6 comments

[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
> finding things that the powerful don’t want found is essentially the definition of investigative journalism

Unless there is political pressure to protect journalism, the Democrats will just drift along in the Republican's wake, as they do in so many issues.

Huh? No president in the history has targeted journalists like Obama did.

Persecution of journalists in the US is a bipartisan issue.

> Persecution of journalists in the US is a bipartisan issue.

There is no competition really: The GOP - and especially Trump, its leader - regularly calls journalists 'enemies of the people'. Local GOP government officials persecute journalists using government powers (as described in the article).

That doesn't mean Democrats don't do it some too, as I said in the GP, but to say, for example, 'Jeff Bezos and my next door neighbor are both wealthy, and therefore the same' is not the truth.

A recent court filing heightens concerns about whether prosecutors hid from the judge who authorized the raid that Burke was a journalist.

I don't entirely get how "being a journalist" is determined. We don't have any register of journalists. You don't need a certification. We're all "journalists" now -- and probably always have been.

It sounds to me as if he was not in violation of the law, regardless of whether he was a "journalist". But I am not a lawyer, and I've found that I rarely understand lawyers' reasoning.

In this case, the "victim" was Fox News. Perhaps they're claiming their own special protection on the grounds of being journalists, even though it was their own mistake that let this become public?