Obama's stunning display on press freedom

[Thanas]

Guardian

President Obama had harsh words for the state of journalism and how it has lapsed in its duties to hold public figures – specifically those vying for his current job – accountable. If that’s truly important to him, he can start with his own administration.


Obama spoke Monday night at the Toner Prize ceremony, which honors excellence in political reporting. When he first ran for president in 2008, Obama said, candidates couldn’t just get away with saying whatever they wanted, regardless of truth. The current election cycle, he said, indicates that this is no longer the case.

There’s plenty of evidence of that – and most of it revolves around one candidate in particular. Now that Donald Trump’s hold on the Republican nomination seems all but certain, we’re seeing the “how did we allow Trump to happen?” media self-flagellation in Sunday columns and the “did we allow Trump to happen?” self-questioning in others.

Robin Toner, an investigative journalist who died in 2008 and for whom the Toner prize was named, “demanded that we be accountable to the public for the things that we said and for the promises that we made,” Obama said. “We should be held accountable.”

Allow me to do exactly that. Obama’s own track record shows that if anyone isn’t being held accountable for the promises he’s made, it’s Obama himself – at least when it comes to the deep-diving investigative journalism he professes to want more of.

On his first day on the job, way back in January 2009, Obama issued a memorandum declaring that his administration was “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government … and establish a system of transparency”. This was one of his campaign promises. Seven years later, the president has fallen well short of this vow, and many journalists see his administration as the least transparent of all.

The Freedom of Information Act (Foia), signed into law in 1966, is meant to give citizens access to information about the government agencies their taxes support. Less than two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration set a new record in the percentage of Foia requests answered with either redacted files or nothing at all: 77%. That’s up 12 points from the first year of Obama’s presidency.

This is an administration that prosecutes people for leaking information to the press that would hold it accountable, and which continually obfuscates journalists’ and citizens’ efforts to extract any information from it at all.

This is an administration that claimed, repeatedly, that emails to and from former deputy assistant secretary of state Philippe Reines did not exist – only to finally reveal that thousands of them did, several years and one lawsuit later.

This is an administration that has used the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers at least seven times. By contrast, before Obama’s presidency, the act, in place since the first world war, was used to prosecute government officials who leaked to the media just three times.

This is an administration that has gone after journalists who report on information obtained from leakers by secretly obtaining months’ worth of phone records. That spent seven years trying to compel the New York Times’ James Risen to reveal his sources. That snooped through Fox News’ James Rosen’s private emails and accused the reporter of possibly being a “co-conspirator” in order to get a warrant to do so, and to then keep that warrant secret.

This is an administration that has made it exceedingly difficult for journalists to obtain information from even health and science agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, denying requests and restricting access that was once granted. That allows the Drug Enforcement Agency to charge $1.4m to search for its records on El Chapo – a sum that must be paid in full before the agency would begin to fill the request.

This is an administration that has been happy to present the press with the story it wants the public to know, but then throws every possible roadblock in front of journalists looking for the story that the public deserves to know.

“It’s the kind of journalism that’s never been more important … A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone,” Obama said on Monday night. “It is to probe and to question, and to dig deeper and to demand more.”

He’s right about that. Unfortunately for his constituents, it’s also a job he has refused to let many journalists do.

Obama a massive hypocrite, news at 11.

[Khaat]

My step-kids would do what this journalist is doing when they got in caught in the wrong: "But what they did is worse!"

Sure, transparency in the Obama administration as promised didn't happen. Fun thing is, we can't know for 50 years? 70 years? when things are declassified the particulars of why. As much as I would love to believe the POTUS could actually make what they want happen regardless of the bureaucracy, I'm also glad they can't.

The lead in Obama's speech here was about how journalists print candidates' lies (actual, real, falsehoods, not just the "if I ran the zoo" ideas that will fall flat in execution) without calling it out. So call it out. Call it ALL out.

[Channel72]

I'm surprised they didn't mention the single biggest act of non-transparency ever: Obama's private "kill list" that nobody gets to see.

[Flagg]

Yeah. I'm gonna do something I've not done for a couple years and give Obama a pass on the hypocrisy just because of how fucking true what he's saying is. I mean he's not running for anything so he's got nothing to risk, so he can lay the truth down. It's just unfortunate that it is so goddamned hypocritical because the media and people who need to hear this will just shrug it off, pointing to the hypocrisy

[Simon_Jester]

It's hypocritical of him to criticize the press for failing to reveal politicians' secrets, because he sits on a mountain of secrets and actively seeks to punish whistleblowers that reveal them.

But is it hypocritical for Obama to criticize the press for failing to reveal politicians' lies? Because while Obama has done many unethical things, he hasn't (so far as I know) based major components of his platform on lies.

There are plenty of cases of Obama having a 'paper tiger' moment, like when he said Assad using chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War would be a 'line in the sand,' or a 'red line,' or whatever... and then did nothing of consequence when the line was crossed.

There are plenty of cases of Obama failing to honor a promise like "hold Wall Street accountable for the 2008 crash" or "close Guantanamo."

There are plenty of cases of Obama keeping a secret- like the aforementioned secret kill list of 'terror suspects.'

What there have NOT been, so far as I can remember, are instances of Obama going in for the Big Lie, of Obama making factual statements about the world that he has to know are not true. He does appear to lie about his past or future intentions, but he doesn't lie about the world itself on that kind of scale. Nothing on the level of "I expect to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" or "[60% of all things coming out of Donny the Wig's mouth]" *

Moreover, Obama has experienced "media don't call out blatant lies" as something that has harmed him personally. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Birther movement continued to exist as anything more than a conspiracy theory level- the mainstream media treating it as something other than a random zombie lie would be something he might reasonably find offensive and frustrating. He's also had to deal with zombie lies regarding the Affordable Care Act, one of the few positive accomplishments of his administration, some of which are ongoing.

Now, I would conclude that despite this, Obama is still being hypocritical in one important sense: he's expecting the media to do one part of their job (expose outright, public lies), while simultaneously sabotaging their ability to do other parts of the job.

However, this is a lesser order of hypocrisy than we would see if it were, say, Bush the Younger doing the same thing. Because Bush started a major land war and secured his reelection on the strength of outright lies, whereas Obama did not profit from lies on that scale. For Obama to criticize the press for failing to expose lies is somewhat hypocritical (though still true); for Bush to do so would be massively hypocritical (though still true).
__________________________________

*That is to say, Politifact, the site I linked to, is finding that in 60% or more of cases, Trump's statements are either "False" or "Pants on Fire!" I'm not even counting the "mostly false" statements.

[K. A. Pital]

Did Obama not promise to close Guantanamo? That was a direct and very simple thing. It's not starting a war in Syria, no.

[Khaat]

Guantanamo couldn't be closed without the cooperation (congressional funding, state jurisdictions willing to accept the Federal prosecution of cases or suspects) of others.

Close Guantanamo a good idea? Certainly. All at Obama's feet (or on his head, whatever)? Hells no.

[Flagg]

Did Obama not promise to close Guantanamo? That was a direct and very simple thing. It's not starting a war in Syria, no.

Yes, and the spineless dickfaces on both sides of the aisle blocked him from doing so because their even more spineless constituents got a'scared about mooslem terr'ists being held on American soil even though we've been doing it since 9/11 and had been before 9/11.

Turns out Americans are cowards who would rather kill 1 possibly-scary man with a missile fired off predator drone flown by an operator in Texas even if said maybe-scary man surrounded by brown, wrong-religioned subhuman pre-terrorists completely innocent children who will also be blown to bits which they don't give a fuck about unless they have to see pictures on TV is very sad.

[Simon_Jester]

Did Obama not promise to close Guantanamo? That was a direct and very simple thing. It's not starting a war in Syria, no.

I literally just said that Obama has broken promises.

Breaking promises is different from telling lies about basic facts. Not necessarily better, but different.

If Obama says "I'm going to close Guantanamo" and does not, he has broken a promise. You can (correctly) argue that he has told a lie about his intentions. You can be very upset, and you can (correctly) argue that people should always do their best to keep promises. And Obama clearly has not kept his promise, nor tried very hard to keep his promise, to close Guantanamo.

But there are many excuses a man can make for breaking a promise. Some of them are even good ones.

By contrast, there are virtually NO excuses a man can make for telling an outright, factual lie as part of his political career.

...

For example, suppose Obama had never said "I am going to close Guantanamo" and then reneged on his promise. Suppose he had instead said "I don't need to close Guantanamo, because everyone in Guantanamo is a guilty terrorist who deserves to be there." And had openly, repeatedly claimed that Guantanamo holds only guilty people, and refused to even publicly entertain the notion that it should ever be closed- because why would you worry about closing a prison, when it contains only guilty, deserving people?

Now, you can argue that this would be no more dishonorable than what Obama actually did. Lying is bad, breaking promises is bad, they're both wrong.

Thing is, they are not the same act. A politician who regularly breaks promises may still be on the whole telling the truth when they make factual statements about the external world. Conversely, a politician who keeps every promise they ever make, but tells a lot of lies, may well cause great harm... because they will persistently promise to do the wrong thing, and justify their intent to do the wrong thing by lying. If the lie is believed and they are elected, they do the wrong thing, exactly as promised... and disaster results.

Trump often lies. Suppose Trump often lies, but never breaks promises. Would that make him a better president than Obama, who seldom lies, but often breaks promises? I think not, because Trump doing exactly what he says he will do is not necessarily a good thing.

So here, we have a promise-breaker criticizing the media for failing to expose liars. This is hypocrisy, but it is a lesser hypocrisy than if it were an active liar doing the same thing.

[Thanas]

Breaking promises is different from telling lies about basic facts. Not necessarily better, but different.

Well, he definitely did lie about wanting transparency, then doing everything in his power to block it. Breaking or unable to uphold a promise is mighty different from just outright promising something while doing something entirely opposed to it from the start.

[Simon_Jester]

It is certainly fair to accuse Obama of lying about his intentions. I have done so myself.

There is a difference between lying about one's intentions and lying about facts. That doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other, but they are different political vices.

A murderer who condemns an arsonist may well be a hypocrite- but it is a lesser hypocrisy than if an arsonist condemns an arsonist.

Unfortunately, the English language is a bit short on words for subtle variations on the concept of 'to lie.' We use the same word to say 'this person said they want X, but they want Y,' as we use to say 'this person said X is present in country Z, but X is not present and they knew it.' In both cases we say 'lie.'

That does not mean that both actions are precisely the same, although I will repeat that I am not saying one action is less bad than the other.

[Thanas]

You're right, it is actually way worse to lie "I will restore integrity and transparency, trust me" and then do the exact opposite. Because on top of lying is the fact that you will harm much more people that way, because you lured those who believed you into a trap.

[Khaat]

We can't evaluate Obama's intentions, only his convictions. Only the man himself and those closest to him (say, those who witnessed him struggling [or not] with being unable to deliver on his promises) are really in a position to know his intentions.

[Simon_Jester]

You're right, it is actually way worse to lie "I will restore integrity and transparency, trust me" and then do the exact opposite. Because on top of lying is the fact that you will harm much more people that way, because you lured those who believed you into a trap.

Just to be clear, are you on the record that saying "I will restore integrity and transparency" and then acting in ways that resist transparency and avoid integrity, is worse than, for instance...

Saying "I am fighting this war for a good reason" and starting a war, when you know the reason you have given is a lie.

Am I getting that right?

[Flagg]

Saying that Obama lied about closing Guantanamo is itself a lie or at least stretching the truth. At most he overpromised in a naïve way. Because he tried to do it. He was thwarted by both sides of the aisle in Congress, and I don't think he foresaw that coming, though even if he did, he may have thought he could deal-make with Democrats (who held a Supermajority in the Senate, IIRC) a way into closing the place.

I mean he was choosing places to put them and everything. There was at least 1 facility literally begging for all of them to be sent there for the jobs it would create. But Congress passed a "poison pill" amendment into a sign this or you hate America and want the troops to die, their hollowed out skulls to be shat in and sent to the family fed-ex so that the 7 year old child of Corporal Mommy can open the package, die inside, and then stand in Interstate traffic to die outside, too funding the troops bill banning all funding from ever being used to move illegally held kidnapped people accused of stuff detainees from Guantanamo.

[Grumman]

Saying that Obama lied about closing Guantanamo is itself a lie or at least stretching the truth. At most he overpromised in a naïve way. Because he tried to do it.

Not in any meaningful sense. When he promised to close Gitmo, people naturally assumed he meant that he was promising to put an end to the things that made Gitmo bad. He did not. When the time came, all Obama was willing to attempt to do is relocate those human rights violations to a new site whose name had not yet become a synonym for human rights violations.

By way of analogy: if a candidate said that he would repeal the PATRIOT ACT, would you agree that he did not make the promise in good faith if his idea of repealing the PATRIOT ACT was to replace it with the PATRIOTS ACT, which had all the same terrible stuff in it?

[Flagg]

Saying that Obama lied about closing Guantanamo is itself a lie or at least stretching the truth. At most he overpromised in a naïve way. Because he tried to do it.

Not in any meaningful sense. When he promised to close Gitmo, people naturally assumed he meant that he was promising to put an end to the things that made Gitmo bad. He did not. When the time came, all Obama was willing to attempt to do is relocate those human rights violations to a new site whose name had not yet become a synonym for human rights violations.

By way of analogy: if a candidate said that he would repeal the PATRIOT ACT, would you agree that he did not make the promise in good faith if his idea of repealing the PATRIOT ACT was to replace it with the PATRIOTS ACT, which had all the same terrible stuff in it?

Wasn't he trying to move them to supermax US prisons where they would have, you know, rights? Or was he trying to move then to Bagram?

[Simon_Jester]

Both. Neither. Depends on which day you ask him, or whether the moon is full, or whether the Republicans are grumpy or extra-grumpy that day. Who knows?

Again, Obama is NOT honest or consistent about his priorities, his intentions, or his promises. At best, he's a man who's made a heap of promises that he couldn't fulfill easily, and therefore totally gave up on even trying to fulfill partially, let alone entirely.

At worst, he's been actively misleading, trying to fool people into thinking he wants to achieve good in important areas, when he actually doesn't care and is largely indistinguishable from Bush on issues of civil rights, foreign policy, and the like.

I may not share Thanas's position that this basically makes him worse than people who actively lie about matters of fact and/or who make promises they fully intend to keep which are bad for the country. But I haven't tried in years (can't recall ever trying) to say that this was a good thing.

[Thanas]

You're right, it is actually way worse to lie "I will restore integrity and transparency, trust me" and then do the exact opposite. Because on top of lying is the fact that you will harm much more people that way, because you lured those who believed you into a trap.

Just to be clear, are you on the record that saying "I will restore integrity and transparency" and then acting in ways that resist transparency and avoid integrity, is worse than, for instance...

Saying "I am fighting this war for a good reason" and starting a war, when you know the reason you have given is a lie.

Am I getting that right?

No. Nobody smart believed Bush or the Republicans when they pulled off their shady shit because of who Bush was, who Cheney and Rumsfeld were. Those were people with known, shitty track records. The deception of Obama went deeper - he run as the liberal candidate all the way and changed his skin like a snake the moment he got into the white house. He is virtually indistinguishable from Bush in his record on civil liberties, WORSE than Bush when it comes to press freedom and about the same as Bush when it comes to foreign policy (sans starting a war in Iraq, but then again Obama is currently fighting four secret wars atm, so who is counting?).

Giving him the benefit of the doubt is foolish when he has fought to expand the Bush powers at every point.

[Flagg]

Both. Neither. Depends on which day you ask him, or whether the moon is full, or whether the Republicans are grumpy or extra-grumpy that day. Who knows?

Yeah, but there was a change at one point when he was in his "appeasement phase" and kept trying to change the relocation places for the detainees (apparently not yet knowing about the whiny "make the n***er a one termer meeting, which failed magnificently) from different places in th US, to Bagram?

[Broomstick]

Did Obama not promise to close Guantanamo?

Problem is, Obama can't close Gitmo without Congressional help, and we all know Congress is bound and determined to stymie Obama even while the country burns down around them.

A more fair assessment is whether Obama tried everything he could to close down Gitmo.

[Flagg]

Did Obama not promise to close Guantanamo?

Problem is, Obama can't close Gitmo without Congressional help, and we all know Congress is bound and determined to stymie Obama even while the country burns down around them.

A more fair assessment is whether Obama tried everything he could to close down Gitmo.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. And I'm pretty sure that barring an Andrew Jackson or a Ronald Reagan move, he did just about all he could.

[Simon_Jester]

You're right, it is actually way worse to lie "I will restore integrity and transparency, trust me" and then do the exact opposite. Because on top of lying is the fact that you will harm much more people that way, because you lured those who believed you into a trap.

Just to be clear, are you on the record that saying "I will restore integrity and transparency" and then acting in ways that resist transparency and avoid integrity, is worse than, for instance...

Saying "I am fighting this war for a good reason" and starting a war, when you know the reason you have given is a lie.

Am I getting that right?

No. Nobody smart believed Bush or the Republicans when they pulled off their shady shit because of who Bush was, who Cheney and Rumsfeld were. Those were people with known, shitty track records. The deception of Obama went deeper...

Giving him the benefit of the doubt is foolish when he has fought to expand the Bush powers at every point.

I have no interest in giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm just trying to understand clearly whether you think it is significantly worse to lie about your intentions (e.g. claiming you plan to restore transparency, and then acting as though you have no intention of doing so), than it is to lie about the facts as justification for your actions (e.g. claiming that a nation is a major imminent threat, when they are not, and invading them for this reason).

I understand that you find lying about intentions especially offensive, because the deception is harder to spot and therefore more likely to deceive 'smart people.' But that's not all I was asking about.

[Channel72]

Why are we talking about how Bush was worse? Who cares? The point is, the Obama Administration is hardly transparent in any sense, yet Obama is lecturing the media on the need for transparency.

Obama clearly has a saner foreign policy than Bush did - if you're willing to claim that an ongoing pan-MENA drone war is "better" than invading a fully industrialized nation and then blasting them back to the Stone Age for incoherent reasons. I am willing to claim that, but it's not really relevant to the accusation that Obama is being hypocritical in this particular instance.

[Khaat]

Why are we talking about how Bush was worse? Who cares? The point is, the Obama Administration is hardly transparent in any sense, yet Obama is lecturing the media on the need for transparency.

We read different articles: I read (paraphrasing here) "Obama criticized the press for not calling out candidates for POTUS on outright, confirmable, factual falsehoods (lies)." The counter to which was "Obama's promises of transparency were never fulfilled."

This is apples (responsibility of the free press to verify and report faithfully) and oranges (campaign/SotU promises undelivered).

I'm not defending the Obama administration, but this article isn't journalism, this is three-card Monte; the [edit] new standard of US journalism "news" entertainment to sensationalize for the target audience.