SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom of the press
'Should Shock the Conscience': Trump Admin Escalates War on Press With Subpoena of New York Times Reporters
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
Jul 11, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ's Use of Subpoenas Against Journalists Is 'Straight Out of the Dictator's Playbook': Press Freedom Group
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," said one press freedom advocate.
Jun 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice's attempt to compel journalists to testify before a grand jury is drawing blowback from a top press freedom group, which is accusing President Donald Trump's administration of behaving like an authoritarian regime.
According to a Tuesday report in The New York Times, the DOJ earlier this month issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.
"The Justice Department had sought information from three reporters at The Journal about an article detailing how top officials warned... Trump of the risks of a major military campaign against Iran," reported the Times. "It also sought information from a reporter at The Post, Ellen Nakashima, about reporting related to US military action in Venezuela."
As the Times noted, it is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters' ability to gather information.
After the details of the subpoenas and news of their withdrawal broke, Reporters Without Borders slammed the Trump DOJ for hitting a "new low" in its attempt to "suppress information from the American people."
"Subpoenaing journalists to appear before a grand jury under the guise of ‘national security’ is straight out of the dictator's playbook," the group said. "Fortunately, in the United States, newsrooms are fighting back and winning."
A Tuesday CNN report claimed that Trump had personally pushed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to subpoena the journalists, going so far as to hand Blanche "a sticky note—with the word 'Treason' written in Sharpie—placed atop a stack of printed articles."
CNN also reported that both the Post and the Journal "remain on guard against the possibility that the subpoenas will be reissued in the future."
A spokesperson for the Post ripped the Trump DOJ for issuing "an unwarranted subpoena of our reporter," which the newspaper described as "a clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed press freedom."
"We will continue to stand fully behind the journalism of The Washington Post," the spokesperson added, "and fight all efforts by any administration that violate our First Amendment rights."
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in an interview with the Post that issuing grand jury subpoenas to reporters puts core First Amendment rights at risk because "once you are up in front of the grand jury, the testimony can go in many different ways and can inquire into stories that are unrelated to the underlying investigation."
"The potential of the government intruding into the newsgathering process is even greater when you are in the grand jury than it is for a subpoena for documents," Rottman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Today's Social Media Are No Longer Safe for Journalism
This existential moment calls for a global social media platform for independent news media.
Mar 21, 2025
Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist who studied totalitarian regimes, noted in 1974 that “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed?”
Fifty years later, we have nearly reached that moment. This is existential for all independent (i.e., not allied with a political party or authoritarian regime) news organizations and their ability to reach audiences in the social media space.
Social media like Twitter (now X) and Facebook became important environments for the news media to enter two decades ago because they are where millions of people congregate online. For journalism organizations, the goal has been to post interesting stories and get referrals—those users who click through to the news site and boost web page views.
Yet, that relationship has fallen apart. Ultimately, tech companies are not interested in helping journalism or aiding civil discourse. The annual Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism digital news report for 2025 notes “big falls in referral traffic to news sites from Facebook (67%) and Twitter (50%) over the last two years.”
The even bigger problem for independent news media is that most social media platforms are increasingly antithetical to freedom of the press.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind.
Since Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2022 and turned it into X, it’s become the disinformation-drenched social platform of the Donald Trump administration. This year, genuflecting to Trump, Meta (corporate parent of Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp) announced it would drop its independent fact-checking program in the U.S. in favor of an anemic, crowd-sourced “community notes” system, which has already been a failure at X. Another popular news platform, TikTok, has serious disinformation problems, security liabilities and an uncertain future.
Several news organizations around the globe decided they won’t take it anymore. NPR stopped posting on X in 2023, after the platform insisted on designating it as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” More recently, The Guardian announced it would stop posting on X, concluding it is “a toxic media platform.” Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper of record, Le Monde, the French newspaper of record, and La Vanguardia, the leading newspaper in Barcelona, quit X, too. The European Federation of Journalists, representing about 320,000 journalists, did the same. “We cannot continue to participate in feeding the social network of a man who proclaims the death of the media and therefore of journalists,” EFJ president Maja Sever wrote.
But, simply quitting X only eliminates the worst option and settles for the slightly less bad options that remain.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind. For example, 54% of Americans get their news often or sometimes from social media. Adults 18-29 are the heaviest users of social media platforms. They deserve a social media platform that respects and informs them.
That’s why legitimate news media should band together and regain the autonomy they ceded to third-party social media. Independent news organizations–large and small–should cooperatively create and control their own social media platform that amplifies news and public information, encourages links to member news organizations, and excludes misinformation and disinformation.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things.
The model for this is something almost as old as modern journalism, too: The Associated Press, an international cooperative nonprofit news agency. As the AP tells its founding story, “In 1846, five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.” The problem with social media is similar–if it’s not working, work collectively to build another way. And, like the AP, it could be a global cooperative.
Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things. But, a news-controlled social media platform could develop features that would demonstrate the multimedia ability of news organizations and enable the audience to create social connections in new and entertaining ways. Users could adjust their feeds to focus on local, regional, national, or international news, or whatever mix and topics makes sense to them, so all legitimate news organizations of any size get to be part of the platform.
Which news organizations and journalists could be part of such a social media cooperative?
Reporters Without Borders, the international journalism nonprofit, already has a powerful statement for fostering global information spaces for the common good, where “information can only be regarded as reliable when freely gathered, processed and disseminated according to the principles of commitment to truth, plurality of viewpoints and rational methods of establishment and verification of facts.” This would enable a broad range of journalism organizations to participate, and draw a bright line to exclude media propagating disinformation.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle.
From a business perspective, journalism organizations, not third-party social media, would retain analytic data and any advertising revenue. The social media app could be free for any person with a subscription to any member news organization (e.g., a local newspaper, a national magazine of opinion, or digital news site), or with a nominal subscription fee, to provide built-in authentication and help prevent bot accounts. There are also strong global standards for content moderation through the International Fact-Checking Network, which was formed in 2015 and has a nonpartisan code of principles and more than 170 fact-checking groups around the world.
What would such a social media platform cost to create?
Clearly, $44 billion is too much. Bluesky, which has gained favor as an X alternative in recent months, offers a case for comparison. It started internally with just a handful of workers at then-Twitter in 2019. In the past two years, it’s received $23 million in seed funding to get it where it is today.
Bluesky may be the current favorite of many journalists, and has many advantages over other social media platforms, but its worthy purpose to encourage a less toxic space for public conversation does not primarily serve the goals of globally disseminating independent journalism.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse.
The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle. There has been talk for several years about Europe having its own social media platform to highlight democracy, diversity, solidarity, and privacy, and to avoid “foreign information manipulations and interference” from platforms based in the U.S. that have fallen into Trump’s power orbit and China-based platforms as well.
But, a nongovernmental platform, with a consortium of democracy-minded news organizations, may be most resistant to nationalisms and authoritarianism. The project could be built on an open-source structure like ActivityPub (the infrastructure behind Mastodon) or the AT Protocol (behind Bluesky), which would give more power to users.
Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse. The alternative is the independent press’s passive acceptance of whatever social media ecosystems Silicon Valley plutocrats or authoritarian governments decide to make, which is bad news for a free press.Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Probe Into NPR, PBS Denounced as 'Attack on the Freedom of the Press'
"The FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege," said one critic.
Jan 31, 2025
U.S. press freedom advocates this week forcefully condemned Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's investigation into National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service that could lead to stripping them of government funding.
"If they weren't ringing already, alarm bells should be going off loudly," said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, in a Thursday statement. "By using its investigatory powers, the FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege."
"The Trump administration is clearly embracing such tactics and putting independent media at risk by undermining accountability of elected leaders and risking a less informed public," Richardson added. "We call on the FCC to dispense with such politically motivated investigations."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was similarly critical, saying that "the commission should not bring frivolous investigations into media outlets simply because they do not like their coverage. Investigations like this can chill coverage and threaten the independence of the press, making it harder to hold the government accountable and keep us all informed."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens.This “investigation” is a sham and meant to terrorize NPR and PBS. They have *rigorous* oversight on vetting the “this program brought to you by” statements and literally pages of documentation about it that they give to filmmakers like me. Support your local stations, they’re going to need it.
[image or embed]
— Ariel Waldman (@arielwaldman.com) January 30, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "his seat as FCC chairman is barely warm, but Brendan Carr is already abusing his power and harassing public broadcasters with a sham investigation designed to scare journalists into silence. This is all part of Carr's far-right, Project 2025-inspired agenda."
"This bogus investigation is an attack on the freedom of the press and a bungling attempt to bash public broadcasters and further weaken their resolve to question the extremism, corruption, and cruelty of the Trump administration," Aaron warned. "This unjustified investigation isn't based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much advertising on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration."
"Carr may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that he isn't a fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable. In this, as in so many other areas under his purview, Chairman Carr is far out of step with the American public and their needs," he continued. "Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions. In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less."
Aaron added that "in a healthy democracy, we would be investing enough in our public-media system that it wouldn't need to seek any corporate underwriting. Unfortunately, Carr's cronies in Congress and the Big Media barons they serve have instead for decades tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners opposed them."
Carr—whom President Donald Trump first appointed to the FCC in 2017 and recently elevated to chair after he contributed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025—announced the probe in a Wednesday letter to NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher and PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Carr wrote. "I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, with assistance from the FCC's Media Bureau, to initiate an investigation into the underwriting announcements and related policies of NPR, PBS, and their broadcast member stations."
The chair added:
I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.
Some federal lawmakers have already responded on social media. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the letter from Chairman Carr announcing a new FCC investigation into NPR and PBS member stations is baseless. He cites no evidence at all. Instead, this investigation is a dangerous attack on public media and local journalism."
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that "public television and radio are essential for their local communities. The FCC must not be weaponized to intimidate and silence broadcast media. We should be supporting, not undermining, their contributions to journalism and the marketplace of ideas."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...
[image or embed]
— Seth Stern (@seth-stern.bsky.social) January 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
The two Democratic members of the FCC have also responded critically to Carr's move. Commissioner Anna Gomez said that "this appears to be yet another administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media."
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that "public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem.
Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. The announcement of this investigation gives me serious concern."
Maher said in statement that "NPR programming and underwriting messaging complies with federal regulations, including the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages for noncommercial educational broadcasters, and member stations are expected to be in compliance as well."
"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," she added. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."
In a statement to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who reported on the probe, Kerger said that "PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations... We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the commission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gift to the Ruling Class': Florida Bill Would Make It Easier for Officials Like DeSantis to Sue Critics
"Floridians should not tolerate their governor's experiments in authoritarianism in their name and at their expense."
Feb 21, 2023
A Florida House Republican introduced legislation Monday that would make it easier for state officials—such as censorship-happy Gov. Ron DeSantis—to sue for defamation, a measure that critics decried as a blatant attack on the freedom of the press and free expression with potentially sweeping implications.
Filed by Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade (R-2), H.B. 951 laments that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan has "foreclosed many meritorious defamation claims to the detriment of citizens of all walks of life" by placing such claims under the purview of the federal government and establishing a high standard of proof.
As the Oyez Project summarizes, the high court held in the 1964 decision that "to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate."
Following the introduction of Andrade's bill, Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, told the outlet Law & Crime that "it's black-letter law that a state cannot constitutionally provide less protection in libel litigation than the First Amendment requires."
"This text does just that, obviously intentionally," said Abrams. "If Governor DeSantis, a Harvard Law graduate, thinks the statute is constitutional, he's forgotten what he was taught. If he's looking for a way to offer the Supreme Court a case in which it might reconsider settled law, who knows. But what's clear is that it is today and tomorrow facially at odds with the First Amendment."
The new bill was filed two weeks after DeSantis, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, held a roundtable purportedly aimed at spotlighting the "defamation practices" of legacy media outlets. While DeSantis has framed his campaign against defamation as an attempt to empower "everyday citizens" against false attacks, free speech advocates warned that, in reality, the governor and his right-wing allies in the Legislature are looking to silence criticism of elected officials like themselves.
"DeSantis continues to make clear his disdain for freedom of speech and the press and to prioritize censoring dissent over governing," said Seth Stern, director of Advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and a First Amendment lawyer.
Andrade's bill, Stern argued, "would do nothing for ordinary Floridians but would allow government officials and celebrities to harass and even bankrupt their critics with expensive litigation."
"It would stifle investigative reporting by presuming any statements attributed to anonymous sources to be false despite that (or, given DeSantis' ambitions, maybe because) confidential sources have literally brought down presidents in this country," Stern added. "The Florida legislature should reject this political stunt and Floridians should not tolerate their governor's experiments in authoritarianism in their name and at their expense. The U.S. Congress should safeguard the First Amendment by codifying Sullivan and ensuring that the press and public are protected from politically-motivated defamation lawsuits."
"Unsurprisingly, it's peddled as a bill to protect the little guy. Nothing is further from the truth. It's a gift to the ruling class."
The Florida House measure, just the latest broadside against free expression by the state GOP, specifically urges the U.S. Supreme Court to "reassess" Sullivan, an effort that media lawyer Matthew Schafer described as "part of the right's world war on individual rights, equality, and democracy." (The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the 1964 ruling last year.)
"Unsurprisingly, it's peddled as a bill to protect the little guy," Schafer noted. "Nothing is further from the truth. It's a gift to the ruling class."
Andrade's bill, which resembles a proposal drafted by DeSantis' administration last year, outlines specific restrictions on who can and cannot be considered a "public figure" entitled to pursue defamation claims under the legislation.
The measure states that a person does not qualify as a public figure if their "fame or notoriety arises solely from" defending themselves against an accusation; "granting an interview on a specific topic"; "public employment, other than elected office or appointment by an elected official"; or "a video, an image, or a statement uploaded on the Internet that has reached a broad audience."
In a column last week, The Washington Post's Erik Wemple cautioned that DeSantis' attempts to target Sullivan could pose "a far greater threat to U.S. media" than former President Donald Trump's ultimately empty pledge to "open up" libel laws.
During his roundtable event earlier this month, "DeSantis, an ace practitioner of GOP media-bashing rhetoric, showed why some critics view him as a more dangerous embodiment of Trump's two-bit authoritarianism," Wemple wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AP Files Suit For FBI's Refusal To Come Clean on 'Fake Reporter' Operations
'While the public clearly has a strong, compelling interest in knowing more about the FBI’s use of this tactic, the FBI seems determined to withhold that information,' says lawyer involved with the case
Aug 28, 2015
Following public outrage expressed when it was first discovered last year, the Associated Press took legal action against the Department of Justice on Thursday for the FBI's failure to come clean about details surrounding its decision to impersonate an AP reporter as part of a covert investigation.
AP filed the suit with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) after the DOJ repeatedly refused to comply with open records requests for documents related to the case.
The lawsuit argues that AP and the Reporters Committee "are statutorily entitled to disclosure of these records, which they seek so that they may inform the public about the nature and extent of the FBI's impersonation of journalists and news organizations. Defendants have improperly withheld the records requested by Plaintiffs in violation of the law and in opposition to the public's strong interest in obtaining information regarding a law enforcement practice that undermines both the credibility and independence of the news media."
As the RCFP recounts:
The lawsuit stems from an FBI operation in 2007, during which agents created and published a fake AP news story in order to trick a criminal suspect into downloading surveillance software onto his computer, software that enabled the Bureau to track the suspect's location.
When the FBI's impersonation of the AP came to light in October of 2014, the Reporters Committee and 25 news organizations immediately sent a letter to the attorney general and FBI director calling it "unacceptable." AP also wrote to the attorney general protesting the FBI's use of a fabricated AP news story "in the strongest possible terms."
As Common Dreams reported at the time, FBI Director James Comey defended the agency's action. That technique was proper and appropriate under Justice Department and [FBI] guidelines at the time," he said last year. Today, the use of such an unusual technique would probably require higher-level approvals than in 2007, but it would still be lawful and, in a rare case, appropriate."
The news agency, however, took a much different view. "The FBI both misappropriated the trusted name of The Associated Press and created a situation where our credibility could have been undermined on a large scale," AP general counsel Karen Kaiser said in a 2014 letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder.
In addition to the details of the 2007 case, the AP has requested further documentation regarding possible other examples of the FBI using the names of media outlets as cover or posing as journalists during investigations. None of the requests have been answered.
"We cannot overstate how damaging it is for federal agents to pose as journalists," said Reporters Committee litigation director Katie Townsend. "This practice undermines the credibility of the independent news media and should not be tolerated. Yet, while the public is interested in knowing more about the FBI's use of this tactic, the FBI seems determined to withhold that information. We have no choice but to look to the court for relief."
As AP notes, Thursday's filing marked the second time the news agency sued the federal government this year. In March, the news organization sued the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The case, involving unfulfilled FOIA requests dating back as long as five years, is ongoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon War Manual Gives Military License To Target and Attack Journalists
Aug 11, 2015
The Pentagon has adopted a "law of war manual" [PDF], which enables commanders to treat journalists as "unprivileged belligerents." It suggests that correspondents who report some information about combat operations may be taking "direct part in hostilities," a disturbing argument for justifying the killing of reporters in war zones. There also is a part of the manual that encourages journalists to submit to censorship of news reports that might aid enemies.
On July 31, the Committee to Protect Journalists published an analysis of the Pentagon's weak justifications for treating journalists as spies. The New York Times Editorial Board also condemned the guidelines in an August 10 editorial.
To add to the CPJ's analysis and the Times editorial, the guidelines essentially codify a United States government mindset, which led to President Barack Obama's administration personally requesting Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh keep a journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, jailed.
There also is the issue of the military prosecution of Chelsea Manning, who provided just over a half million documents to WikiLeaks. The military charged her with "aiding the enemy," and a line can be drawn from how the military prosecuted her to the guidelines in this manual.
The manual claims, "Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying." It instructs journalists to "avoid being mistaken for spies" by acting openly and "with the permission of relevant authorities." Supposedly, this can be done by presenting "identification documents" given to "authorized war correspondents" (though it is unclear how one might do this when if they are about to be wrongfully targeted in a drone strike).
"States may need to censor journalists' work or take other security measures so that journalists do not reveal sensitive information to the enemy," the manual claims. "Under the law of war, there is no special right for journalists to enter a state's territory without its consent or to access areas of military operations without the consent of the state conducting those operations."
Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director for international law and policy, explained the government's theory in Manning's case that "making information available on the internet--whether through Wikileaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times -- can amount to 'aiding the enemy.'"
Although Manning was acquitted of the "aiding the enemy" charge, military prosecutors spent hours during the court-martial alleging Manning had aided al-Qaida and other terrorist groups without ever having to prove that Manning was sympathetic toward terrorists. The fact that terrorists, particularly Osama bin Laden, could download classified US documents from WikiLeaks and read them was seen as aiding terrorism. In this equation, that made WikiLeaks and aider and abettor of terrorism as well.
What if a journalist wants to publish a story about soldiers who are not getting the proper equipment to protect them in a province of Iraq? What if the journalist speaks to sources on the ground and uncovers a story of corruption? Is that story revealing details about the lack of equipment going to lead to the journalist being treated as an "unprivileged belligerent" or someone who is no better than "enemies"?
Journalist Glenn Greenwald reported in September 2012 the US military investigated a US air force systems analyst, who supported WikiLeaks and Manning, for "communicating with the enemy." WikiLeaks was labeled an "anti-US or anti-military group" in documents from the investigation.
The US government has engaged in an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers and individuals who have leaked classified information. Government agencies have fine-tuned polygraph exams to spot individuals who may potentially leak or talk to reporters about their job. The Justice Department has issued broad subpoenas to sweep up the records of hundreds of journalists at media organizations, such as the Associated Press, when investigating leaks. There have been senators and congressmen from the Republican Party calling for journalists who publish leaks to be arrested. Underpinning contempt for freedom of the press is the belief in the need for more information control.
*
In the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the Pentagon managed to convince numerous journalists to embed with military forces. This enabled the Pentagon to influence journalists to write narratives of military occupation and warfare germane to the Pentagon's agenda. Yet, what if journalists are more reluctant to embed and reproduce the story the Pentagon wants to be told?
What if a journalist wants to not only interview US commanders but also commanders of forces, which the US military may be fighting? And what if a journalist wants to talk to these commanders to present a fuller picture of an ongoing war, including why an enemy force may be gaining strength in spite of claims by the US that a coalition is winning?
It seems the answer may be that such a journalist could end up like Abdulelah Haider Shaye.
Shaye reported on what happened in the attack on al-Majalah, which killed dozens of women and children in December 2009. His lawyer, Abdulrahman Barman, told me in an interview in 2012, "Abdulelah was beaten up and kidnapped [in June 2010] by the national security agency and he was asked to shut up and be silent and not to talk about these kind of issues."
Journalist Jeremy Scahill reported in his book, "Dirty Wars," after he was released, he went on television to describe what happened. US government officials privately told "major US media outlets working with Shaye that they should discontinue their relationships with him." The government alleged he was "using his paychecks to support [al-Qaida]."
The national security agency people kidnaped Shaye. He was beaten, dragged, and held for thirty-five days incommunicado while activists protested his detention in front of intelligence services and judicial system buildings. Then, Shaye was held in solitary confinement for a period, denied access to his lawyer, and subjected to psychological torture and abuse and appeared in a cage before a special tribunal on September 22, 2010.
The judge read the charges he faced, which included "being the 'media man' for al-Qaida, recruiting new operatives for the group and providing al-Qaida with photos of Yemeni bases and foreign embassies for potential targeting."
According to Scahill, when Shaye heard the charges, he reacted, "When they hid murderers of children and women in Abyan, when I revealed the locations and camps of nomads and civilians in Abyan, Shabwah and Arhab when they were going to be hit by cruise missiles, it was on that day they decided to arrest me ... You notice in the court how they have turned all of my journalistic contributions into accusations. All of my journalist contributions and quotations to international reporters and news channels have been turned into accusations."
And, as he was dragged off by security, he shouted, "Yemen, this is a place where, when a young journalist becomes successful, he is viewed with suspicion."
In January 2011, he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison and two years of house arrest in his hometown. Shaye went on hunger strike in November of that year. President Saleh planned to release Shaye, but Obama called Saleh and requested that Shaye be kept in prison.
US Ambassador to Sanaa Gerald Feierstein claimed, "Haidar Shaye is in jail because he was facilitating [al-Qaida] and its planning for attacks on Americans and therefore we have a very direct interest in his case and his imprisonment," despite the fact that no evidence confirming this allegation had ever been presented.
Kat Craig of Reprieve described the effect of Shaye's imprisonment on Yemeni journalists:
Yemeni journalists have repeatedly expressed their lingering fear over America's meddling in Shaye's case. Many became afraid to report on air strikes. One Yemeni journalist, like Shaye a specialist on [al-Qaida], renamed himself an "analyst of Islamic groups" and refused to do TV interviews especially with Al Jazeera after what happened to Shaye.
Shaye was finally released in July 2013 but was prohibited from leaving Sanaa.
While this may be an extreme example, the guidelines in the Pentagon's law of war manual further enable this kind of proxy detention of journalists that has already taken place in US wars.
The manual may also make it more permissible for military officers to subject a journalist to harsh interrogation. For example, Al Jazeera journalist Salah Hassan was tortured at Abu Ghraib.
Journalists who work for outlets like Al Jazeera, which the government has historically deemed as propaganda, could find themselves being targeted even more. President George W. Bush reportedly considered bombing the Qatar-based organization. Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj was detained and brought to Guantanamo Bay prison in 2002. Al-Haj was imprisoned until 2008. US military forces fired upon a building that was clearly marked a media center and killed Tareq Ayyoub, an Al Jazeera journalist. The attack also injured Zouhair Nadhim, an Al Jazeera cameraman.
When were they given the opportunity to show credentials and prove they were journalists?
Recall, Manning disclosed a video of an Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad, which shows the bloodlust of soldiers proud to have killed two Reuters journalists. The journalists did not have a chance to provide their ID before they were attacked.
The CPJ analysis points out that a UN report to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is cited. Specifically, this section:
Whether the media constitutes a legitimate target group is a debatable issue. If the media is used to incite crimes, as in Rwanda, then it is a legitimate target. If it is merely disseminating propaganda to generate support for the war effort, it is not a legitimate target.
Who differentiates and how does one differentiate between inciting crimes and disseminating propaganda to generate support for the war effort? It would seem such journalism could be easily confused, and one would not know they crossed over into inciting crime until they were blown to pieces by a Hellfire missile.
Overall, this is deeply troubling for all journalists. It gives the Pentagon a license to target and kill, detain and arrest journalists, or at best revoke credentials of journalists determined to be illegitimate. It opens up journalists to a whole host of risks, which undoubtedly discourage journalists from engaging in reporting in war zones. And it may even encourage other governments to follow suit and treat journalists like the Pentagon, which means there will be an escalation in the number of journalists killed while covering wars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy