of the Trump camp are. Secondly, Putin does love to boast, but not about his underhanded moves. Trump and Bannon can't stop themselves. Thirdly, Putin never exposes himself in writing—i.e. in tweets.

Again, Trump can't stop himself. Fourthly, most Americans aren't as brain-washable as Russians seem to be. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, in The Gulag Archipelago, “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” 

That appears to be happening again in Russia, as Putin's popularity increases for no reason that has any sense or moral good to it, but it will never happen in America.

Bannon, Trump, Priebus, Conway, Spicer can all rant and rave about the corrupt press as much as they want. But they're only reaching a negligible number of Americans in comparison to the huge number they are inspiring to take a stand. Most of America, and the whole world, can see the truth. An enormous amount of pro-democracy activity is happening at every level, people of all ages, including the youth, getting involved in politics beyond just voting, going to town hall meetings, voicing their protest, joining and/or volunteering for pro-democracy organizations. Democratic politicians are stepping up in response to demands from their electorate that they fight.

Hillary Clinton has resurfaced, as have the Obamas. And of course the FBI is continuing with its investigation into the Russian Connection.

The stupidity, the lies, the constant denials are intensely frustrating. Trump's attempt to disenfranchise the press as part of a larger strategy to disenfranchise every non-white and every poor and middle-class white in America is terrifying. But it's feeble in the face of the sleeping giant that his dictator-type tactics have awoken. To quote Representative John Lewis:

We must work together to make a way out of no way. #goodtrouble pic.twitter.com/LPk18qCoIS

— John Lewis (@repjohnlewis) January 30, 2017

Hillary Clinton Promoting Love, Kindness, Truth. The Media? Not So Much

Remember the GOP ads against the ACA? They couldn't find real disaster stories so they used actors and fiction. The lie was quickly unveiled. Then they used a real woman, but she lied, which was easily proven. It's par for the course for GOP ads. But not for the Hillary Clinton campaign. They don't have to use actors and screenwriters to make up fiction. They can draw from the truth, as they have in the above ad. You can't make that stuff up.

There's nothing of the compassion Hillary Clinton has shown for that cancer patient in a recent New York Times article Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask The Ultrarich. It alleges that she's more comfortable among wealthy people than the ordinary Joe, and opens herself up to them more. Where Trump spends his time giving rallies and talking to the press, Clinton is keeping her distance but making herself omni-available to "some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves [who] are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally."

The article drips with innuendo so explicit it verges on the overt; Clinton doesn't care about "ordinary" people. In this political climate, when populists are more driven by viciousness than a genuine desire for a better life, the title and matching piece are to people who oppose Hillary Clinton as a red rag is to an angry bull that's been harpooned one too many times by a picador with a huge arsenal and a taste for torturing animals. It's Trump's modus operandi.

   

The piece mentions in passing that Hillary Clinton is also focused on raising money from small donors but it's like a shard of dull glass among a bowl of glittering diamonds.

Populism has become a dangerous tool this election. On the ultra left, Bernie Sanders. On the other side, Donald Trump. Four things these two branches of populists share is that they've tried to raise themselves up by destroying Hillary Clinton; they've failed; they've hurt themselves in the process; and they've eroded America's chance to preserve democracy, protect and build on Obama's legacy of improving life for all. Putting the imminent and long term future of America at huge risk.

The common idea is that this brand of populism is driven by honest frustration with the system, and with the politicians who have allowed it to develop and that the purpose is to forge a better life.

If that were the truth, Bernie Sanders and supporters wouldn't have tried to succeed by destroying Hillary Clinton using unsubstantiated, highly provocative accusations as weapons of truth. Donald Trump's supporters wouldn't be turning a blind eye to his unethical business practices, his failures, overt racism, misogyny and megalomania and the fact that he is supported by white nationalist groups, the KKK and by Vladimir Putin and Kim Yong-un of North Korea. Not to mention his sexual attraction to his daughter.

Frustration plays a part, but I think the core driving factor of populists on both sides is a vengeful, mean-spirited desire to hurt somebody. Any weapon will do, any lie that can be spread around like a toxic virus. It's reminiscent of Roman days when people would watch Christians being torn apart lions and enjoy the sport.

In such a climate, when so much is at stake, the NYT article is irresponsible journalism. Particularly since Hillary Clinton is the candidate who has a history throughout her life so far like no other previous presidential candidate, of working for minorities, women, children and  equality. And who is reaching out to small donors. As it happens, according to Politico, in July 2016 the Clinton campaign raised $58.5 million, 58% of which was from donations under $200. So half the article should have been about those donations, right? Wrong. And it has nothing to do with the truth about Hillary Clinton. Does it have anything to do with what attracts readers—or what the NYT editors believe readers want? If it is, it proves rather unequivocally that the bias rests with them. Caught by thine own springe.

The Clinton ad is a lot more moving than the NYT's piece. And a whole lot more truthful. If you don't trust it because it's an ad, here's the story of another cancer patient who reached out to her, James Grissom, whose Facebook post has had 158k likes and over 66k shares.

I think about what it would be like if Hillary Clinton didn't win. The day after the election is called and reality hits home. All the so-called liberal journalists, editors, media outlets, TV anchors and hosts; what will be they be thinking, and doing? Staring at the TV in shock. How did it happen? Those of us who rely on the media for information will be the same, if we've bought their crap and haven't used our own discrimination. 

And it will be too late for regret. We'll all be plunged into chaos. 

Seasoned journalist Steve Majerus-Collins wrote a prescient account of what it would be like; a small gem of a book worth reading, a satire that chills you to the bone. Trump: An American Presidency. It's only 99c and it's worth its weight in gold. Trump for President? I hope not. For the sake of America. For the sake of the world.

Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor or Just a Well-meaning Guy Who Acted Rashly?

The debate about whether Edward Snowden is a hero or a villain has never been resolved, just as it never was re Julian Assange. Some see Snowden as an out and out traitor, others as a knight in shining armor. Since he’s a real live human being, it’s unlikely that he’s either.  

He broke some US laws and ran for cover. That makes him an outlaw. He did it deliberately, so he knew what the consequences would be; he knew he’d have to leave the US and probably live in a foreign country. That makes him courageous. He knew he’d probably only have the option of a foreign country with arguably much worse human rights records than the US because those were the only countries that might grant him asylum. 

Right now he’s living in a country that sent two young women to a labor camp in Siberia or speaking out against the government. He hasn’t said a word about that atrocity or their human rights, or Vladimir Putin’s propensity to jail anybody he wants to. That makes Snowden a bit of a hypocrite.  

He exposed real time, arguably unnecessary NSA encroachments on privacy, all in the name of the war on terrorism. The war on Iraq was in the name of terrorism. That pushes the needle towards Snowden being a modern day hero. Some good has resulted from his actions. President Obama appointed a panel to investigate the agency’s alleged infractions and the panel has called for an overhaul of the NSA modus operandi. More points for Snowden the hero.  Even the Editorial Board of the New York Times and The Guardian Editorial have gotten involved. Both argued that Snowden has done more good than harm and should be pardoned by the US President or at least treated leniently.  

The NYT said “The revelations have already prompted two federal judges to accuse the NSA of violating the Constitution”. They name one, but not the other and I can’t find evidence of who it is. The one they do name, Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington didn’t actually accuse the NSA of violating the Constitution. 

In a preliminary hearing of Klayman I and II (see NYT article for the PDF of the case) against Obama et al, Judge Leon granted a motion for a Preliminary Injunction for Klayman I but denied the same motion for Klayman II, saying “the Court concludes that plaintiffs have the standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the Governments bulk collection and querying of phone record metadata …” The judge then stayed the order pending appeal “in view of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.” Which is rather different to saying the NSA violated the constitution. The judge was clearly unhappy about the NSA’s activities, though. The NYT got that right. 

By the way, ‘et al’ refers to the NSA, The Department of Justice, Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., General Keith B Alexander, Director General of the NSA, and US District Judge Roger Vinson, Verizon Communications and it’s chief executive officer - and Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T and Apple. None of which is mentioned in the NYT Editorial. 

In late December Judge William H. Pauley in New York ruled in another case that the NSA acted within the bounds of the Constitution. Okay, so no agreement amongst the wise men of the land. Not a whole lot of unbiased journalism on the subject.

As for the problems Snowden's revelations have caused for the way the US deals with terrorism, nobody can say, because that’s classified – which is arguably understandable. So there may be a whole bundle of points for Snowden the traitor that none of us know about. We might never know. Or we could find out empirically. There might be another huge terror attack that's a direct result of exposing how the NSA’s surveillance works. It could happen soon, it could happen years from now. 

I don’t know if that's a reasonable justification for the NSA's activities. I guess if I’m the target of terrorism one day and I could prove the attack could have been prevented if Edward Snowden had never played hero, I’d say it was a great justification.  

Some people think they’d rather not put that one to the test; they’d just prefer that the NSA has what it needs to do its job. Maybe that's little simplistic, over-trusting. But it's not necessarily unwise. We can’t know, and that’s the part that leaves me wishing that Snowden had thought this through a little more.  

Then there’s the fact that privacy doesn’t have the same value today as it had even fifty years ago, let alone when the Fourth Amendment was cast in stone. We give our rights to privacy away all the time, to Google, Yahoo! Facebook, Apple et al. We enable apps that ask us to sign away our rights to stop them from using our private information and even our friend’s private information. We don’t feel as if we’re connected to the human race unless we do it. So I don’t really get the outrage at a government department that spies on everybody because it’s looking for terrorists and doesn’t know how else to find them. What’s Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, YouTube, Facebook, Apple et al’s excuse? We want to make life better for you? 

And the difference is? Personally I'd prefer to be spied on by an organization that at least is prompted by the desire to protect me than by ones that just want to make a buck out of me. Well, Edward Snowden didn't see it that way, and nor does half the world. Should he get leniency? I think so. I don't see the point in destroying his life, because whatever he is, he's clearly not an out and out villain and he's not responsible for the fact that he had so much unsupervised power and he wasn't adequately vetted.