Um, sorry, don't click on sketchy looking sites. Either summarize it and/or provide legitimate sources.
Did you even read the article or are just trying to spread false claims cos this had nothing to do with freedom of the press From said article: But the Obama administration was determined to change that. Under pressure from Congress and intelligence agencies, Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute government employees who discussed classified information with reporters. In 2012, after news organizations reported on U.S. drone strikes and attempts to disable Iranian nuclear reactors, Holder assigned two U.S. attorneys to track down the journalists’ sources. During the Obama administration, the Department of Justice brought charges against eight people accused of leaking to the media — Thomas Drake (senior NSA executive), Shamai Leibowitz (linguist working for the FBI), Stephen Kim (a State Department contractor), Chelsea Manning (Army intelligence analyst), Donald Sachtleben (former FBI agent), Jeffrey Sterling (former CIA agent), John Kiriakou (former CIA officer) and Edward Snowden (NSA contractor). 1. They went after the (or former) government employees not the journalist/reporters 2. What those people have done by disclosing classified info is a crime. 3. There is a reason those info were classified and those disclosing it knew the risks they were taking 2. Main driving agents were the Republican Controlled Congress and intelligence agencies (who are likely most affected) But yeah, blame it on Obama and compare it to Trump trying to shut up or fire anyone that disagrees or criticizes him - smh It is saddening how low people are stooping.
Did you read this article? The Department of Justice initially investigated him as a suspected source for the Times’s 2005 Pulitzer Prize-winning article on warrantless wiretapping; it did not find any evidence that he was, but it did discover his alleged communication with Gorman. A grand jury formally indicted Drake under the Espionage Act in 2010. Drake was never accused of providing classified information to anyone, since he only shared unclassified information with Gorman. Instead, he was accused of taking a few classified documents home.
1. He is not a reporter/journalist, so his case has nothing to do with freedom of the press or damage to journalism. 2. Whether he shared or took the classified home, he likely did something wrong. He was indicted for the following charges (from wiki) In April 2010, Drake was indicted by a Baltimore, Maryland grand jury on the following charges:[4][5][6][8] Willful Retention of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) (5 counts) (793(e) is a modification of the Espionage Act of 1917 made under the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950) Obstructing justice 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (1 count) Making a False Statement 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (4 counts) So please explain how this has damaged journalism like you claimed?
He was the source for a journalist and was targeted for being just that. Drake was initially investigated for leaking classified info but once they couldn't find any evidence they indicted him with taking documents home. The charges were later dropped. Drake’s case also raises questions about double standards. In recent years, several top officials accused of similar misdeeds have not faced such serious charges. John Deutch, the former C.I.A. director, and Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, both faced much less stringent punishment after taking classified documents home without authorization. In 2003, Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national-security adviser, smuggled classified documents out of a federal building, reportedly by hiding them in his pants. It was treated as a misdemeanor. His defense lawyer was Lanny Breuer—the official overseeing the prosecution of Drake.
What has all of that got to do with your claim that "Obama has done more damage to journalism than any other president."?
I'm reminded that this Admin is quick to be non-anti Press in the immediate aftermath of the Annapolis newsroom shooting, then a few days later, it's back to being full anti-press. Keep the bigger picture in mind. What is the motivation behind calling the media the enemy of the people? What is motivation behind being anti-press? What is the function of a free and non-intimidated press in a society? It's too easy and seductive to not see the motivation when you can agree to part of the attack - yes, sure there are some press members that do a bad job, and Trump is betting on that to cloud your mind to miss the intention. The answer is simple.
What is interesting is that they are airing tomorrow and not live. Is that because Trump botches the interview even when they are feeding him softball questions and trying to cover his answers when he screws up with the answers.
https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/20...torial_retraction_the_gettysburg_address.html Retraction for our 1863 editorial calling Gettysburg Address 'silly remarks': Editorial Updated 8:16 AM; Posted Nov 14, 2013 (Matt Zencey) 0 shares By PennLive Editorial Board penned@pennlive.com The Patriot & Union devoted all of one paragraph to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "We pass over the silly remarks of the President. For the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them, and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of."Matt Zencey Seven score and ten years ago, the forefathers of this media institution brought forth to its audience a judgment so flawed, so tainted by hubris, so lacking in the perspective history would bring, that it cannot remain unaddressed in our archives. We write today in reconsideration of "The Gettysburg Address," delivered by then-President Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the greatest conflict seen on American soil. Our predecessors, perhaps under the influence of partisanship, or of strong drink, as was common in the profession at the time, called President Lincoln's words "silly remarks," deserving "a veil of oblivion," apparently believing it an indifferent and altogether ordinary message, unremarkable in eloquence and uninspiring in its brevity. In the fullness of time, we have come to a different conclusion. No mere utterance, then or now, could do justice to the soaring heights of language Mr. Lincoln reached that day. By today's words alone, we cannot exalt, we cannot hallow, we cannot venerate this sacred text, for a grateful nation long ago came to view those words with reverence, without guidance from this chagrined member of the mainstream media. The world will little note nor long remember our emendation of this institution's record - but we must do as conscience demands: In the editorial about President Abraham Lincoln's speech delivered Nov. 19, 1863, in Gettysburg, the Patriot & Union failed to recognize its momentous importance, timeless eloquence, and lasting significance. The Patriot-News regrets the error.
Skewered with "silly" by fake news... almost as valid as trump trying to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln.