September, 08 2009, 11:43am EDT
Free Press Calls on Obama Administration to Resist Extremism in the Media
Defends Former Free Press Board Member Van Jones
WASHINGTON
Van Jones, an adviser to the Obama administration and a former Free
Press board member, resigned from his White House post after being
ruthlessly attacked for weeks in a smear campaign started by Fox News
pundit Glenn Beck. Beck, who has also called President Obama a
"racist," targeted Jones for his background in environmental and civil
rights activism.
Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, issued the following statement:
"Most Americans want affordable health care, good schools and clean
air. But if you watch Glenn Beck's show, you would think the opposite
is true: that the only proponents of these ideas are socialist,
anti-American radicals operating out of the White House basement.
"At Free Press, our focus is on structural media policy, not on
media content. But we take this extraordinary step because what's
happening is so poisonous to American political discourse.
"That Fox News Channel lets Beck use its media megaphone to stir up
hatred and fear of others is repulsive, divisive and beyond all common
sense or decency. By giving Beck a nightly platform for such
McCarthy-esque witch hunts and smear campaigns, the national news
network undermines our democracy. But Fox News is not alone.
Unfortunately, this kind of rant is endemic to a media system that
cares about ratings far more than about the truth.
"Beck has a First Amendment right to stoke prejudice, and we do not
and will not support efforts to silence him. This is not about
censorship; it's about sanity. Our leaders have a responsibility to
condemn fear mongering in all its forms, defend those who are unfairly
attacked, and support a more diverse media system that provides
alternative voices to the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other
extremists. The lesson from the shameful McCarthy era that culminated
in 1954 is that we must confront the politics of personal attack with
decency, reason and a commitment to more political speech, not less.
"It's time for our elected officials -- from the White House to
local town halls -- to join people across the country in a stand
against agents of fear and misinformation."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Free Press Advocates Say FTC Has No Business Probing Journalist Interactions With Twitter
"Anyone who cares about the free press should be concerned by the FTC's demand that Twitter identify journalists who have received information that might embarrass the administration," said one critic.
Mar 08, 2023
Press freedom defenders on Wednesday expressed outrage after it was revealed that the Federal Trade Commission, as part of its investigation into Twitter's data privacy practices, demanded that the social media giant "identify all journalists" given access to company records, including in relation to owner Elon Musk's dissemination of the so-called "Twitter Files" purporting to expose censorship on the platform.
"Anyone who cares about the free press should be concerned by the FTC's demand that Twitter identify journalists who have received information that might embarrass the [Biden] administration, regardless of what they think of Elon Musk or Twitter," Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) advocacy director Seth Stern said in a statement.
According to FPF: "Government-compelled identification of journalists is dangerous on its own and enables further surveillance of those identified. Administrations from both political parties have overreached to spy on journalists—especially journalists investigating those in power."
"The Department of Justice has adopted policies against surveilling journalists," the advocacy group noted, "but other agencies like the FTC have not."
The Wall Street Journalreported Tuesday that in addition to the names of journalists granted access to Twitter records, the FTC also sought internal communications related to Musk as well as information regarding layoffs, which the agency said could undermine the corporation's capacity to protect users, and the launch of the Twitter Blue subscription service.
FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar told the newspaper that the agency is "conducting a rigorous investigation into Twitter's compliance with a consent order that came into effect long before Mr. Musk purchased the company."
Farrar explained Wednesday on social media that Twitter in 2011 "agreed to a 20-year consent order over its data security practices and how it uses your private information."
"In 2022, the FTC charged Twitter with violating the 2011 order for misusing personal information. The company then paid a $150 million penalty and entered a new consent order," he continued. "Besides the penalty, the FTC added further provisions to protect consumers' sensitive data. This order was issued in May of 2022," several months before Musk's acquisition of the company was finalized.
"The FTC should not have to violate the privacy of journalists to protect the privacy of Twitter users."
Farrar added that the 12 demand letters the FTC has sent to Twitter since Musk took over in late October "are nonpublic, but cherry-picked portions of some have recently been made public."
This happened after the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government published excerpts of the letters in an interim staff report about the FTC's Twitter probe.
As part of its investigation, the FTC on December 13 "asked about Twitter's decision to give journalists access to internal company communications, a project Mr. Musk has dubbed the 'Twitter Files' and that he says sheds light on controversial decisions by previous management," the Journal reported.
According to the newspaper: "The agency asked Twitter to describe the 'nature of access granted each person' and how allowing that access 'is consistent with your privacy and information security obligations under the order.' It asked if Twitter conducted background checks on the journalists, and whether the journalists could access Twitter users' personal messages."
Journalist Matt Taibbi—whose December 2 thread on Twitter's 2020 decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and subsequent reporting have put him at the center of the "Twitter Files" saga—tweeted Tuesday: "Which journalists a company or its executives talks to is not remotely the government's business. This is an insane overreach."
In response, Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly think tank, wrote that "the FTC is seeing whether Twitter is violating its consent decree on privacy."
Farrar doubled down on that claim Wednesday, writing: "FTC investigations are straightforward and nonpolitical. They are to ensure that companies are following the law, including protecting people's privacy. The consent order the FTC has with Twitter isn't about Musk's acquisition of the company or their content moderation policies. This isn't about free speech, it's about the FTC doing its job to protect Americans' privacy."
Stern, for his part, was unconvinced by Farrar and Stoller's attempts to justify the FTC's actions as an exercise in protecting consumers' data.
"The FTC," said Stern, "should not have to violate the privacy of journalists to protect the privacy of Twitter users."
"It's especially disturbing," he continued, "that the demand could enable future efforts to obtain the journalists' newsgathering materials."
The FTC's actions underscore why Americans of all political persuasions "should support passing the PRESS Act," Stern added. "It's the only way to ensure that all administrations, and all government agencies, are prohibited from surveilling or retaliating against journalists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shocking': FBI Director Admits Agency Purchased Geolocation Data of Americans
"Congress must fix this before considering any reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this year," said one advocate.
Mar 08, 2023
Privacy advocates on Wednesday said testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray at a U.S. Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing offers the latest evidence that Congress must take action to keep the government from performing mass surveillance on people across the United States, as Wray admitted the bureau has purchased cellphone geolocation data from companies.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Wray at a hearing about national security threats whether the FBI purchases "U.S. phone geolocation information," showing the location of users.
Wray said the bureau does not currently make such purchases, but acknowledged for the first time that it "previously, as in the past, purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project," drawing on data "derived from internet advertising."
He said the project has been inactive "for some time" but said he could only provide more information about it and the past purchase of geolocation data in a closed session with senators, adding that the FBI currently accesses "so-called ad tech location data" through "a court-authorized process."
"This is a policy decision that affects the privacy of every single person in the United States."
"I think its a very important privacy issue that [geolocation data purchases] not take place," said Wyden, an outspoken advocate for privacy rights.
Grassroots social welfare organization Demand Progress called Wray's admission "both shocking and further proof of the need for Congress to take immediate action to rein in mass surveillance."
"This is a policy decision that affects the privacy of every single person in the United States," said Sean Vitka, the group's policy counsel. "We should have the right to decide when and how our personal information is shared, but instead intelligence agencies continue to obstruct any accountability or transparency around this surveillance."
The revelation came as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is scheduled to expire at the end of the year and as Congress is expected to soon begin debating its reauthorization.
As written, the provision allows the U.S. government to conduct targeted surveillance of people in foreign countries, but intelligence agencies have also used the law to collect data on Americans.
"Congress must fix this before considering any reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this year," said Vitka of Wray's admission.
Vitka and Fight for the Future director Evan Greer were among the critics who demanded to know "who told [Wray] buying Americans' location info from data brokers would be legal?"
\u201cThe @FBI bought Americans\u2019 location info without a court order. This is enormous, was illegal, and has countless effects on the #FISAReform debate this year. What it means for what remains of Americans\u2019 privacy is horrifying.\u201d— Sean Vitka (@Sean Vitka) 1678293086
Privacy advocates have long warned that the Supreme Court ruling in the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, in which the court decided government agencies that accessed location data without a warrant were violating the Fourth Amendment, contains a loophole allowing the government to purchase data that it can't obtain legally.
"The public," Vitka told Wired, "needs to know who gave the go-ahead for this purchase, why, and what other agencies have done or are trying to do the same."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Watchdog's Message to Europe: There Is No Such Thing as 'Green Fracking'
"This is nothing but corporate greenwashing. The White House is contributing to a cynical marketing scheme to convince people that you can affix a 'clean' label to dirty gas infrastructure."
Mar 08, 2023
A leading watchdog on Wednesday responded to a report that Biden administration officials are meeting with industry representatives in a bid to boost exports of deceptively named "green" fracked gas to Europe by dispelling the notion that any fossil fuel could be considered "green"—especially during a worsening climate emergency.
Bloomberg Lawreported Tuesday that the Biden administration, the gas industry, and environmental leaders are discussing federal standards for so-called "green gas" exports.
The closed-door talks, which are scheduled to continue Thursday, come as much of Europe suffers through an energy crisis exacerbated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and amid efforts to classify fracked gas as "responsibly sourced" in order to circumvent climate concerns of potential European buyers of U.S. fossil fuels.
"There is no such thing as 'green' fracking—this is nothing but corporate greenwashing," Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, argued in a statement. "The White House is contributing to a cynical marketing scheme to convince people that you can affix a 'clean' label to dirty gas infrastructure, usually by promising to install carbon capture technologies that have never been shown to be effective."
"The White House should be championing policies that move the world off fossil fuels, not working closely with polluters on deceptive marketing schemes."
Under pressure from activists, policymakers, and investors to tackle the climate emergency, the fossil fuel industry has taken some serious steps toward transitioning to a post-carbon economy. But it has also resorted to tried-and-true political pressure and greenwashing in order to continue extracting, refining, selling, and exporting fossil fuels, reaping record profits as the planetary crisis worsens each year.
In Ohio, for example, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine last December signed industry- and dark money-backed legislation declaring that gas is "green energy."
Last year, European lawmakers voted to classify fossil gas and nuclear projects as "green," an official designation allowing them to enjoy taxpayer subsidies despite their harmful climate and environmental impacts.
While gas is technically cleaner than coal when measured by carbon dioxide emissions, the methane emitted during gas extraction has more than 80 times the warming power of CO2 over its first 20 years.
Last year, a report published by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York analyzing more than 2,000 scientific and government studies detailed how fracking has "dire impacts on public health and the climate."
The message from climate and public health experts is clear: There is no such thing as clean gas, and governments must do all they can to immediately transition to renewable energy sources.
"The White House should be championing policies that move the world off fossil fuels," Walsh asserted, "not working closely with polluters on deceptive marketing schemes that will encourage more fracking."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.