Home | About | Donate

DOJ Quietly Removes References to Press Freedom and Gerrymandering From Policy Manual


#1

DOJ Quietly Removes References to Press Freedom and Gerrymandering From Policy Manual

Julia Conley, staff writer

Amid the handwringing of many in the corporate media over comedian Michelle Wolf's monologue at the White House Correspondents' Association over the weekend, few took notice of reports that the Justice Department took a step away from protecting journalists on Sunday, deleting language in its policy manual regarding press freedom as well as racial gerrymandering.


#2

Well of course they did. That is what fascist do. You have no rights anymore and to think you do is naive. The fascists understand words are important so they simply eliminate them and then act like they never existed.


#3

According to Google News this morning a Reuters Ipsos poll indicates millenial support for Democrats is slipping while growing for the Republicans.
The youngest voting generation only knows Google…hit enter. Their view of the wold is entirely manipulated by fewer gatekeepers than any previous generation. The fascists of the GOP have been working on media propaganda for decades and have perfected it. There really is a “vast, right wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton spoke of, and it was started by Richard Mellon Scaife. The revelations of Russian cyber warfare during the election prove, if nothing else, that a few well financed tech operatives can sway enough public opinion through the internet social media to distort an election.
The millenials might very well happily empower a permanent fascist Orwellian dystopia all the while believing they are making informed decisions and acting prudently.
The New Deal is Dead. The internet is becoming the “mark of the beast”.


#4

Interesting, Rod Rosenstein ordered this. Edward Bernays wrote the book on propaganda.
Desired results? No more ridiculing our Dear Leader with biting, scathing satire, but pro-war, pro-billionaire , pro-Wall Street, pro-Zionist jingoism is OK.


#5

In the UK there is the D-notice. Does the US have a parallel? I always read that the publications would receive a phone call from the WH after the fact. But now, a policy, aside from plagiarism and defamation of character and racism, specifically for what you can’t print.
Sure beats accidental death.


#6

Ignorant of a “D-notice” I do personally know that the White House and the CEOs of the major media outlets have conspired for decades to squelch stories the leaders don’t want out, usually about war and slaughter.
These policy changes I think are more geared to eliminate negative impressions of the powerful. The corporate MSM media have been boosting the wars and economic injustice for so long no policy change is necessary to achieve compliance with that goal.


#7

Defend journalists?

We have a charismatic figurehead of an authoritarian regime who has openly spoken of incarcerating journalists and subjecting them to rape while imprisoned, in order to compel them to give up their sources.

This is torture, right?

We have a regime that quite openly advocates torture as a problem-solving measure.

We the people have read about this right here on Common Dreams, as well as in other venues. We can clearly see actions congruent with such words.

Yet the media seems stuck in an old habit. A habit of acting as if “fairness” and “balance” mean we must go on wondering about the regime’s intentions. “My goodness, is it possible that this administration [sic] isn’t interested in defending journalists human rights?”

It’s not just possible, Dorothy. We can witness perfectly well for ourselves that this “administration” is, in fact (as a natural progression of a government, legal system and economy built on a foundation of genocide, ecocide, slavery, and male supremacy) a cabal of massively inflated egocentrics hell-bent on annihilating everyone and everything they perceive as incompatible with, and thus threatening to, their paradigm.

How much good are journalists actually doing “we the people” while they stick to a mental ideal called “fairness” to the point of abject absurdity? To the point where the “balance” we idealize is in flagrant, tense, and continuous conflict with our embodied experience?

How much good are journalists actually doing while they act as if such ideals are, in and of themselves , some kind of magical check or balance against the terrifying reality of epidemic violent, despotic behavior? While journalists act as if, if they simply keep “making believe” that such mental ideals do in fact have magical powers to stop or prevent violence, it will be it so?

How much good are “we the people” doing our Selves when we join in this game of “let’s pretend”? When we decide that what journalists are saying—and how they are saying it—is somehow more accurate, more “believable”, more “real” than our own integral experience?

This is the kind of mutually-reinforcing idiocy to which we bipedal social mammals become subject through habituation to mental supremacy.

The mind on mental supremacy will tell us everything is o.k. while ICE drags our neighbors away and tears their families apart—“the Courts (or some other power, at a nice safe distance from the immediate violence) will take care of this…”

The mind will tell us it’s “got this” as police officers attack and kill our neighbors for the crime of being Black. “Don’t worry!” says self-drunken mind. “Better training, better procedures, better legislation, will solve this problem! Sometime later, somewhere far away from us, in some way that doesn’t directly endanger us…”

And those of us still standing will keep on pretending, and encouraging one another to pretend, on the basis that this behavior is “peaceful”, “civil”, and of course, “rational”—until our “own” physical bodies are in literal physical jail cells, being raped for the pleasure of highly habituated social predators.

Come on, journalists! Have the guts to tell it like we Know it really is, even though that Truth may not meet our former idealized mental standards of “balance”. Have the guts to say, “Looks like we need new ways to relate with balance…here’s my approximation…”

Come on, readers of news (myself always included)! Have the guts to act and speak up to let journalists know that we Know we need something different now. That we support journalism that goes beyond what we already know, journalism that both recognizes and satisfies our evident need to move, perceive, feel and act differently, on behalf of our species and all life.

Is there really time to do this later?

Look into the eyes of a young human. Look into the heart of a forest, a river, the ocean.

Is there really time to go beyond mental supremacy later? When it will naturally be more comfortable, or convenient—or necessary?


#8

You speak repeatedly of ‘Journalists’.  From what I can tell, there are few – if any – employees of any of the mainstream print or television media who are worthy of that title.


#9

www.dictionary.com/browse/d-notice


#10

What is “mainstream media”? I think it must be the media that kowtows, follows the dictates of the state. The sources which show up on a google search, or appear without a search as “news”.

What are their limitations?
“There are few who …?”
There are few who can produce a dialog of alternate scenarios to a goverment report of an event, anywhere among our allies, trading partners, or their activities elswhere . If you look at overseas publications, there are sometimes alternatives propositions or assertions, but then these too may be squelched.

Even outside mainstream news, some types of media may be controlled. The YouTube videos, for instance, accessed on Facebook, of some recent crises shocked the public into challenging
the standard report, after which Facebook came under public review for massive breaches of another sort.

Rally the journalists? Not at the rate that they die, sometimes just for showing up in the wrong place.


#11

Thank you so much.
There was an American version of that during the Vietnam war that was only revealed during the Watergate investigation, the carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, 500K dead, unknown injured.
The Big 3 networks and the major news dailies conspired with Nixon to completely hide the illegal and immoral bombing campaign that ultimately led to the Killing Fields. My father was a part of that conspiracy.