Tag Archives: journalism

Activism, Featured, Foreign Policy, Health, Interviews, Politics, Technology

Watch: Ben Swann on Media, Politics, and ISE Media on The Ripple Effect Podcast

Video Leave a comment

In my recent interview with Ricky Varandas on The Ripple Effect podcast, I enjoyed a great discussion on current and past events impacting the world and talked about the launch of my new platform, ISE Media. In this interview I was able to share some of my background in my 20 years of journalism and explained how 2012 in particular was an awakening to the way that mainstream media operates.

As we covered a number of topics ranging from issues stemming from the pandemic to widespread corruption in the media, I appreciated the opportunity to talk about the censorship sweeping across every tech platform and how ISE is poised to allow a space where facts and ideas can be freely discussed.

Ricky and I also talked about the equity crowdfund for ISE Media going on now. With the support of investors in this crowdfund our goal is to expand the platform; we launched this crowdfund to not only help our team continue development and building out the platform, but to allow our investors to actually own a part of ISE Media.

Our announcement video explains the platform launch and how crowdfund investors can own part of ISE Media. Click to watch here.

You can also register your ISE Media account right now by clicking here.

Learn more and invest in ISE Media by clicking here.

Content creators like Ricky, myself and many others are publishing and sharing important, quality content. While big tech platforms are determined to stamp out these voices that challenge mainstream narratives, we are fighting back with the ISE Media platform.

Thank you to Ricky and The Ripple Effect Podcast for hosting this in-depth discussion.

 

Featured, Government Accountability, Health, Interviews

Interview on The Last American Vagabond: Fighting Modern Censorship

Video Leave a comment

In this interview for The Last American Vagabond, I had a fantastic discussion with founder Ryan Cristian about how modern censorship is being done today and how we can fight back. This interview is an in-depth look into how the mainstream media seeks to shape minds and it allowed me to present a solution with my new platform, ISE Media. My team recently launched the beta version of the platform and it’s been exciting to talk about how this platform is bringing huge changes to how individuals are able to view content.

Our equity crowdfund for ISE Media also launched recently along with the platform, and with the support of investors in this crowdfund we are aiming to increase content volume, user functions and much more. We have created this crowdfund which not only helps our team continue development and expansion of the platform, but allows investors to actually own a part of ISE Media. Unlike outdated conventional media companies, our investors have the opportunity to have a piece of this platform.

Watch our announcement video by clicking here.

You can register your ISE Media account by clicking here.

Learn more and invest in ISE Media by clicking here.

Content creators such as Ryan and myself are presenting information and there is a critical need for a space where creators can share this information. As Ryan noted, “you should have the right to look at all this information and come to your own conclusion about it.” We need a place to freely exchange facts and ideas and also discuss them rather than be constantly shielded from content that big tech insiders simply don’t like.

Thank you to Ryan and The Last American Vagabond for hosting a robust conversation about the importance of preserving the flow of thoughts and ideas.

Election, Featured, Opinion

DONEGAN: Media Should Report on Presidential Elections, Not Manipulate Them

Leave a comment

The 2016 presidential election, crowded with candidates in a circus-like atmosphere, is serving as a type of stress test for the U.S. news media. Can journalists, often viewed as members of the U.S. government’s fourth unofficial branch, manage the task of accurately and neutrally informing American voters of the positions of the many candidates that are running for president this time?

However, in order to achieve this simple-sounding feat, journalists must resist two major innate urges: giving in to the greedy lust for easy clicks and bending coverage to fit their own personal political biases or financial interests.

Billionaire Donald Trump’s celebrity campaign exposes media outlets who favor ratings and clicks over reporting the news, as Trump’s reality TV popularity has given the stiff and stodgy world of electoral politics an Access Hollywood-style makeover and a new audience hungry for gossip about the billionaire real estate investor’s latest controversies. Unfortunately, the U.S. media appears to be failing that aspect of the 2016 stress test, as Trump’s out-sized popularity has led to him obtaining “the overwhelming majority of [the 2016 presidential election’s] news coverage,” as University of Texas at Arlington political science professor Rebecca Deen told BBC News.

Journalists will obviously seek out content that attracts readers and viewers, as that is the nature of the news marketplace, but there is a difference between making sure to cover the hottest stories and choosing only to cover candidates that are already bringing in big ratings prior to even receiving coverage on their positions.

On the other hand, the vast array of different candidates in the 2016 race has placed a spotlight on the various biases that appear to burden different networks.

Fox News was criticized by conservatives, who likely believe that the news organization has cozy ties with the Republican National Committee, for posing what they saw as left wing attacks as questions at the network’s Aug. 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate in what was seen as an effort to disrupt outsider candidates like Carson and Trump and to put conservative candidates on the defensive. Fox has also drawn criticism for repeatedly leaving Sen. Rand Paul’s name off of on-screen graphics ranking candidates by their poll numbers, an issue that also plagued former Congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.

CNN has drawn criticism from Bernie Sanders supporters for pointlessly declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of Democratic presidential debates immediately upon their conclusion based often on arbitrary metrics, leading some observers to conclude that the network seems to unofficially favor the candidacy of Clinton over Sanders. Sen. Jim Webb accused the cable news channel of rigging the Democratic debates for Clinton and Sanders. CNN, which many perceive as left-leaning, also openly admitted to planning more divisive and combative debate questions for Republicans than it did for Democrats.

[RELATED: CNN Reportedly Planning Less-Confrontational Format for Democratic Debate]

Biases exist and always will because all journalists are human and have them. However, good journalists should admit their biases and work hard not to let them poison their coverage of facts and ruin their credibility in the eyes of neutral observers.

Also, media outlets are sometimes guilty of manipulating the playing field in the presidential race for their own convenience. As an example, news networks drew criticism from Republican activists for trying to winnow down the large field of GOP candidates prior to presidential debates based on early poll numbers, thus denying some lesser-known but serious candidates a platform to ever promote their candidacy in the first place.

It is not the media’s job to choose which candidates get to outline their policies to voters. It is the media’s job to neutrally publicize the views of all of those candidates and to let voters in the fifty states winnow the field down in the voting booth.

[RELATED: DONEGAN: If GOP Debate Stage Can Fit 11, Let Third Parties In General Election Debates]

When Fox Business cut Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina from the main stage of its Jan. 14 debate to the undercard, some accused the network of reducing the number of candidates on the main stage in an effort to prevent the undercard stage from being cut from the program due to a lack of available candidates, potentially putting advertising dollars at risk.

Ultimately, the U.S. news media as a whole should be judged on its coverage of the presidential race based on whether voters have been equipped with the information necessary to look at all of the candidates on the ballot on election day and choose the one whose positions line up best with their own personal views. It should not be a press release service for journalists’ favorite campaigns’ talking points, a public relations firm selling the viewpoints of the political establishment, or a ratings-and-clicks-obsessed tabloid detailing the latest celebrity gossip.

For more election coverage, click here.

Civil Liberties, Politics

Don’t See Evil: Google’s Boycott Campaign Against War Photography and Alternative Media

2 Comments

by Dan Sanchez, March 29, 2015

What happens when a dynamic company, started by a couple of idealistic friends in grad school, succeeds so wildly that it becomes a mega-corporation that pervades the lives of hundreds of millions? In imperial America, it would seem, it eventually becomes corrupted, even captured. Tragically, that seems to be the unfolding story of Google.

By being the first dot-com to really get the search engine right, Google unlocked the nascent power of the internet, greatly liberating the individual. It is easy to take for granted and forget how revolutionary the advent of “Just Google it” was for the life of the mind. Suddenly, specific, useful knowledge could be had on most any topic in seconds with just a quick flurry of fingers on a keyboard.

This was a tremendous boost for alternative voices on the internet. It made it extremely easy to bypass the establishment gatekeepers of ideas and information. For example, I remember in the mid-2000s using Google to satisfy my curiosity about this “libertarianism” thing I had heard about, since the newspapers and magazines I was reading were quite useless for this purpose. In 2007, by then an avid libertarian, I remember walking through the campus of my former school UC Berkeley, seeing “Google Ron Paul” written in chalk on the ground, and rejoicing to think that hundreds of Cal students were doing just that. A big part of why today’s anti-war movement is more than a handful of Code Pink types, and the libertarian movement is more than a handful of zine subscribers, is that millions “Googled Ron Paul.”

Google and the Security State

In its early years, Google, ensconced in Silicon Valley, seemed to blissfully ignore Washington, D.C. It didn’t have a single lobbyist until 2003. Partly out of the necessity of defending itself against government threats, it gradually became ever more entangled with the Feds. By 2012, as The Washington Post reported, it had become the country’s second-largest corporate spender on lobbying.

Read the rest here: antiwar.com/blog/2015/03/29/dont-see-evil/

Foreign Policy, International, Politics, US

Non-Lethal Aid: US Spends $15 Million on Journalists for Anti-Assad Reports

5 Comments

Funding Is Pending Congressional Approval

by Jason Ditz, March 13, 2015

The US State Department has announced their latest round of “non-lethal aid” for Syrian rebels, and while couched as an attempt to “support the Syrian opposition,” much of the money is going to pet projects to try to rile up international support against the Assad government.

$15 million of the funding is going to go to journalists and opposition figures “to support documentation of war crimes, human rights violations, and other Syrian government abuses.”

The State Department has been keen on this, hyping abuses committed by the Assad government for years, initially in an effort to build up support for a failed US invasion, and now seemingly just to keep that window open.

Despite talking up a $70 million figure for the non-lethal aid to rebels, the rebels themselves appear only to be getting about $25 million worth of gear, with the rest going to journalists or self-proclaimed governments-in-exile to try to buy credibility.

Much of that will be going to the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in Istanbul, which has virtually no backing by any armed rebel forces anymore, but is still regularly bankrolled by the US to keep their lights on while they hold endless meetings over who is going to be leading their ultimately powerless group.

Image by Freedom House via Creative Commons license.

Featured, US

Journalist Barrett Brown Sentenced to 63 Months in Federal Prison

40 Comments

After more than two years behind bars, journalist Barrett Brown was given a sentence of 63 months in federal prison.

Brown was also ordered to pay $890,000 in restitution fees to a number of companies that were hacked in 2011. Brown was arrested in September 2012 during an FBI investigation into his role in the hacking of the servers of HB Gary Federal and Stratfor by the decentralized hacker collective Anonymous.

Judge Sam Lindsay also ruled that fifty percent of all gifts or awards will go to Stratfor and Combined Security, two of the companies involved in the hack. Upon release Brown cannot handle credit cards, checks, or bank accounts. He will be on parole for at least 2 years and will only be allowed to use an approved computer which will monitor all of his activity.

All the way until the very end of the hearing prosecutor Candina Heath attempted to persuade the government to enhance the charges. Heath wanted to upgrade the level of offense which would have increased the possible sentence up to 71 months. Judge Lindsay denied this final request from the prosecution.

Much of the mornings proceedings focused, once again, on whether Brown was a journalist performing protected activities or a former journalist who crossed the line into cyber terror. Brown has been an activist, and a journalist. His articles and blogs have been featured in numerous publications including the Guardian, Vanity Fair, and the Huffington Post.  Judge Lindsay sided with the government in their argument that “Brown’s role was more than merely reporting on the hacked account.” He considered himself a member of the hacker collective Anonymous, collaborated with them, identified targets, and provided advice, the Judge stated. Barrett Brown himself would admit that he crossed a line from journalist into supporter of Anonymous.

Despite Barrett Brown having no direct connection to the Stratfor hack, he was previously  facing a century in prison for sharing a link to the leaked documents with a chat room. Jeremy Hammond would later receive ten years for that leak. 

When Brown signed the plea deal in March 2014 the hyperlink charges were dropped. However, the prosecution was able to bring the dismissed charges to the forefront in an attempt to sway the judges ruling towards the maximum sentence. Brown’s own defense noted that this was a perfectly acceptable and legal practice but felt the government had previously been unable to make its case on the hyperlink charge and was now attempting to recharge him.

These accusations lead to a debate on whether or not Brown had trafficked in stolen data by simply reposting a hyperlink to the hacked documents. Heath at one point referenced a case dealing with child pornography and accused Brown of “furthering the accessibility” to the documents. Brown’s defense would argue that reposting a link to the information is not the same as promoting the stolen information. They stated that the prosecution was conflating the issue and argued that telling someone where a website is that offers child pornography is not the same as trafficking in that porn. Ms. Heath then moved to describing Brown as a drug dealer who knowingly gives others a key to a house full of drugs. You don’t have to actually touch information to have trafficked in it, she would claim. Judge Lindsay agreed and allowed the claims to stand on the record.

It is this “relevant conduct” that has many journalists and advocacy groups fearing the ruling. Despite fears that allowing this to stand could “chill journalists to the bone”, Judge Lindsay stated that “the totality of the conduct” must be considered. He attempted to reassure the defense and nervous onlookers from the press that “what took place is not going to chill any 1st amendment expression by journalists”. Judge Sam Lindsay may feel confident from his viewpoint but exactly how courts in the future will interpret this ruling remains to be seen.

The exact charges Barrett Brown plead guilty to include  (1) transmitting a threat in interstate commerce (2) accessory after the fact in the unauthorized access to a protected computer and (3) interference with the execution of a search warrant and aid and abet. Brown apologized for the threats he made in a YouTube video, however Judge Lindsay noted that it was this charge that carried the heaviest punishment.

The second charge comes from Brown offering to be a mediator for hacker Jeremy Hammond following the hack of Strafor. During his allocution statement to the judge, Brown offered some background on why he made the decision to mediate for Hammond.

“And with regard to the accessory after the fact charge relating to my efforts to redact sensitive emails after the Stratfor hack, I’ve explained to Your Honor that I do not want to be a hypocrite. If I criticize the government for breaking the law but then break the law myself in an effort to reveal their wrongdoing, I should expect to be punished just as I’ve called for the criminals at government-linked firms, like HBGary and Palantir, to be punished. When we start fighting crime by any means necessary, we become guilty of the same hypocrisy as law enforcement agencies throughout history that break the rules to get the villains, and so become villains themselves.”

Brown also discussed how contributors to his think tank, Project PM, have been declared criminals by the government.

” So now the dozens of people who have given their time and expertise to what has been hailed by journalists and advocacy groups as a crucial journalistic enterprise are now at risk of being indicted under the same sort of spurious charges that I was facing not long ago, when the government exposed me to decades of prison time for copying and pasting a link to a publicly available file that other journalists were also linking to without being prosecuted. “

On his decision to reject an earlier plea deal that included fraud charges:

“ Last year, when the government offered me a plea bargain whereby I would plead to just one of the eleven fraud charges related to the linking, and told me it was final, I turned it down. To have accepted that plea, with a two-year sentence, would have been convenient—Your Honor will note that I actually did eventually plead to an accessory charge carrying potentially more prison time—but it would have been wrong. Even aside from the obvious fact that I did not commit fraud, and thus couldn’t sign to any such thing, to do so would have also constituted a dangerous precedent, and it would have endangered my colleagues, each of whom could now have been depicted as a former associate of a convicted fraudster. And it would have given the government, and particularly the FBI, one more tool by which to persecute journalists and activists whose views they find to be dangerous or undesirable.“

Brown also challenged the governments assertion that he is a member of Anonymous and not a journalist.

“There you have it. Deny being a spokesperson for Anonymous hundreds of times, and you’re still a spokesperson for Anonymous. Deny being a journalist once or twice, and you’re not a journalist. What conclusion can one draw from this sort of reasoning other than that you are whatever the FBI finds it convenient for you to be at any given moment. This is not the rule of law, Your Honor, it is the rule of Law Enforcement, and it is very dangerous.”

Again, the danger of government sanctioning who and what exactly a journalist is was up for debate.

“ The government asserts that I am not a journalist and thus unable to claim the First Amendment protections guaranteed to those engaged in information-gathering activities. Your Honor, I’ve been employed as a journalist for much of my adult life, I’ve written for dozens of magazines and newspapers, and I’m the author of two published and critically-acclaimed books of expository non-fiction. Your Honor has received letters from editors who have published my journalistic work, as well as from award-winning journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, who note that they have used that work in their own articles. If I am not a journalist, then there are many, many people out there who are also not journalists, without being aware of it, and who are thus as much at risk as I am.”

Before the judge handed down the verdict, prosecutor Heath argued that Barrett was still displaying a lack of respect for the rule of law. She claimed Brown had little respect for the law, or abiding by the law. She said he believed in retaliation against corporations who commit crimes and was a “vigilante” attempting to find justice outside the law. She argued that the sentence must show “that an individual must respect the law”.

We have to ask ourselves if “following the law”, or “just following orders” automatically makes an action moral or just. Throughout history individuals who have recognized the failures and corruption of government have done what they could to call attention to these crimes. Time and time again the state demonizes and imprisons those who dare question the authenticity and relevance of laws that allow criminals in the corporate world and governments to continue to walk free while journalists working to expose the crimes lose days, months, and years from their lives. What will it take for the people of the world to actively stand against injustice?

Following the sentencing Brown released the following statement full of his usual panache.

“Good news! — The U.S. government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex. For the next 35 months, I’ll be provided with free food, clothes, and housing as I seek to expose wrondgoing by Bureau of Prisons officials and staff and otherwise report on news and culture in the world’s greatest prison system. I want to thank the Department of Justice for having put so much time and energy into advocating on my behalf; rather than holding a grudge against me for the two years of work I put into in bringing attention to a DOJ-linked campaign to harass and discredit journalists like Glenn Greenwald, the agency instead labored tirelessly to ensure that I received this very prestigious assignment. — Wish me luck!”

For a full rundown of the proceedings leading up to today please check here.

Politics

Freedom of The Press? Condoleezza Rice Asked NY Times To Stop CIA Story

12 Comments

Former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson told 60 Minutes that she had a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who appealed to her to censor Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Risen from finishing an article concerning a CIA effort to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Abramson called the meeting “surreal” and said that Rice never looked up, but read from a yellow legal notebook of reasons Risen’s story was a threat to national security.

“Her bottom line … was to make sure that Jim cease all reporting on this story, which was really an extraordinary request,” said Abramson.

“I regret it now, but I think that I leaned towards not publishing. It seemed, in the calculus of all of the major stories we were dealing with at that point, not worth it to me and I regret that decision now. I regret that I did not back a great reporter, Jim Risen, who I’ve worked with and who then worked for me and whose work I knew was solid as a rock,” she continued.

The New York Times killed the story.

Watch Abramson’s interview here.

Government intimidation is not stopping journalist James Risen from speaking out though. Risen’s new book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration may send him to jail.

Risen is being threatened to reveal his sources, identifying who told him about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program.

And, Risen isn’t talking.

“Never, no. Basically, the choice the government’s given me is: give up everything I believe or go to jail. So, I’m not going to talk,” he said to 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl on Sunday.

What Risen learned from those sources were the shadowy dealings of the NSA, which under the guise of listening to al Qaeda in the United States, listened and recorded anyone and everyone without warrants.

“What they were supposed to do was spy on foreigners, electronic eavesdropping of foreign people overseas. Basically, what I found out about it was, they had suddenly turned this giant eavesdropping operation at the NSA onto the American people, in secret. And that’s what the story was,” he explained.

Watch the entire interview here.

Politics, US

Reporters claim the White House changes reports before they are released

1 Comment

The current White House administration has been lauded as the “most transparent administration in history,” but a number of journalists are coming out, saying they have been intimidated or coerced into altering their stories for the sake of making the White House look good.

Brain Carovillano is the managing editor for US news with the AP, and spoke during a panel discussion recently on the White House’s transparency claim.  “The White House push to limit access and reduce transparency has essentially served as the secrecy road map for all kinds of organizations — from local and state governments to universities and even sporting events,” said Carovillano.

Sally Buzbee, the AP’s Washington chief of bureau, has said the administration has extended its control of information to other government agencies in an indirect manner.  Buzbee has said sources from these other agencies which might be willing to share information, have been warned they could be fired for simply talking to a reporter.

Many people have also asked Buzbee to compare the level of transparency present within the Obama administration and the level present during the Bush administration.  “Bush was not fantastic… The (Obama) administration is significantly worse than previous administrations,” she said.

A recent Washington Post article has also said press-pool reports have been tampered with as White House aides have “demanded- and received- changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists.”

It is important to note, press-pool reports are written by reporters for other reporters, and they are used by news outlets every day to aid in the coverage of the White House and the president.

The article from the Post does say most of the demands for changes in these press-pool reports have involved trivial matters, but what is disturbing is these demanded changes are happening in the first place.  Instead of allowing journalists to report on matters from the White House with as unbiased of an opinion as they can muster, the White House has deemed it appropriate to filter and make changes to reports which concern the administration.

White House reporter Tom DeFrank said, according to the Daily Signal, “My view is the White House has no right to touch a pool report… If they want to challenge something by putting out a statement of their own, that’s their right… But they have no right to alter a pool report unilaterally.”

Featured, Politics, US

NSA Chief: Federal legislation to end media leaks only weeks away

21 Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 7, 2014–National Security Agency (NSA) chief executive General Keith Alexander addressed a cyber-security panel Tuesday where he proclaimed that “media leaks legislation” he introduced to prevent journalists from reporting on government surveillance programs like those leaked by Edward Snowden could reach the floor within a couple weeks.

“We’ve got to handle media leaks first,” Alexander said in report by the Guardian. “I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks.”

Alexander stood in support of the United Kingdom’s actions last summer when the British government detained Guardian Journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda on terrorism charges for carrying leaked data obtained by Snowden. He stated similar measures should be implemented in the USA.

“I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,” Alexander said.

Alexander has been pushing his idea for quite some time. “We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don’t know how to do that. That’s more of the courts and the policymakers but, from my perspective, it’s wrong to allow this to go on,” he told an official Defense Department blog in October.

Alexander, who is set to retire within the next few weeks, seems to have found his solution.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

Politics, US

US Senator Feinstein Seeks to Further Limit Freedom of Press

69 Comments

The majority of America now gets its news from online sources. This has opened the country up to a whole new variety of sources including blogs, vlogs, youtube and other alternative media sources. The term “Freedom of the Press” has certainly expanded to include multiple new-age venues of modern press. However, in a developing story, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) is seeking an amendment to restrict who gets protection under new media shield laws.feinstein

First, consider the problem with a media shield law. On the surface, it may seem great. Here, you will find one of government’s dirtiest tricks. Journalists and media already have a shield law. It’s called the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

DC will now try and pass a law that will put parameters on media, journalism, journalists, etc. We are told that this will strengthen protection for journalists. In reality, it  could open the door for government persecution due to purposefully placed ambiguous language.  This is certainly by design, as it is repeated in almost every law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

S. 987 (Free Flow of Information Act) defines what a media provider is and who a journalist is, and is not. However, Senator Feinstein is not satisfied with the language and wants it further restricted. According to a report, Feinstein says, “I’m concerned this would provide special privilege to those who are not reporters at all.” She is referring to bloggers and the likes of Edward Snowden, NSA whistle-blower. Feinstein went on to suggest that the term journalist only apply to those who report for mainstream media sources, and do so as a primary source of income. H. 1962, the House version of the bill, already includes such stipulation:

The term ‘‘covered person’’ means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

This meaning, if you aren’t being paid- then you don’t get protection under the new law.
Feinstein’s amendment, which is scheduled to be introduced will seek to restrict who is protected under the law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that the amendment will require journalists to meet one of the following criteria:
  1. working as a “salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information;”
  2. either (a) meeting the prior definition “for any continuous three-month period within the two years prior to the relevant date” or (b) having “substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications by an entity . . . within two years prior to the relevant date;” or
  3. working as a student journalist “participating in a journalistic publication at an institution of higher education.” (emphases added)

Amendment to S. 987, 113th Cong. § 5(A)(i), § 5(B)(iii) (2013)

Her amendment continues to muddy the waters by retaining original language that requires:

  1. that individuals “engage[] in . . . the regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing on” matters of public interest; or
  2. that individuals “regularly conducted interviews, reviewed documents, captured images of events, or directly observed events.” (emphases added)

Amendment to S. 987, 113th Cong. § 5(A)(ii), § 5(B)(i) (2013)

These criteria are troublesome. What about those not salaried? How do you define a “substantial contributor”, “entity”, or “significant”? What happens to these students once they have graduated? How do you define one who is “regularly” engaged in journalism? It is certainly ambiguous at best.

This attempt to restrict protection to bloggers and leakers is nothing new. In 2009, Senator Schumer introduced an amendment to the Free Flow of Information Act that purposefully excluded bloggers and non-salaried writers from protection.

In the future, keep an open eye for federal legislation, which claims any association with your innate rights such as the “Free Flow of Information Act”. Rights such as those to keep and bear arms, or the freedom of speech. When our rights are left to the hands of vague legislative language, no good can be found as result. For liberty and freedom are words of absolute, and ambiguity must find no refuge here.

After researching the law and proposed amendments, I cannot even be certain if my colleagues and myself would protected here at BenSwann.com due to the ambiguity. This ambiguity and fear certainly leads to restrictions on the press.

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Swann TV

What Investigative Journalism Is All About

5 Comments

Transcript:

I often get asked by colleagues, friends and viewers  Ben, why is it that so many news outlets are biased?  Can’t we just get the facts minus all the spin?

Well, what they are really asking me is a larger question:  Do you think journalism is dead?

Not at all.  But what is journalism? and moreso, what is investigative journalism?  It seems many have forgotten what it means.

I’ll start by stating what investigative journalism isn’t.  It’s not about force-feeding the public stories which are slanted in favor of huge corporate interests and presenting them as “facts”.  It’s also not about serving the interests of one political party over another.  Most importantly, it’s not a popularity contest.

As for what journalism is, let’s start with the word INVESTIGATIVE, which means specializing in uncovering and reporting hidden information.  Journalism is also a GRASSROOTS endeavor, meaning by the people, for the people.  And then what about an actual definition of the word JOURNALISM itself?  Turns out it means the collection and editing of news for presentation through media.  Notice how I didn’t say sensationalism.  Or bias?  I said news.

I think journalism can be about even more.  To me, it should be a profession based around INTEGRITY.  At the end of the day, if adherence to moral and ethical principles is not part and parcel in how we receive our information, what are we left with?  I also contend that investigative journalism should be FEARLESS.  No question should be too tough to ask, no story too controversial, no subject matter out of bounds.

Journalism should also be a guardian of LIBERTY, in that a free people, should have a free press.  And finally, no constraints – ever – should be placed on the search for TRUTH.

That is the definition, the soul, of what investigate journalism should mean.  And it is why I work so hard every day to restore what the founders called the fourth estate.