Obama's Unfulfilled Promise of Transparency?

The article we're reading entitled "The First Internet President" brought up one of the advantages of new media in politics: transparency. This article written in the second month of Obama's presidency stated that Obama planned to take advantage of these media tools to run the most transparent administration in history. Has he lived up to that promise? Most people would disagree.

It's fitting that we're reading this article now as mid-March is Sunshine Week - a week dedicated to educating the public about the importance of open government and the dangers of excessive and unnecessary secrecy.

According to a recent NPR article, Obama did fulfill some of what he promised. For the first time the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons aresnal was revealed. Also half of the 90 government agencies have changed their approach to sharing information for a more open policy. But is this enough? The article also points out that the Department of Housing and Urban Development had asked lobbyists to sign nondisclosure agreements if they wanted to take part in talks about rental housing. This seems like the exact opposite of transparency.

The article quotes Steven Aftergood, government secrecy expert on the issue: "Expectations were raised so high at the beginning of the administration that some disappointment was almost inevitable." So is the issue that Obama made such a lofty promise and failed to deliver? Can we even expect complete openness from any administration? (I mean, consider the government scandals we know about then think about how many we are probably unaware of.) Because of new media and the ability to have transparent governments, should we hold politicians to higher standards?

Comparing NYT articles: Israel vs. Japan

Many of you have been posting about the media's language usage when covering recent events in Israel. They seem to keep distance when reporting on the Fogel family tragedy and don't seem to want to label the Jerusalem bus bombing as "terrorism." Although I am completely biased in this situation and wish the media would show some compassion, I still like to look at both sides. Take the New York Times, for example. They are one of the few who still try to maintain a high standard of journalistic objectivity. So if they distance themselves from the news and label events as generic "killings" or "bombings," I understand why.
But then I read this NYT article which reported on the sensitive issue of what to do with all the bodies left behind by Japan's earthquake/tsunami catastrophe. The language used here was poetic, touching, beautiful really. And this was not an article in the Opinions section. Yes this natural disaster took far more lives than recent tragedies in Israel, yes maybe the writing style of this one writer could not speak for the standards of the entire NYT, but don't you think the NYT should maintain objective standards for all tragic events or express some humanity in their writing for all?

New York Times reporting on New York Times

There was a New York Times article today that announced its plan to charge visitors who view more than 20 articles a month. Instead of just grumbling and closing the article because I definitely read more than 20 NYT's articles a month, reading the article got me thinking so many different questions.
First of all the irony is if someone wanted to read this article after March 28 (when NYT will start charging) and it was their 21st article for the month they would be closed out.
Second of all, we've all come to terms with the media being a business, but if we start to pay for internet news which until now has been free, are we allowing a new news phase to begin? Will other news companies follow NYT's lead?
Also, what do we make of the NYT reporting on the NYT? Are they keeping to their excellent journalistic standards and reporting on themselves is just keeping themselves in check? Or do we not trust such stories because the reporters can be their own sources and because even if they're giving us the facts, the story will be slanted in such a way that what the NYT is doing doesn't seem so bad? I mean $15 for a month of unlimited news doesn't seem so bad....Am I just following into the biased trap?

Is identity theft an issue of national security?

Big brother knows all, right? Government agencies keep sensitive information on all of us - social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates. Even the way, your tax return ends up safely in your checking account is mysterious. But this doesn't worry us on a daily basis because the government keeps this information under lock and key, secure on those trusty hard drives of theirs. But what happens when those outdated computers are sold? General protocol is wiping the hard drive clean. But that doesn't always happen.

An article in today's New York Times described how New Jersey nearly sold confidential data from old computers in departments such as the judiciary branch, the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Office of Administrative Law. Some glitch or general bureaucratic laziness allowed the hard drives to slip by to be auctioned, still filled with sensitive data. Only an investigation by the comptroller prevented this from happening.

I found this to be an interesting contrast with the discussions we've been having in class about preventing the press from printing something that might be an issue of national security. So far the press has won, as with the Pentagon Papers, but the issues continually arise. And when they do arise, the politicians fight hand and foot to prevent the information from being printed. Yet, a situation like New Jersey's can still happen, that confidential information can be almost accidentally auctioned making the government responsible for the identity theft of thousands of New Jersey residents.

Does this make it seem like certain politicians when evoking the phrase, "national security" are really just trying to save their own hides? While the information being disclosed is not war secrets, isn't the revelation of this information still a major issue of security?

First Amendment Rights at Funerals

There were several heated letters to the editor in response to Wednesday's NYT's article entitled, "Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech." The article stated the Supreme Court's decision in the Snyder v. Phelps case: religious groups protesting America's acceptance of homosexuality at a gay marine's funeral is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

These two letters were my favorite:

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Uphold Hateful Protest as Free Speech” (front page, March 3):

I think the right to a solemn, private, dignified and peaceful funeral far outweighs the right to protest, particularly if the person being buried has nothing to do with the protest.

Therefore I think the Supreme Court gravely erred in Snyder v. Phelps, in which it sided with a religious group to permit it to protest at a military funeral against the American policy of allowing gays in the military.

Groups will always have opportunities to protest. But a family gets only one opportunity to properly grieve a child’s death.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman
Huntington Beach, Calif., March 3, 2011

To the Editor:

On reading the free speech decision of the Supreme Court, I realized that two “parts” of me were reacting. One part is a rabbi who has officiated at hundreds of funerals. The other part is a patriot who went to military school and served in the Air Force.

The rabbinical part was sickened by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kan., and initially surprised by the Supreme Court decision. I couldn’t imagine listening to the contemptible ravings of a group outside a funeral home while eulogizing the deceased, who sacrificed his life for his country, and trying to comfort the mourners inside.

The patriotic part has been just as sickened when witnessing the American flag being burned, because I am unashamedly in love with my country.

But our courts have decided that both are protected by the First Amendment. When I combine the two parts as a patriotic rabbi, I understand that no sooner do we limit one detestable act than other restrictions may subtly follow, until we reach the point when the hallowed words of the First Amendment become hollow.

After my initial reaction, the court’s decision helped me all the more to understand why I love my country. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Jack D. Spiro
Richmond, Va., March 3, 2011

Which one are we to accept? Is there wiggle room in the First Amendment for grieving families and should protesters not be allowed at military funerals just because of common decency? Or like the 2nd letter said, if we place one limit on the First Amendment, does the entire thing cease to have meaning?

Actual Breaking News

When we were reading about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal last week and how the media became way too immersed in the affair for nearly a year, the part that baffled me most is how NBC interrupted the 1998 Super Bowl to basically say, "We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to say exactly what ABC just said about the Clinton-Lewinsky case."

That got me thinking what was actually considered breaking news and which news most viewers would agree trumped their regularly scheduled programming. Here are a few that I found:

1) March 30, 1981 - Reagan Assassination Attempt. Below is a link to ABC's News bulletin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGUrBfp8G2Y

2) January 28, 1986 - The Challenger space shuttle exploded about a minute after it launched. Below is a link to CBS's coverage of the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8umF4frzMs

3) June 17th 1994 - O.J. Simpson Police Chase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxqP1_MFPnc


And of course for those of us who were not watching it live downtown, 9/11.

Do you think these events are all worthy of the term, "breaking news" and would you accept these interruptions of your TV shows? Can anyone remember any other breaking news events that they felt lived up to their title or not?