Thom Hartmann: OMG! Thom agrees with Brit Hume

[thomhartmann]

Believe it or not - there's actually something that Fox News' Brit Hume and I agree on.

Pastor Martin Niemoller warned us of the importance of speaking out when we see our rights eroding. He famously wrote about his time in the Dachau Concentration Camp: “First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” He reminds us of the dangers of not recognizing creeping incrementalism - when small steps are being taken to abridge our rights - laying the foundation for larger steps that take away all of our rights. Which brings us to what’s happening right now with the media in America.

When our founders formed our nation - they only named one industry in the Constitution. They didn’t argue that the shipbuilding industry needed to be protected at all costs - or the agriculture industry - or even the arms industry. They didn’t even think the legislative branch was that important. But - in the First Amendment to the Constitution - our founders wrote that - “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech - or of the press…" Our founders wanted to protect the press. They realized that freedom of the press was essential. They recognized that a nation could not be strong without a press able to operate outside of the realm of government oversight and control. In fact -
Thomas Jefferson once famously said that - “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

But times have changed since our Constitution was written - and today - what is supposed to be a free press is under attack from the government. Slowly but surely - our government is infringing upon the rights of the media - and eating away at freedom of the press. Nowhere is there more evident than with the ongoing AP leaks scandal - and with the new revelation that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the Department of Justice for his coverage of the State Department and North Korea. In both of these cases - the federal government subpoenaed hundreds of emails and phone call records under the guise of national security.

I don’t want to end up channeling Pastor Niemoller and saying something like - “First they came for the AP and Fox News’ James Rosen - but I wasn’t a part of the AP - and I didn’t like Fox News - so I didn’t speak up” So I'm speaking up now. Freedom of the press needed to be protected in 1787 - and it needs to be protected today.

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[monmouth3]

1. If the "media" is going to print lies, half-truths or omit important parts of a news story then they

should be checked. We need the protection from these "media", not the other way around. Sorry Tom, I disagree with both you and Hume..

[SlimJimmy]

4. The first ammendment (if it were a person) doesn't see it that way. It is much more important

to protect the media from an intrusive government. As we have seen with the Valerie Plame incident, it is not perfect in every instance, but I would rather see the protections continue than to stop that protection over the one off mistakes that are bound to happen.

[midnight]

8. Yes. I agree. I too would rather see the protections continue. I too want the media not to be

printing misinformation...

[FrodosPet]

10. I would rather see the media lie through their teeth about 99% of their facts

Than allow the government to use its powers to intimidate and control what the media can say.

[midnight]

11. Frodospet I would love to have both....

P.S. Both a free and accurate press...

[FrodosPet]

12. Maybe someday flawless computer programs will replace flawed humans

Perhaps some ultimately enlightened extraterrestrials who have perfect patience, insight, and self control, unhampered by greed or emotion, can come and take over the world's government and press. And everything will be awesome and enlightened and way cool beyond imagine.

Or maybe they will turn us into human fajitas.

[FrodosPet]

9. Hooray for censorship!

OMG!



WTF?



People want to see the government fact checking and censoring the press. Because, you know, no one in the government has anything to hide - they will PROTECT us from that mean nasty always lying press monster.



This is sad.



(please don't forget to use your sarcasm tag when you write stuff like that)

[graham4anything]

2. Sorry Thom, I disagree, and I am Jewish. Did you agree with the outing of Valerie Plame?

The AP put people in danger as did the outing of Valerie Plame.

[patrice]

3. Not all media/"journalists" are the same, to say professional standards DON'T matter is

disrespectful and down-grading to those who have CHOSEN not to be WHORES and paid the price for standing up for the truth in the midsts of deliberate lies and whoring. And what those people have done will show well in the light of public scrutiny as the fucking Rovian cockroaches run.

TH has gone off the deep end if he thinks we should surrender our faculties for discernment simply because someone calls themselves a journalist or is associated with media, I have to wonder what has happened to TH's mind. There ARE many LIARS out there and I'm GLAD that my goverment is acting on my wishes to shine the light of truth about corporate personhood, of whatever brand, including some pretty LOST "Lefties" out there.
...................

Dear Thom, this is pathetic; count me disappointed.

[Dawson Leery]

5. So then the left's outrage over Valerie Plame was just about

getting something on Bush rather than the principle.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. I'm still trying to wrap my head ...

around this whole AP thing.

It seems that "the media" is trying to make a slippery slope argument here, I get that; but come on ...

First, how is it unlawful to divulge classified information; but not to solicit and (if successful) publish that information.

Secondly, The DoJ's actions/investigations "will have a 'chilling effect' on woud be leakers' willingness to talk" ... Well, yeah! The information IS classified, i.e., not for pubic disclosure!

Third, there must be a balance (in the real world) between national security and the citizen's right to know. The same folks being hyper-critical regarding the DoJ's actions, will be the quietest voices when a discosure gets someone killed and the loudest voices should that killing be covered on the 6:00 news.

Lastly, the DoJ investigation is NOT about a "whiste-blower" shining a light on mis or malfeasance in government; but the disclosure of active operations ... everyone should have a problem with that.

[Zen Democrat]

7. Uh-oh, Thom has joined the pack with other self-entitled media peeps.

Liberal, conservative, and MOR, they think they are entitled to classified information without having the government look for their source(s)? It's never happened before and it won't happen now. This time they know what was done .... wonder how many times reporters have been investigated without a heads up?

[jjewell]

14. Uh-oh. It seems YOU'VE slid down the slippery slope..

of confusing and conflating the govt's legitimate search for "leaks", aka "whistle-blowers", with the inviolate rights of a Free Press.

Be careful. There are jagged rocks ahead.

The govt's over-broad appropriating of the AP's phone records, for the sole purpose of cross-referencing them with the phone numbers of "whistle-blowers" is an obvious violation of the First Amendment. It's one thing for the govt to check out the phone numbers govt employees have called.

It's another thing entirely to gather the phone records of the Press, to determine who they have been called by, and who they've spoken to. Remember: No "whistle-blower" no investigative journalism. No investigative journalism, no Free Press.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. You just don't get it Thom. When a Democratic led Administration spies on journalist it is for pure

motives and is in the interest of the national security. When Republicans spy on journalist it is for veil motives and they are only doing it to undermine our civil liberties. Therefore common sense says that it right when Democrats do it and wrong when Republicans do it. Why is it so difficult to understand that?