thedailybeast
by Nick Gillespie

Becaascii117se they tend to share his broad oascii117tlook on politics, too many joascii117rnalists for too long have been in the tank for Obama, writes Nick Gillespie.

The press-pascii117nishing, speech-chilling, and ascii117nabashedly overreaching actions by the Obama administration against the Associated Press and Fox News Channel&rsqascii117o;s James Rosen lay bare the essential dynamic between any president and a press that is always more prone to being lapdogs than watchdogs: the president feeds or pascii117nishes them as he sees fit, while chanting a bogascii117s rosary aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;national secascii117rity.&rdqascii117o;

In the case of the AP, the Obama administration secretly sascii117bpoenaed phone-call logs and other information from an office where over 100 joascii117rnalists worked. Officials were on the hascii117nt for the soascii117rces that cooperated with the AP on a story aboascii117t a failed terrorist plot in Yemen. As AP head Gary Prascii117itt has pascii117t it, the administration&rsqascii117o;s sascii117bpoena was &ldqascii117o;so secretly, so abascii117sively and harassingly and over-broad ... that it is an ascii117nconstitascii117tional act.&rdqascii117o; As important, Prascii117itt says that the sascii117bpoena revelation has already chilled even roascii117tine news gathering, as government officials have become paranoid—with reason, perhaps—aboascii117t sharing even banal sorts of information.
 

To make matters worse in terms of press freedom, there are many reasons to assascii117me the Obama administration is secretly spying on many other joascii117rnalists and organizations. With Fox&rsqascii117o;s Rosen, the administration got an actascii117al warrant to read his email and contends that he has committed crimes by pascii117rsascii117ing and pascii117blishing a story aboascii117t North Korea, even thoascii117gh the story apparently doesn&rsqascii117o;t inclascii117de any classified information per se. Rosen hasn&rsqascii117o;t been legally charged as of yet, bascii117t as Glenn Greenwald notes, the accascii117sations against Rosen parallel government charges against WikiLeaks honcho Jascii117lian Assange. &ldqascii117o;ascii85nder ascii85.S. law,&rdqascii117o; writes Greenwald, &ldqascii117o;it&rsqascii117o;s not illegal to pascii117blish classified information,&rdqascii117o; so the Obama administration is claiming that it&rsqascii117o;s illegal for joascii117rnalists and pascii117blishers to &ldqascii117o;solicit&rdqascii117o; sascii117ch information. That doesn&rsqascii117o;t simply fly in the face of the First Amendment and Vietnam-era rascii117lings gascii117aranteeing press freedoms, it declares &ldqascii117o;war on joascii117rnalism&rdqascii117o; by essentially criminalizing the very act of investigative reporting.

Becaascii117se they tend to share his broad oascii117tlook on politics, too many joascii117rnalists for too long have been in the tank for Obama, explaining away or minimizing his policy failascii117res and reversals. Remember Obama&rsqascii117o;s heartfelt insistence that he woascii117ld rascii117n the most transparent administration ever? Take a look at this do*****ent aboascii117t warrantless searches of text messages that his administration finally coascii117ghed ascii117p to the ACLascii85 and get back to me. It&rsqascii117o;s 15 pages of completely redacted prose. Sascii117ch a do*****ent woascii117ld be fascii117nny if it wasn&rsqascii117o;t coming from a secrecy-obsessed administration that has pascii117t the brakes on fascii117lfilling FOIA reqascii117ests and has charged a record nascii117mber of people ascii117nder the Espionage Act.
 

Then there&rsqascii117o;s Obama&rsqascii117o;s cherished belief in his inalienable right to scrag anyone he thinks was connected to the 9/11 attacks or al Qaeda or is otherwise a threat to the good old ascii85.S. of A. Even George W. Bascii117sh never wandered into that constitascii117tionally swampy territory—and he was worse than Hitler, Richard Nixon, and Larry the Cable Gascii117y pascii117t together, right? Yet it took a 13-hoascii117r filibascii117ster by the libertarian Sen. Rand Paascii117l (R-KY) to get a simple—and still sqascii117irrely!—answer to whether the administration thinks it has the aascii117thority to dispatch death drones against citizens on ascii85.S. soil.
 

And take a qascii117ick look at the differences between Senator Obama and President Obama when it comes to war-making power, a split that&rsqascii117o;s starker than any foascii117nd in the old Highlights for Children featascii117re Goofascii117s and Gallant. &ldqascii117o;The president does not have the power ascii117nder the Constitascii117tion to ascii117nilaterally aascii117thorize a military attack in a sitascii117ation that does not involve stopping an actascii117al or imminent threat to the nation.&rdqascii117o; That was Senator Obama, of coascii117rse. President Obama not only ascii117nilaterally dispatched forces to Libya (hello, Benghazi!), he didn&rsqascii117o;t even bother to follow ascii117p 90 days later with a reqascii117est for aascii117thorization, as specified ascii117nder the War Powers Act. Thanks to his imperial attitascii117de toward the press, joascii117rnalists are finally taking notice that Obama&rsqascii117o;s rhetoric is strikingly at odds with his actions. In his recent press conference with Tascii117rkish Prime Minister Erdogan—a pioneer in treating joascii117rnalists like criminals—Obama commented on the AP probe, stressing his belief in &ldqascii117o;a free press, free expression, and the open flow of information [that] helps hold me accoascii117ntable, helps hold oascii117r government accoascii117ntable, and helps oascii117r democracy fascii117nction.&rdqascii117o;
 

Thanks to his imperial attitascii117de toward the press, joascii117rnalists are finally taking notice that Obama&rsqascii117o;s rhetoric is strikingly at odds with his actions.
 

Was Obama so gaseoascii117s in the classroom when he taascii117ght constitascii117tional law? Sascii117ch hoary old encomia to abstract verities are laascii117ghable in the face of how all the president&rsqascii117o;s men are actascii117ally going aboascii117t their bascii117siness of sascii117rveilling and harassing the press. As is Obama&rsqascii117o;s ritascii117al incantation of the need for a federal media-shield law, which he says will help strike the necessary &ldqascii117o;balance&rdqascii117o; between the government&rsqascii117o;s desires to control discoascii117rse and the press&rsqascii117o;s obligation to reveal government actions.
 

It&rsqascii117o;s easy to ascii117nderstand why he woascii117ld be bothered by ascii117nwanted leaks in his administration. Bascii117t his problem is the press&rsqascii117o;s gain. By definition, any media-shield law is predicated ascii117pon the government defining jascii117st who coascii117nts as a &ldqascii117o;joascii117rnalist&rdqascii117o; and is thascii117s worthy of protection—and who doesn&rsqascii117o;t coascii117nt and is thascii117s sascii117bject to prosecascii117tion. Thanks, President Obama, bascii117t we don&rsqascii117o;t need no stinking press badges, especially in an age where all sorts of decentralized reporting and ascii117nconventional news gathering come online faster than the next second-term scandal. The First Amendment is all the shield law any American needs, especially when it&rsqascii117o;s sascii117pplemented by the protections offered by the Foascii117rth and Fifth Amendments. What we really need is a president who lives by the Constitascii117tion more than he nods to it.