Two from CATO

5 Reasons the US Should Not Spend Another Penny on the War with Iran

FCC Threats and the Fog of War: The Government Cannot Be the Arbiter of Truth

Juvenile insults are standard replies for White House reporter

Journalists court criticism when they fail to ask subjects of their reporting for comment. Shirish Dáte, a White House reporter for the progressive news site HuffPost, appears to have the opposite problem: He gets clobbered when he does reach out.

Top Trump officials, Mr. Dáte said, tend to reply with insults, often bundled with praise for their boss. Never were they more newsworthy than a recent back-and-forth that spread across the internet.

After President Trump said he would meet with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, in Budapest, Mr. Dáte (pronounced dah-tay) asked who had recommended the Hungarian capital for a high-stakes meeting.

“Your mom did,” texted Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, in an exchange that she later posted online. “Your mom,” Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, texted moments later, invoking a well-worn maternal insult that, according to the Urban Dictionary, is the “most versatile dis/comeback ever created in the history of your mom.”

“I was kind of like, this is a serious war that’s going on that has killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians in their homes,” Mr. Dáte, 61 — who worked at several mainstream outlets before joining HuffPost in 2016 — said in an interview. “And then your response is, ‘Your mom’?”

Mr. Trump and his aides have regularly bad-mouthed the press and many journalists over the years, turning to disparaging terms like nasty, dying, disgusting and fake. They show less restraint in their pushback against Mr. Dáte, accentuating his somewhat lonely professional existence — reporting for a progressive publication in a building increasingly populated by right-wing outlets supportive of the current administration.

HuffPost has a seat in the White House briefing room and participates in a rotation of journalists covering Mr. Trump’s events. Invective from officialdom seems to come with those privileges. After the flare-up over the Budapest question, for example, Ms. Leavitt told Mr. Dáte via text that he was a “far left hack who nobody takes seriously, including your colleagues in the media, they just don’t tell you that to your face.”

As he reported on a story this fall about Stephen Miller, one of Mr. Trump’s top aides, Mr. Dáte received an expletive-laden text from Mr. Cheung chiding his physical stature and his masculinity, according to a text chain Mr. Dáte provided.

“In nine years, have I ever insulted you?” Mr. Dáte responded. Mr. Cheung then wrote that Mr. Dáte was “being a moron.”

Read the rest here.

Military Restricts Press Reporting

Wednesday was a major moment for the coverage of the United States military. Scores of journalists with access to the Pentagon handed in their press passes rather than sign on to new rules laid out by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

The news organizations that have refused to agree to the rules include large organizations such as The New York Times, NBC News and Fox News, as well as many smaller publications that focus entirely on the military. At least one news organization, the conservative cable network One America News, has agreed to the new terms.

The new rules codify sharp limitations on access and raise the prospect of punishment — including revocation of credentials — for simply requesting information on matters of public interest. Lawyers representing national news organizations have been negotiating for weeks with Pentagon officials over the strictures.

Read the rest here.

Recent News

Israel - Hamas Peace Negotiations

Frustrated lawmakers say lack of trust is making it harder to end the government shutdown

Why gold is having its best year since 1979

Ray Dalio Sees Gold as Safer Than the US Dollar

‘Bow to the Emperor’: 50 Legal Experts on the Trump Presidency

Doug Wilson: America Should be a Christian Theocracy

Press groups condemn US Defense Department rules governing media access

Trump’s war on the left: Inside the plan to investigate liberal groups

Russia's industrial titans furlough workers as its war economy stalls

France's Macron seeks sixth prime minister in under two years

In Trump’s Washington, a Moscow-Like Chill Takes Hold

She asked too many questions that the president didn’t like. She reported too much about criticism of his administration. And so, before long, Yelena Tregubova was pushed out of the Kremlin press pool that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the scheme of things, it was a small moment, all but forgotten nearly 25 years later. But it was also a telling one. Mr. Putin did not care for challenges. The rest of the press pool got the message and eventually became what the Kremlin wanted it to be: a collection of compliant reporters who knew to toe the line or else they would pay a price.

The decision by President Trump’s team to handpick which news organizations can participate in the White House press pool that questions him in the Oval Office or travels with him on Air Force One is a step in a direction that no modern American president of either party has ever taken. The White House said it was a privilege, not a right, to have such access, and that it wanted to open space for “new media” outlets, including those that just so happen to support Mr. Trump.

But after the White House’s decision to bar the venerable Associated Press as punishment for its coverage, the message is clear: Any journalist can be expelled from the pool at any time for any reason. There are worse penalties, as Ms. Tregubova would later discover, but in Moscow, at least, her eviction was an early step down a very slippery slope.

The United States is not Russia by any means, and any comparisons risk going too far. Russia barely had any history with democracy then, while American institutions have endured for nearly 250 years. But for those of us who reported there a quarter century ago, Mr. Trump’s Washington is bringing back memories of Mr. Putin’s Moscow in the early days.

The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors named by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding. Billionaire tycoons who once considered themselves masters of the universe are prostrating themselves before him.

Judges who temporarily block administration decisions that they believe may be illegal are being threatened with impeachment. The uniformed military, which resisted being used as a political instrument in Mr. Trump’s first term, has now been purged of its highest-ranking officers and lawyers. And a president who calls himself “the king,” ostensibly in jest, is teasing that he may try to stay in power beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Some versions of this are not new, of course. Other presidents have taken actions that looked heavy-handed or put pressure on opponents. No president in my experience at the White House, which goes back to 1996, particularly liked news coverage of him, and certainly there have been times when journalists were penalized for their reporting.

After an article on whether Vice President Dick Cheney might be dropped from the re-election ticket in 2004, The New York Times found it no longer had a seat on Air Force Two. President Barack Obama’s team tried to exclude Fox News from a briefing offered to other networks, only to back down when the rest of the press corps stood up for Fox.

But those relatively contained disputes were nothing like what is happening now. The White House takeover of the pool — a rotating group of about 13 correspondents, photographers and technicians given close access to the president so they can report back to their colleagues — upends the way the president has been covered for generations.

The alarm has been felt by media outlets across the spectrum. Just as the other networks backed Fox against the Obama administration, Fox has backed The Associated Press against the Trump White House and its senior White House correspondent criticized the pool takeover. The precedent being set now, certainly, could be used by a future Democratic administration against media that it disfavored.

Read the rest here. 

Trouble at CBS News

“Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation.” Those words, from CBS icon Edward R. Murrow, came to mind this week after I spoke with journalists at the network.

There is trouble brewing at Black Rock, the headquarters of CBS, after the firing of Catherine Herridge, an acclaimed investigative reporter. Many of us were shocked after Herridge was included in layoffs this month, but those concerns have increased after CBS officials took the unusual step of seizing her files, computers and records, including information on privileged sources.

The position of CBS has alarmed many, including the union, as an attack on free press principles by one of the nation’s most esteemed press organizations.

I have spoken confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated that they could not recall the company ever taking such a step before. One former CBS journalist said that many employees “are confused why [Herridge] was laid off, as one of the correspondents who broke news regularly and did a lot of original reporting.”

That has led to concerns about the source of the pressure. He added that he had never seen a seizure of records from a departing journalist, and that the move had sent a “chilling signal” in the ranks of CBS.

A former CBS manager, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had “never heard of anything like this.” He attested to the fact that, in past departures, journalists took all of their files and office contents. Indeed, the company would box up everything from cups to post-its for departing reporters. He said the holding of the material was “outrageous” and clearly endangered confidential sources.

Read the rest here.

Russia Prepares Law Against "Fake" News on War in Ukraine

The law, expected to be voted on tomorrow, makes it a criminal offense punishable by 15 years in prison to spread false news or reports on the war in Ukraine. The last two independent media outlets in Russia have both announced they are suspending operations. 

Sam Donaldson Endorses Bloomberg and (some) Journalists Throw a Fit

I am 53 and have to wonder how many people younger than me even know who he is. Of those who like me, remember him, after getting past that initial response of "I didn't know he was still alive," most off us are likely to respond with a giant "who cares?" But apparently some in his former profession (he has been retired for seven years) think that the journalistic code of ethics (try not to laugh) is a bit like the mob; once in never out. Which is to say they think he has forever forfeited his right to express political opinions because he used to be the White House correspondent for ABC News.

Rubbish.

Whatever one may think of his opinions, he is entitled to them and he has not forfeited his basic rights to freedom of expression. Donaldson is retired, and has been for quite a while. If he was still on the job, then yes, his endorsement would have been seriously unethical. But he isn't. These people need to get over their inflated view of themselves.

Details

Pope Francis on Charlie Hebdo: ‘You cannot insult the faith of others’

A week after the massacre at the headquarters of a French publication known for insulting adherents of several faiths, Pope Francis told reporters that freedom of expression has its limits when it comes to insulting religion.

Read the rest here.

David Brooks: I Am Not Charlie Hebdo

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Read the rest here.

Good points. Defending someone's right to be an anti-religious bigot should not be seen as an endorsement. And freedom of expression runs in every direction, something that far too many liberals don't want to acknowledge.

Quote of the day...

"This may sound pompous, but I would rather die standing than live on my knees."

-Stéphane Charbonnier Senior Editor of Charlie Hebdo and martyr to the cause of human liberty

Je suis Charlie

Massacre in Paris

Prayers for everyone affected.

Students Ban 'R-word,' Get Sent to Principal

Classic court cases involving students and free speech usually involve teens trying to push the limits of provocative, political or even profane language.

But a looming clash of cultures at a suburban Philadelphia football powerhouse presents a new twist on the usual First Amendment fight.

Editors of a student newspaper are getting heat from school officials after banning the word "Redskins'' - their mascot at Neshaminy, a high school named for the creek where the Lenape Indians once lived.

Read the rest here.

The Telegraph: It's left wing prats who are defending our freedom

A few weeks ago, a British national newspaper was visited by a detachment of national security agents who demanded that its computers and hard drives be destroyed. The security men then stood over its staff while they smashed their equipment to pieces. In the peace-time history of a free country, this incident is about as shocking as it gets. And yet, a remarkable consensus has grown up, including – I’m sorry to say – many on my side of the political fence, to the effect that this is no big deal.

The reasons that this scene – which looks, on the face of it, like something out of East Germany in the 1970s – is apparently perfectly acceptable seem to be: a) the data in the computers was a threat to the national security of this country and to that of our American allies; b) this information was stolen from the US government and published illegally by people who are narcissistic/eccentric/of dubious political judgment, and c) the newspaper in question was the Guardian, which is full of annoying Left-wing prats. Let’s consider these points in order of importance.

Read the rest here.

Unfortunately on this side of the pond, I see little evidence of any revolt by our own left wing prats against Dear Leader. But yeah, she does have a point. The Guardian has been on the front-line, and (gasp!) the right side of this fight.

Britain's direct attack on the free press

British agents of the GCHQ (their equivalent to our NSA) entered the offices of the Guardian newspaper and systematically destroyed all of the paper's computers that could in anyway have been connected to Edward Snowden and the NSA story. They even destroyed the back up hard drives in the basement. The editors have courageously declared they will continue to pursue the story and publish on it, although from outside of Great Britain.

See here for details. Absolutely chilling.

CBS: Somebody (cough cough) broke into one of our computers

...“A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

...CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

Read the rest here.

Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails

Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.

Read the rest here.

Dana Milbank Slams Obama's Assault on the Press

There are various reasons you might not care about the Obama administration’s spying on journalist James Rosen and labeling him a “co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor” in an espionage case.

Liberals may not be particularly bothered because the targeted journalist works for Fox News. Conservatives may not be concerned because of their antipathy toward the news media generally. And the general public certainly doesn’t have much patience for journalists’ whining.

But here’s why you should care — and why this case, along with the administration’s broad snooping into Associated Press phone records, is more serious than the other supposed Obama administration scandals regarding Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service. The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

Read the rest here.

Aside from being a generally good article, the source is important. Milbank is a  dyed in the wool lefty Obama drone. This is just the latest sign that the MSM is having a sudden recollection that they are supposed to be journalists, and not members of the White House cheer-leading squad. This could be very bad news for Zero.