Van Gogh wasn't a journalist by any stretch of the imagination.  He was a film director.

Thalia

You obviously didn't even bother to read the link

"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God."

I did read the linked article. That a slightly changed PATRIOT Act no longer considered a viable lawsuit by the ACLU shows how little emphasis should be put on it during this analysis. It can still be abused, of course -- but so can every law passed, ever.

"there was no right to confedential sources last year either.

Which would explain why we were already at 44th the year before.

Look, the gorilla is in the room. You can continue to claim that you "don't understand" or that you are "bored" or that you find it "hysterical" that the Army would be spying domestically.  You can continue to claim that they have no right to withhold the testimony (no shit, that's the problem.). And you can continue to characterize all of this as standard operating procedure; but it is not.

The sheer volume of material related to the Bush administration's antagonistic relationship with reporters is staggering. We haven't even scratched the surface here: there have been closures of government research libraries, FOIA is roundly abused, for the first time in four decades the president often travels without a press contingent, the press is now often locked out of fundraisers, and then there is that question of shills in the White House press room, the list goes on and on. Reporters Sans Frontiers has good reason for that rating. And it's simply hard to believe that you are unaware of the mountain of evidence on this subject. Honestly, you need to crack open a newspaper.

And BTW, Fleischer's comment was in reply to a question about Bill Maher in a press briefing. And we all know that Bill lost his job shortly afterwards...

"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God."

What do YOU think the Administration's response was to the SWIFT monitoring?  How about to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures?  How about to the publication of the wiretaps without FISA warrants?  

My recollection is that the Administration's first line of response is "how dare they disclose our actions."  Not once has the administration said "we fucked up" or even "this is hard to explain, so let us discuss it."  Nope, it's always "I am the decider and how dare they question me."  You will, I hope, recall the "if they're not with us, they're against us rhetoric."  If you still do not believe that this Administration accuses those that disclose its actions of "harming the country" or causing "violence in Iraq" or "putting the troops in harms way" then you are beyond help.

Thalia

"What do YOU think the Administration's response was to the SWIFT monitoring? "

I thought it was restrained, givent that the program was legal and the revelation of it undermined anti-terrorism efforts. Why do you keep bringing up the SWIFT monitoring as an example of an illegal program?

"about to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures? "

The publishing of the Abu Ghraib photos was cheap sensationalism on the part of the media, and did great damage to our efforts in Iraq. Much of the media often refrains from publishing all sorts of information for what the media claims is a greater good - the race of criminal suspects, the names of rape accusers, etc - but for some reason is incapable of showing restraint in the instance of photos damaging to the US military effort during a war. Note that the military first informed the press of prisoner abuses in January of 2004, and annouced to the press criminal charges had been brought against the abusers in March of 2004. That the media only became interested in the story a month later after the abusers defense attorneys leaked them photos says a lot about the media, but says nothing toward the issue of  declining press freedom.

"How about to the publication of the wiretaps without FISA warrants?"

The legality of the wiretap program is still in dispute. The administration made a principled defense of the program. If the Bush administration truly believed what they were doing was criminal, why did they inform Democrats on the Senate intelligence comittee?

"If you still do not believe that this Administration accuses those that disclose its actions of "harming the country" or causing "violence in Iraq" or "putting the troops in harms way" then you are beyond help."

Some of these disclosures did harm the country and put troops in harms way.

How do any of these complaints relate to a decline in press freedom?

I realise we may have a case of opposing value systems here, but anything damaging to the US military effort during a war -- especially an unjustified preemptive "war" of their courageous leaders' own making -- is to be welcomed, surely. I don't want to downplay your possible rebuttal that the troops' safety could be jeopardised by the release of the photos (I don't necessarily subscribe to that opinion, but at least it's an argument worth considering), but I would make the arguably more compelling point that their safety has already been jeopardised by the administration's apparent determination to invade Iraq for no good reason in the first place. In other (blunter) words: from a non-American perspective, why should we care about your media allegedly damaging a military effort most of us consider illegal and/or unethical anyway?

"why should we care about your media allegedly damaging a military effort"

You don't have to care about anything at all, but regardless of whether you do, I fail to see how members of the administration pointing out that it is damaging - which it surelyis -  somehow has resulted in a constriction of press freedom in the US, which is what the issue at hand is.

Yay, you changed your tack.  Now you say the administration was correct.  Your intial statement, you may recall, is that you don't have any recollection of this Administration yelling about how the press' release of data supports the bad guys.  Now, you say that the press does in fact support the bad guys, so it's OK to claim so.  Nice.

Thalia

What do YOU think the Administration's response was to the SWIFT monitoring?

Oddly, it was the same reaction that NYT public editor Byron Calame had a few months later. Here's the official response from Press SEcretary Tony Snow, three days after the June 23rd front-page story:

Q The President seemed upset today about the leak of the terrorist financing program last week. Is it safe to assume from his reaction there's going to be a leak investigation?

MR. SNOW: I will refer any questions about leak investigations to the Department of Justice, as well as any questions about how one may proceed, in terms of legal options. We covered this in the gaggle this morning.

Look, I think it's important to recognize that the President -- the President called it a "disgrace." Why? Because here you have a program that was demonstrated as legal and effective; that had demonstrated its worth, in terms of helping apprehend Hambali, the mastermind of the Bali bombing; of finding a man in Brooklyn who had contributed $200,000 in terror financing; had broken up a number of terrorist cells; and may also have been helpful -- at least according to press accounts -- in tracking down some of those who have been responsible in planning the subway bombings and the bus bombings in London.

With that kind of demonstrated efficacy, the question is why on earth make the editorial decision that this program no longer should be effective by exposing it? And that, I think, is the kind of thing that has the President concerned. But I'm going to defer any question about, sort of, legal dispensations until later.

I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven't been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight -- to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention -- was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn't a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a "secret" program was being exposed.

As for Abu Ghraib, all the soldiers implicated by the pictures were already in military custody awaiting trial by the time the pictures were published, so all the press did little to change anything there. Finally, the wiretapping issue was just resolved in a new bill from Congress, which basically said "let the President do what he wants."

Maybe it's time to admit that the only real competency the press exhibits these days is in celebrity gossip.

I call severe bullshit on your Abu Ghraib line.  No one was charged with abuse, even though the internal investigation had been completed, until after CBS published the first photos.  And even now, they've managed to avoid the issue of WHY the prisoners were abused.  Apparently, magically many MPs decided on their very own that it would be a good idea to do so, and to claim that they were instructed to do so by superiors.  What superiors?  That has never been clarified.  

Also, SWIFT was public well before the NYTimes story.  So WTF was this deep secret that was exposed by the article?  We knew about it in 1998.

Thalia

As for Abu Ghraib, all the soldiers implicated by the pictures were already in military custody awaiting trial by the time the pictures were published, so all the press did little to change anything there.

Yeah, nothing except make it harder for the administration to sweep the fetid thing under the rug...nothing except raise a public outcry against things and behaviors that make us the bad guys...nothing except bring public scrutiny on this administration and create a public record of its lies and double-talk.

Yeah...not much at all.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The press is so intimdated, yet not so indimadated it won't refrain from revealing a secret operation that's perfectly legal.

The most laughable thing about the SWIFT monitoring episode is that none of those in the media complaining about the monitoring of it bothered to learn the slightest thing about it. Asking any random banker the media would have learned that Banks have long been routinely reporting Americans SWIFT transactions that are over a certain amount or suspicious, and that the government has never needed a search warrant to ask your bank what your wire transactions are.

I remember when they legalized this.  It was part of the same "War on Drugs" legislation that legalized taking someone's airplane away without trial and putting them out of business if someone else they didn't even know left a joint on board, as well as stealing the cash of any businessman with a large amount of cash and making them sue you burden of proof on their side to get it back.  Before that it was illegal.

Asking any random banker the media would have learned that Banks have long been routinely reporting Americans SWIFT transactions that are over a certain amount or suspicious, and that the government has never needed a search warrant to ask your bank what your wire transactions are.

What?  Are you mad?  Why are you spilling this secret information?  How long have you know this?  A representative from the administration will be over soon to discuss this latest breach.  er...unless it wasn't very secret to begin with.

Why do you hate America?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"When the administration does something illegal, it screams about how the press "gave aid and comfort" to the "enemy", instead of discussing the illegal activity"

Can you provide an example of this? Because I'm unaware of one.

Ask and you shall receive.

Accusations of treason for reporting on tracking of terrorist funds.

Accusations of the New York Times for all kinds of reasons, instead of addressing the substance of these disclosures.

Apparently, it's the Media's fault that we're losing in Iraq.

Need more examples?  Just ask.

The First Amendment says that there is a right to a "free press", right?  That's what we're worried about here.  If informants can be immediately identified, who will become an informant?  If there are no informants, how can we get data other than what the Administration wishes to feed us?  If all the data we get is what the Administration wishes to feed us, there is no free press.  

Thalia

The SWIFT monitoring was perfectly legal*, and according to your own link, Bush described the New York Times reporting of the SWIFT monitoring as "disgraceful", which is a far cry from accusing The Times of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  

The MSNBC article you linked to was amusing:

""The press is fixated on Vietnam," [Colin] Powell said. "Everybody says, 'Powell and all those generals still suffer from Vietnam Syndrome.' No, I don't."

[White house chief of staff Andrew] Card went further, claiming that "the media, in my opinion, kind of wants to relive the Vietnam experience."

That's true, isn't it? Even if it weren't, such remarks are well withing the bounds of polite discourse, and in no can be characterized as a restriction of press freedom.

So yes, I do "Need more examples", since you haven't provided a single one.

I don't share your view that "If informants can be immediately identified, etc..",  we differ in opinion on the supposed wonderful benefits of anonymous sources. What's not a matter of opinion is that anonymous sources can't be "immedeately identified", there is a judicial process, and the fact that there is no right now, and there never has been a right, to use anonymous sources.

I take it you didn't share most of the left's desire to get to the bottom of the Plame leak buy forcing reporters in that case to reveal their sources?

*As even Times editor Byron Calame admits, in this belated apology, buried inside the magazine section.

[White house chief of staff Andrew] Card went further, claiming that "the media, in my opinion, kind of wants to relive the Vietnam experience."

facts...Facts...FACTS.  Card said, "In my opinion".  To what lengths will you go to pursue your disengenuous stand?  Do you ever...even think that Card would say..."well, yeah...things are pretty fucked up in Iraq right now and I can see how the press would could make the connection to Vietnam...even though we're nowhere near the 58,000 dead...yet."

You know, if it takes a free press for us to NOT "relive the Vietnam experience", then I say let the ink FLOW.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You state: "Card said, "In my opinion".  To what lengths will you go to pursue your disengenuous stand?"

Your incoherence makes it difficult to determine what is, exactly, you are arguing. In a comment above, you claimed, without providing an example of it, that "When the administration does something illegal, it screams about how the press "gave aid and comfort" to the "enemy", instead of discussing the illegal activity." Cards comment was provided as an instance of this, which it obviously isn't.  

Your complaints about Card not saying what you want to him say have nothing to do with the issue of press freedom or the RSF report. And you might want to look up the word "disingenuous", as you obviously don't understand what it means.

Well, gordito...I have still much to learn about internet discussion dirty tricks.  While I have followed your methods assiduously, I have not yet surpassed the master.  For this, I bow to you sir.  Your spirited defense of Neofascism is both chilling and awe inspiring.

Please count me your devoted student.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine