Keri Blakinger is a reporter with the Houston Chronicle. She is one of the best writers at the paper and has done some very good work with death penalty issues.
Mr. Blakinger is also a convicted felon who spent time in prison on a drug case up in New York. Her story is quite amazing and inspirational. It also gives her a bit more insight when reporting on prison and jail issues.
I urge y'all to listen to Terry Gross' interview with Ms. Blakinger on Fresh Air and to check out her Twitter feed.
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Plugging leaks
The Obama administration has gone after more whistleblowers and journalists for leaking classified information that all other administrations combined. Quite ironic considering Barack Obama ran as a candidate who would bring more transparency to governance.
Of course the problem isn't that a government employee was leaking information to a journalist or that the journalist wrote a story about it - because the Obama administration leaks classified information to the press all the time.
The distinction is, as usual, whose ox is getting gored.
In the latest fiasco, the FBI subpoenaed home, business and cell phone records from dozens of AP employees in an attempt to find out who the source for an article about how the government thwarted a terrorist attack was. According to the government, the records were subpoenaed so that investigators could map out telephone calls and somehow "triangulate" who was making them.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I suspect the real reason the government issued overly broad subpoenas and did it without consulting with the AP beforehand wasn't so much to find the leaker, but more to create a chilling effect for the next reporter who came across sensitive information. Being subjected to having los federales dig around in your private affairs might just be enough to make some reporters think twice before pushing the send button.
Strangely enough, I don't remember anyone in the White House throwing a fit when the news came out that Anwar al-Awlaki had been added to the President's (illegal and unconstitutional) hit list. I don't recall any heads being made to roll when details of the Osama bin Laden murder became known. The Obama administration made quite liberal use of the government sieve when it served their purpose during the fall.
It's only when neither the president, nor his cronies, are in control of the leaks that problems occur. Bradley Manning leaked materials that proved our government violated international law and conventions regarding torture. He exposed the hypocrisy in Washington and caused much consternation when foreign leaders found out how they'd been played off one another.
In order to show Private Manning who was in charge, the government instituted a smear campaign against him and subjected him to torture. The cables were published on the Wikileaks website so our government turned its focus to Julian Assange who served the role of journalist. But, just as the government tried to silence Daniel Ellsburg when he provided the New York Times with a copy of The Pentagon Papers, the Obama administration went after Mr. Assange and Wilkileaks in any manner they could.
It'a all about control. It's all about the spin. Somewhere George W. Bush is sitting and smiling as he watches President Obama take his ideas for the War Against the Constitution and transform it into something that even W's supporters didn't think possible.
Of course the problem isn't that a government employee was leaking information to a journalist or that the journalist wrote a story about it - because the Obama administration leaks classified information to the press all the time.
The distinction is, as usual, whose ox is getting gored.
In the latest fiasco, the FBI subpoenaed home, business and cell phone records from dozens of AP employees in an attempt to find out who the source for an article about how the government thwarted a terrorist attack was. According to the government, the records were subpoenaed so that investigators could map out telephone calls and somehow "triangulate" who was making them.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I suspect the real reason the government issued overly broad subpoenas and did it without consulting with the AP beforehand wasn't so much to find the leaker, but more to create a chilling effect for the next reporter who came across sensitive information. Being subjected to having los federales dig around in your private affairs might just be enough to make some reporters think twice before pushing the send button.
Strangely enough, I don't remember anyone in the White House throwing a fit when the news came out that Anwar al-Awlaki had been added to the President's (illegal and unconstitutional) hit list. I don't recall any heads being made to roll when details of the Osama bin Laden murder became known. The Obama administration made quite liberal use of the government sieve when it served their purpose during the fall.
It's only when neither the president, nor his cronies, are in control of the leaks that problems occur. Bradley Manning leaked materials that proved our government violated international law and conventions regarding torture. He exposed the hypocrisy in Washington and caused much consternation when foreign leaders found out how they'd been played off one another.
In order to show Private Manning who was in charge, the government instituted a smear campaign against him and subjected him to torture. The cables were published on the Wikileaks website so our government turned its focus to Julian Assange who served the role of journalist. But, just as the government tried to silence Daniel Ellsburg when he provided the New York Times with a copy of The Pentagon Papers, the Obama administration went after Mr. Assange and Wilkileaks in any manner they could.
It'a all about control. It's all about the spin. Somewhere George W. Bush is sitting and smiling as he watches President Obama take his ideas for the War Against the Constitution and transform it into something that even W's supporters didn't think possible.
Monday, June 13, 2011
What twisted webs we weave
In the end all you have is your name and your credibility. Once you've besmirched those two things, you have nothing left.
The internet, the blogosphere, the 24-hour news cycle and satellite and cable television have made it easier to obtain information -- but they've also made it easier deceive the public.
Thanks to the miracles of the internet, I was able to time the release of blog posts while I was on Edisto Island in South Carolina last week. Not knowing when I'd get the chance to update the blog I wrote a week's worth of pieces in the days before we set out.
Tom MacMaster, a 40-year old American student studying in Scotland, used the internet to perpetuate a hoax. I'm sure it didn't start out that way. He created an online persona that he used to comment on other blogs about the situation in the Middle East. This online persona, in his words, then took on a life of its own. He developed a back story of a half-American, half-Syrian lesbian struggling to come to grips with culture, religion and sex.
First came a Facebook page then came the blog. Then it all snowballed.
Journalists, academics, activists and others began following the saga of Amina Arraf. No one questioned whether she was a real person. No one questioned whether the events depicted in the blog even occurred. I mean, it's the Internet -- why wouldn't it be true?
Then Ms. Arraf was tossed in the clink. An online campaign protesting her arrest and demanding her release was born. Newspapers, both print and on-line, ran articles about her detention.Then someone decided to do a little fact-checking.
The gig was soon up.
Was Mr. MacMaster right or wrong? I don't know. He "misled" people who followed his tale of Amina online. But how does that differ from any work of fiction you pick off the shelf or any television drama you sit down to watch? He never asked for money. He never asked for anything. He created a story that people followed because they found it interesting.
Now Mr. MacMaster is a pariah. There are a lot of journalists and other so-called experts who have egg on their faces because they took what they read on the internet as the truth. Mr. MacMaster has apologized for the hoax -- my guess is he's more sorry he got "caught" than he is for creating the story.
Has he harmed the cause of those seeking change in the Middle East? Does this mean that journalists might begin checking their facts before publishing stories? Will we begin taking what we see on the internet with a healthy grain of salt?
In the meantime, Mr. MacMaster walks away with both his name and credibility sullied.
The internet, the blogosphere, the 24-hour news cycle and satellite and cable television have made it easier to obtain information -- but they've also made it easier deceive the public.
Thanks to the miracles of the internet, I was able to time the release of blog posts while I was on Edisto Island in South Carolina last week. Not knowing when I'd get the chance to update the blog I wrote a week's worth of pieces in the days before we set out.
Tom MacMaster, a 40-year old American student studying in Scotland, used the internet to perpetuate a hoax. I'm sure it didn't start out that way. He created an online persona that he used to comment on other blogs about the situation in the Middle East. This online persona, in his words, then took on a life of its own. He developed a back story of a half-American, half-Syrian lesbian struggling to come to grips with culture, religion and sex.
First came a Facebook page then came the blog. Then it all snowballed.
Journalists, academics, activists and others began following the saga of Amina Arraf. No one questioned whether she was a real person. No one questioned whether the events depicted in the blog even occurred. I mean, it's the Internet -- why wouldn't it be true?
Then Ms. Arraf was tossed in the clink. An online campaign protesting her arrest and demanding her release was born. Newspapers, both print and on-line, ran articles about her detention.Then someone decided to do a little fact-checking.
The gig was soon up.
Was Mr. MacMaster right or wrong? I don't know. He "misled" people who followed his tale of Amina online. But how does that differ from any work of fiction you pick off the shelf or any television drama you sit down to watch? He never asked for money. He never asked for anything. He created a story that people followed because they found it interesting.
Now Mr. MacMaster is a pariah. There are a lot of journalists and other so-called experts who have egg on their faces because they took what they read on the internet as the truth. Mr. MacMaster has apologized for the hoax -- my guess is he's more sorry he got "caught" than he is for creating the story.
Has he harmed the cause of those seeking change in the Middle East? Does this mean that journalists might begin checking their facts before publishing stories? Will we begin taking what we see on the internet with a healthy grain of salt?
In the meantime, Mr. MacMaster walks away with both his name and credibility sullied.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Taking a sledgehammer to the First Amendment
1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news mediumb : a writer who aims at a mass audience
Now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is out on bail in England, the US government is looking for ways to charge Mr. Assange with conspiracy for passing along classified information. The Justice Department is investigating the way in which Army Pfc. Bradley Manning passed the leaked cables to Wikileaks.
Prosecutors are looking at a transcript of an online chat log in which Mr. Manning claims to have communicated with Mr. Assange. Mr. Manning also alleges that Mr. Assange provided him with access to a dedicated server for the uploading of the secret documents.
So, in order to deflect attention from the contents of the cables, los federales are willing to take a sledgehammer to the First Amendment and go after a journalist who provided a forum for an individual who had documents he wanted to see the light of day. There is no conspiracy. At least no more of one than exists anytime a reporter accepts information from a source with the promise not to reveal the source's name. Pentagon Papers, anyone?
Mr. Assange may have provided Mr. Manning with access to a server. That is no different from a reporter agreeing to meet a source in a parking garage, in a park or in the back room of a pool hall. Bit and bytes are the coin of the realm today - not reams and reams of paper.
If Mr. Manning did indeed release the secret cables then he is guilty of passing along classified information. But Mr. Assange broke no law by posting the information online.
This little witch hunt being conducted from Washington is nothing more than an attempt to silence the critics of the government and the journalists who provide them a forum to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)