Free Press

J.D. Tuccille Discusses Obama's War on Freedom of the Press on RT


Darth Holder
The Evil Empire

As I wrote the other day, the Justice Department's ongoing "investigation" (read: inquisition) of Fox News correspondent James Rosen builds on an already unpleasant tradition of Obama administration discomfort with scrutiny of its activities.  "Taken with the already brewing scandal over the snooping of Associated Press phone records, we're looking at a full-fledged assault on the free press." On RT, I addressed just this issue — and probably clinched my name's presence on some list.

Check out the video below and chime in with your own take on the media's recent reality check with regards to the powers that be.

NEXT: After Taking the Fifth, Lois Lerner Is Placed on Administrative Leave

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tooch going on a 4:22? I’ll be surprised if he remember how to speak.

    1. Probably won’t be any worse than your ability to type.

  2. RT…WTF is an RT and how do I “tune” it?

    1. Russia Today is Pravda’s less kooky younger brother.

      If you like your news with a pro-Russia, highly-critical-of-the-US slant, this is your station.

      1. It’s like watching FX’s The Americans!

      2. RT, unlike many other venues, was kind enough to carry the third-party US presidential debates.

  3. You should at least hang a sheet in the background so it doesn’t look so much like you’re broadcasting from your bedroom.

  4. You bring up Pussy Riot?

  5. Is it irony that a news agency owned by the Russian Government is schooling us on freedom of the press?

    1. It’s sheer propaganda and it’s annoying that Reason supports this outlet by speaking with them.

      1. I want to dislike them, but I’ve generally seen pro-liberty views from them.

        I mean, I should dislike them, but they put Lucy on. Can’t hate them that much.

        1. What about Thom Hartmann?

          1. He’s an asshat.

          2. It’s like O’Reilly raped Beck and their child rebelled and became a liberal. Hartmann is infuriating.

      2. Yeah, they only support liberty in the U.S., and they only do it because it pisses off the U.S. government, but so what? Fuck the U.S. government. I’ll take any allies in the cause of liberty that I can get.

        1. So if say the Cubans or the North Koreans were willing to support pro liberty causes in the US, you would take the money? You can do it. But if you do, you need to shut the the hell up about everyone else just being just pro team and you having an principles. It would just show you don’t care about “freedom”. You just care about maybe your freedom and most certainly your team winning.

          No thanks. How about winning and deserving to win as well?

          1. How about a comparison to voice of America? (I haven’t watched/listened to have a good comparison.)

            I don’t like propaganda, but seeing it from an external view is not mecessarily bad.

            PutinStan may have only malicious intent, but if some would-be commie in a che shirt thinks JD has a good point, well, maybe it’s not so bad. Even if the right things happen for the wrong reasons…

            1. But Putinstan is horrible. And when you take money from people who are awful and don’t value freedom in anyway, then you have no principles.

              And Russia today is much worse than the US at any point in my lifetime. So I don’t see it as analogous to VOA.

              Here is the bottom line, either you have principles or you don’t. And if you do, you don’t take money from vicious dictators.

              1. Why? Them giving me money has nothing to do with my principles.

                Capitalism is the leveler of all playing fields and the undertaker of nationalism, racism, socialism, and totalitarianism.

                Let free transactions bloom.

                1. Because you are supposed to be committed to something and be better than that. If you are not, fine. But if that is the case Libertarians need to shut the fuck up about them being any different than TEAM R and TEAM D or having any interest beyond winning and personal power.

              2. This is a very interesting conversation/opinions on this, and I’m inclined to agree in general on principles.

                Another thought on it, though: there’s lately an issue in conservative/libertarian personalities, where they are figuring out not to go on huffpo live or msnbc or similar because they can’t get a fair shake.

                Thoughts on picking neuPravda, if they think they can get a fair shake there?

                1. That is a good point. And going on is not like taking money. But still it is tough. And yeah, I wouldn’t go on MSNBS or wherever if I were them. Why go on to feed their propaganda machine?

                  1. Seems like, you go on msnbc to be a strawman. No one watching will change their view.

                    You might grab an infowars-ite on RT.

              3. And when you take money from people who are awful and don’t value freedom in anyway, then you have no principles.

                Ummm, no, then you have deprived people who don’t value freedom of the money to spread their anti-freedom views and put that money where it will do some good.

                And Russia Today, by airing libertarian POVs, is de facto probably more freedom loving than American MSM.

              4. And when you take money from people who are awful and don’t value freedom in anyway, then you have no principles.

                This makes no sense whatsoever. You take their money, and they give you a venue to talk about liberty. Why is it different if it’s RT and not The Daily Show or whatever? If I go on Hannity to discuss my opposition to the WoD, am I a sellout? Hannity in no way respects my opinion on the issue.

                Why? Them giving me money has nothing to do with my principles.

                Exactly. As long as I get to discuss my principles, it doesn’t matter if the host agrees with me or not. If libertarians can only go on shows with a host who values liberty, our options are pretty fucking narrow.

                I recognize that there’s a spectrum of valuing liberty, but I doubt you’ll find easy agreement on where to draw the OK vs. not-OK line.

          2. If they’re dumb enough to give me their money to let me say things I was going to say anyway, fuck yeah.

            1. Oh sure. And taking that money never comes with any strings or in any way says anything about you. Sure, take the money that was made by oppressing the living hell out of a bunch of people you have never met.

              1. Sure, take the money that was made by oppressing the living hell out of a bunch of people you have never met.

                Like your GI Bill?


                No but seriously, I am going to say that stuff anyway, so what’s the difference?

                1. Because by taking it you are benefiting from people doing evil. If someone murdered someone and sold the organs and offered to give you the money, would you take it? Sure you would. And that is your call. But when you do that, you forfeit any right to complain about the other political players just being pro team. It basically makes you a go team scum bag piece of shit just like the rest of them. Your call, but don’t pretend you are anything but what you are.

                  1. I would say that taking there money is completely moral since it is less money for them to fritter away on anti-liberty causes and in the case of a tv network, would be put towards expanding the pro-liberty message.

                  2. Yes. The money he gives to me isn’t “tainted”. It’s money.

                    It basically makes you a go team scum bag piece of shit just like the rest of them.

                    This doesn’t even make sense, you fucking lunatic. Take your meds, John.

        2. It’s less that they do it to piss off the government and more because it lines up with Russia’s foreign policy objectives. Propagandizing in favor of anti-interventionism, in favor of OWS, and for a very loud and sacrosanct press in the US is good for Russia as they try to expand their sphere of influence again and foil extended American involvement abroad.

          As far as their objectives line up with mine, great, but they shouldn’t ever be considered a good source of news. They are first and foremost a propaganda organ for mother Russia.

        3. They aren’t allies. They don’t support liberty.

  6. That mustache means business.

    1. Ron Brown.

      The way this is stinking, he could end similarly.

    2. Jacket and ‘Stache.

      That was the name of the sitcom me and fist was writing.

      1. Good times.

  7. Remember when this was going to be “the most transparent administration in history?”

    Updated note to President Obama: Don’t piss off people who buy pixels by the terabyte.


    Holder personally okayed searches of Fox News reporter’s email.

    1. These scandals just keep getting better and better, don’t they? And yet, so far, no widely-used “-gate” suffixes.

    2. Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

      The law enforcement official said Holder’s approval of the Rosen search, in the spring of 2010, came after senior Justice officials concluded there was “probable cause” that Rosen’s communications with his source, identified as intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, met the legal burden for such searches. “It was approved at the highest levels– and I mean the highest,” said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said that explicitly included Holder.

      I’m confused. Don’t warrants need to come from the Judicial branch?

    3. Of course. Could something like that really be done without getting the bossman’s approval?

      1. Thanks for the update. Not an uncommon thing, considering our service population. I once had a guy go flatline on me after wrestling him into handcuffs- no baton blows or anything. Yea, hearts do that shit, especially after an adrenaline dump. Fortunately, medics on scene revived him.

        Ironically, I just spent literally over an hour wrestling with a healthy as a horse kid during an invol- tried to kick my window out, fought with firefighters trying to give him first aid (almost bit one), we followed down to the hospital and spent a lot of time getting him from the gurney restraints to the hospital bed, all the time the kid was full bore resisting, heart rate showed to be 130-140… FOR OVER AN HOUR while being restrained. Kid was astoundingly strong, and also overweight. They gave him a double dose of ativan and it did jackshit. Strong kid.

        But if he was your “average” street person – malnourished, numerous medical conditions, polydrug combo on board, etc. and he had put up that level of resistance, he’d definitely be putting his life at risk.

        1. Yeah, it’s an astoundingly common thing in police brutality cases. Almost like it’s made up to cover your ass. Hm.

          1. Well, to be fair, a certain number of the people who get involved with police in a violent way are doing so because they are on drugs that aren’t exactly good for the heart.

    1. I don’t think it should matter. If you stick up a bank, and one of the tellers dies of heart attack from fright, you’re still going to get slapped with felony murder. If the cops illegally beat a man and cause him to have a heart attack, they should be hit with felony murder, too.

      1. I’ve never heard of a cop “illegally” beating a man. Only “legally”.

        1. Section 1983 would like a word with you…

          1. 1983? Moar like 1984 amirite?

  9. Gawker editor John Cook admitted he hasn’t been able to get in touch with the owner of the alleged Rob Ford crack video since Sunday.

    1. I bet it was really Daniel Alfredsson in a fat suit.

  10. Crikey, Howard, way to scare the crap out of me. Tigers aren’t doing it tonight. Go wings.

    1. Rags won in OT.
      Go Kings.

    2. Empty net! Shutout! Hells yes.

      1. For the next 20 minutes, you will sit in silence while I explain why the detroit red wings are the greatest franchise in professional sports.

        1. Kris Draper was an epic douchenozzle.

          1. Fuck you, you maple leaf eating shitbag. You probably enjoy shopping at the LCBO for double priced labatt. Protips: here in draper land, a two-four of blue is $16. That’s real dollars, not maples. For penence you should watch the video with the Vernon/Roy fight three times, and the osgood/Roy fight once.

            Okay, I’m calmed down now and will be good.


              1. Meaning Michigan control? It’s absolutely off-the-fucking-wall, I looked at what it would take to start a micro distillery. Automatic 65% markup.

                But seriously, I get Canadian radio, and I know an 18 pack of Blue the is $35. Here, it’s $14. And our dollars are at par.

                I’m sorry, isn’t the beer store on strike? If you get hard up, come visit us in detroit. I’ll loan you a wings shirt.

                1. no, Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.

                  1. Oh. Almost sorry for the rant.

                    Seriously. I occasionally listen to Canadian radio. I’m surprised you guys aren’t setting shit on fire based on the price of blue.

                    Blue from Canada tastes better than we get here.

                    1. Blue is shit.
                      You guys do have it rough.

    3. Oh Christ, more soccer.

  11. I sort of hope Epi is unscathed.
    Kind of.
    Not really.
    Maybe a little

    1. Clearly the fault of the Sequester.

      But seriously, hope the people got out of the water alive.

  12. I smell an opportunistic rat brewing as a response to these crimes, and a way to co-opt the Institutionalized members of the 4th Estate: A ‘journalist bill of rights’ (or whatever Newspeak they name it) law which legally defines what a ‘journalist’ is. Not to mention legally defines – by some official sanction – any social entity that purports to engage in ‘journalism.’

    Then you will have two-tier system, where Licensed Information Professionals have different 1st and 4th Amendment protections than everyone else. And that everyone else is the internet bar portals owned by vast elite-controlled corporate media-goons (the RIAA’s membership roster basically) that everyone already hates. Plus it coddles the overly-sanctimonious MSM making them ‘special.’ The lefty elite would love it.

    1. Pretty sure that would go down 6-3 in the SC.

  13. Followup from PM Links

    Lena Dunham ?@lenadunham
    Okay, I wracked my brain to articulate why I can’t just laugh off a porn parody of Girls and here are 3 reasons:
    1. Because Girls is, at its core, a feminist action while Hustler is a company that markets and monetizes a male’s idea of female sexuality

    2. Because a big reason I engage in (simulated) onscreen sex is to counteract a skewed idea of that act created by the proliferation of porn
    3. Because it grosses me out.

    maybe I was too harsh earlier.

    1. All of the above?

    2. Sweetie, one day your show will be cancelled, but people will always demand porn.

    3. I kept wanting to think Dunham was a professional troll, knowingly making vacuous shit that wasn’t actually meant to say anything. But I guess she really is some hardcore, Oberlin liberal that buys in to her own hype.

    4. Look at it this way, Lena: whoever plays your character will be a lot hotter than you. Oh, that doesn’t help? Sorry….

      1. Don’t you see, she only fucks on screen because she’s unattractive.

        She fucks for the ladies, and Hustler fucks for men–you can’t do both!!!!

    5. She misspelled wrecked.


    The scene of Sweden’s worst riots in years, Husby is on the surface at least a typically neat suburb of colorful playgrounds, manicured parks and low rise apartment buildings.

    Conversations with residents of this immigrant neighborhood soon bring tales of fruitless job hunts, police harassment, racial taunts and a feeling of living at the margins that are at odds with Sweden’s reputation for openness and tolerance.

    1. Polls show a majority of Swedes still welcome immigration. Sweden has a reputation for treating new arrivals well – providing housing, Swedish lessons and allowing asylum seekers to live with relatives.

      But the consensus is increasingly frayed.

      “Those who, for whatever reason, don’t have work have not taken part in the general rise in prosperity,” said Ulf Bjereld, political science professor at Gothenburg University.

      Ulf Bjereld is my new hero.

      1. It’s almost like these immigrants are playing the old race card and those in Sweden aren’t fucking buying it.

        1. But hey, nothing like that ever happens here, so lets open up the borders!

          1. But hey, nothing like that ever happens here, so lets open up the borders!

            So what if it does happen here?

            Because poor and self-isolated immigrants might riot we have to close the borders? That makes no fucking sense.

            Not only does it make no sense, it’s fucking identical to the argument made by gun grabbers.

  15. Two chilli? Really? That is the first time I have heard your name pronounced JD.

    Around here your name is pronounced ‘too seal’.

  16. The clip introduces the interview as being about “…the war on words on where to draw the line when it comes to the First Amendment…”

    I’m pretty sure that the First Amendment says that Congress shall draw no line regarding the freedom of the press.

    Of course, the First Amendment is a dead letter along with the rest of the Constitution and BOR, so constitutional argumentation is just academic.

    The fact is that the only thing that matters in recent assaults on the freedom of the press is whether the Administration’s actions are popularly acceptable. If they are not rejected by a loud majority, they will set a precedent for future mischief by the State.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.