How the White House shield law makes it *easier* to subpoena reporters

Writes Trevor Timm at the Freedom of the Press Foundation blog: "The law certainly wouldn't help the AP, and national security journalists, the only reporters that get subpoenaed by the federal government, would be at *more* risk of being forced to give up their sources in some situations, not less."


  1. I watched part of the House hearings regarding the DOJ’s grabbing of AP phone records, and with every kvetch (can that be used as a singular term?) of our lawmakers, mostly Republican but some Dems as well, I wondered to myself–where were you during the Bush years?  During the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the related understanding that the telecoms wouldn’t be prosecuted for their cooperation in providing such information?  Oh, wait, that was then and this is now.  And so it goes.

  2. Of the three current white-house ‘scandals’ this one is by far the most scary; or should be if the media would open its eyes in any historical sense.   Benghazi is only a interdepartment turf-war, albeit lethal.   the IRS mess-up was if anything a lack of effort examining 501cs on both sides (thank you Citizens United).   Whereas the AP wiretap was the sort of thing that got Nixon booted.  It’s a direct and intentional violation of constitutional protections.  Given the state of our boiled-frog post-9/11 governmental overreach i doubt it’ll meet proper justice; but it really should.   If such basic freedoms providing for a properly informed electorate are allowed to fail we can just kiss off the notion of an open democracy.

Comments are closed.