Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The First Amendment President?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted June 7, 2005.


In an under-the-radar appearance, the president proclaimed himself 'a First Amendment Guy' while remaining somewhat more opaque about support for a law to protect journalists.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"Look, I'm a First Amendment guy," President Bush proclaimed last week at a meeting with the board of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. "Anyone running for President is a First Amendment person. You gotta honor that. How can you not be a First Amendment guy?"

Despite his avowed fondness for the Bill of Rights, the president was not as effusive in his support of a proposed federal shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act, which would protect journalists from being compelled to reveal sources by a federal court, saying he did not know enough about the bill.

"I'm sure your organization wants no reporters called into account. I don't know what the right balance is," Bush said. "On the other hand, I don't know what the law says, so I can't tell you if I'm for it or against it.

"Obviously this is an important issue for all of us -- what the public should know, and what the public shouldn't know," the President continued. "A free society is where people feel free without retribution to speak. A good society is one where information flows to the people.

"This is the age-old battle," he said, according to an RTNDA transcript. "We're constantly trying to find 'the source in the White House,' the unidentified source. Seems like to me the balance is just right when you think about it. If you think about all the unnamed sources in Washington, D.C., that affect a lot of stories, relative to the actual number of reporters that have actually been called into account."

RTNDA requested the presidential confab to talk about the proposed law, among other topics. RTNDA President Barbara Cochran told the industry trade journal Broadcasting & Cable that although the interview went 54 minutes rather than the scheduled half-hour -- the president was "expansive" in his responses -- a lot of questions remained unanswered. Speaking specifically of the shield law issue, Cochran said, "I think we were able to put it on his radar screen," adding that she plans to follow up with the Administration.

"We're of the people," the Commander-in-Chief reminded the media mavens:

"On the other hand, there's some information which could damage our ability to collect information, and that's where the real rub has been so far from my perspective. There are means of collection, for example, if that were to get out, it would tip off the enemy about what we're trying to do.

"It's a delicate balance. And I gotta tell you, after having gone through 9/11, my bias, my slant, is toward making damn sure we can get all the information we want to get, without tipping the enemy. Because I'm worried about it. I'm worried the people will come back, rise up again. And we're doing a pretty good job of dismantling them...

Other topics Bush addressed in the meeting included Deep Throat: "I really haven't digested it. I frankly was taken aback.... I don't know enough about the FBI guy. I don't know what he's done, and what he didn't do:" press relations: "I enjoy my relationship with the press corps... I would characterize my relationship with the press as good. Not hostile in the least bit. My advice to any President would be to work hard to maintain cordial relationships with the press;" the Iraq War: "First of all, I'm a crier, and I weep a lot;" and Social Security.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I don't know
Posted by: rosestern@msn.com on Jun 7, 2005 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man makes my blood turn cold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we please
Posted by: stormkite on Jun 7, 2005 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOT get Bush speaking on the First Amendment?

Throughout his political career (he did this in Texas as well) every single time the man has said a positive word in favor of any program or principle even slightly connected with the government, his people have turned around and gutted it within a week.

I'm fond of the First Amendment myself, I use it daily, and I'd rather we didn't encourage the people pulling Bush's strings to go after it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So many questions...
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Jun 7, 2005 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a First-Amendment guy?! What the fug does that even mean. Can Monkey Boy not just be articulate for once? Someone who went to an Ivy League school should surely be able to indicate his support for an idea by saying something of that nature rather than simply saying "I'm a 1st Amendment Guy". He might as well say he's more of bowling guy as opposed to a tennis guy. Yup, I'm more of an off-roader myself.

And, um, so, if you're, a, ahem, First Amendment guy, how about coming clean about what President, oops, Vice-President Cheney talks about in those energy meetings at the White House. How come you're storing a whole bunch of your Presidential materials in such a form that they won't be accessible to the large masses of your constituents (We, The People-you know, from that Constitution Thingy-I'm more of a Constitution Guy Myself). Howcome you wouldn't come clean aobut your copious snow-snorting or drinking back in the day? How about allowing some pix of the coffins of our brave soldiers returning from your little Oil/Payback for What You Did to Daddy War? And on a not-so-related note, if you are so supportive of our troops, how come you have not gone to ONE funeral of a US serviceperson? How about coming clean about your "military" service? How come Bin Laden's family got to leave the country Sept. 12 when NO ONE ELSE was able to fly? Yup, you're a First Amendment Guy and I'm Elton John.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the @*!?
Posted by: Robba29 on Jun 7, 2005 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow--it's like its own little book of Bushisms...in one speech.
God has truly blessed our President. *snicker*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

need to get higher boots...
Posted by: benu67 on Jun 7, 2005 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if i have to keep listening to our "president". this guy has serious mental issues. his adminsitration has more than likely censored more material that's been public for many years, thany any other, and calls himself a 1st amendment president? how long do we have to suffer with this administration who sold out this country to corporate CEO's, to china and to mexico? people, wake up and smell what this guy shovels every time he opens his mouth! God help us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

heck, he may be a 1st amendment guy
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 7, 2005 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does the 1st amendment matter when the rest of the Constitution is meaningless to us? Since we own the press they can say anything we want them to! As for the people they can say anything they want to as long as it's not at any of my speeches or other public functions. You can also assemble all you want in one of our approved free speech zones. You can ask for redress for any grievances as long as you don't mind it falling upon deaf ears. But please note, that any written requests will be directed to the blind. And last but not least, thank god for religion. You can worship any god you wish but only my christian buddies opinions will be of value to my administration. We've got a real bonanza here. The church has a right not worthy of the people. It has representation without taxation. Only by the grace of my god could things be so good.

Is there anything good about el presidente? I can not think of a single redeeming quality he has.

"saying he did not know enough about the bill."

That might have been genuine? That's not a topic I would think he would care to know.

"Let them speak out in the town square"

That's sick coming from a person that does not allow people with dissenting opinions to attend his speeches.

"There is nothing in the Patriot Act that government is allowed to do that does not pertain to other types of criminals."

Could he actually enuciate that sentence?

"Like health-care fraud. In other words, what we did was take the very same tools that the FBI had in other types of criminal cases, and extended them to terrorists."

I guess these are the tools obtained from the war on drugs, that have now been extended to muslims and the rest of the world via the war on terror. This also strengthens our position in being able violate americans citizens rights.

"an interesting ethical dilemma"

I guess it an interesting dilemma for him, when there is so much evidence of wrong doing and more and more people are questioning what is happening.

Here are two quotes I always think of when it comes to the Patriot Act.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

part II
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 7, 2005 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

Martin Luther King Jr.


We didn't need more laws especially ones that are in essence illegal. We need a government that is digilent in protecting the people of the US and their rights. No law could have prevented the tragedy of sept. 11 but diligence could have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When do we stop acting surprised???
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 8, 2005 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I apperciate that these statements and news items arm us with invaluable knowledge, our responses are ones of astonishment. We still can't totally believe our ears or eyes. While we have these cozy little chats, the problem worsens by the minute.

Around and around we go:

"Can you believe he's saying that?"

"Can you believe he's doing that?"

The answer is YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Of couse we can believe it. We have to stop being flabberghasted by every step they take, because it's a form of Liberal paralysis. The wolf isn't at the door, HE'S IN OUR HOUSE! HE'S ALREADY EATING US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE NEED LEADERSHIP. LIBERAL LEADERSHIP. NONE EXISTS. Political correctness is poison to us right now. Ditch it until we can see the light at the end of this Administration's tunnel. Can we aford to alienate disillusioned Republicans who're FINALLY considering another way to look at things?

The Democratic party has always been our social immune system against the threat of corrupt powers, abridging this fragile freedom set up in our country. Not today.

Democratic leaders are making this situation all about their jobs, their homes and their kids political futures - With rare exception, Democratic leaders have become mollusks in the process. They're waiting for this to blow over so things will go back to the way they were. As a security system is concerned, they've become ABJECT FAILURES!

Where are OUR generals in this? Ones who will risk all, in the light that all is already being risked anyway. When will one man or woman fulfill their vow to stand up and face corruption so great, the consequences are measured as having been worth it? At one time Colin Powell was willing to die for what's right. Now he's hiding in silence. What sort of incriminating film footage do they have on him?

They want to keep all the things they have too. That's the saddest thing - material blackmail. They might lose some of THEIR possesions while heling others. Can't take your job home with you, right? As long as everything's fine there...

That's what this administration does, it snuffs examples of greatnees. People with true honor. It removes their example from our eye. replaces them with obedient news droids.

Is it time for a strong indy yet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Melissa
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net on Jun 8, 2005 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man can not be running things. He is an idiot. He cannot speak a coherent sentence unless his speech writer writes it down first. I don't know who is behind him , but there are plenty of blood chilling scoundrels in our government to pick and choose from. This is the darkest, most frightening bunch of people we have ever had in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DADDY SAID
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 8, 2005 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A good society is one where information flows to the people." How revealing of a dictatorial mentality. He will tell us what to think. No, Mr. President, a good society is one where information flows among and through the people.

"...what the public should know, and what the public shouldn't know". How revealing of a paternalistic mentality. Daddy knows what best for his people to know.

"We're constantly trying to find 'the source in the White House,' the unidentified source." How revealing of an opaque and secretive mentality. Daddy doesn't want anyone interfering with his lessons on how the world really is.

"I'm worried the people will come back, rise up again. And we're doing a pretty good job of dismantling them..." Which is it Daddy?

"I frankly was taken aback.... I don't know enough about the FBI guy [Deep Throat]. I don't know what he's done, and what he didn't do." Daddy, why were you taken aback by the revelation if you know nothing about the man? And why don't you know what he has done? Everybody else does.

"There is nothing in the Patriot Act that government is allowed to do that does not pertain to other types of criminals." You mean the sheriff doesn't need a warrant either? If there's nothing new in it, Daddy, why do we need it?

"And when I told the American people we're not torturing, we're not torturing." Daddy said it, I believe it and that settles it!

Now it's time for beddie bye and sweet dreams. Daddy, will you tuck me in?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's Mantra: "I don't know."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 8, 2005 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush stopped short of an endorsement of the Free Flow of Information Act because he doesn't know enough about the bill? Well, not knowing much about anything has not stopped him from decimating a country, or putting more than 1600 soldiers in their graves and thousands in wheelchairs and on artificial limbs. His being an uninformed dunce has not stopped "Dubya" from trying to destroy Social Security, the most successful social program in history. And his obvious lack of knowledge has not stopped him (and his co-conspirators) from attempting to nullify our Constitution.

In fact, "I don't know"seems to be the modus operandi for this president, and his administration: Why haven't you caught Bin Laden after three years? "I don't know." Why are we violating our own laws to torture or have tortured suspected of terrorists, many of them completely innocent? "I don't know." Why are the people of America ignored, or worse, made to pay what they cannot afford in order to make it easier for corporations to impoverish those same people? "I don't know."

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I can add a few other questions for our intellectually-challenged president, as well: How in hell did you earn degrees from Yale and Harvard? "I don't know." If you have an MFA from Harvard business School, why is your knowledge of basic economics so woefully inadequate? "I don't know." How did you get an honorable discharge from the military after going AWOL for months? "I don't know."

To this I will add one more:

Why in the hell did the good voters of America put this amoral jackass back in the White House for four more years?

I don't know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The importance of the 1st Amendment
Posted by: dlf on Jun 12, 2005 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First I would like to say that Bob Woodward may be a part of the new cozziness between the fourth estate and the other 3, but his work is not without merit. His book "Plan of Attack pretty" much tells us what the books by Richard Clark, The 9/11 Report, and Paul O'Neill told us. The difference is he had access to the key players, who pretty much let it all hang out. The media chose not to dissect that book and make it a must read. Secondly, his book "The Bretheren" is the most compelling read for anyone interested in our court system. This opinion, by Justice Black alone is worth reading the book. It is his opinion for the press for printing the Pentagon Papers:

...paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of goverment that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founding Fathers hoped and trusted they would do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]