Talk:2013 articles about the Department of Justice investigations of reporters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awkward name[edit]

2013 Justice Department investigating reporters is a very awkward name for an article. What do we think about 2013 Justice Department investigation of reporters? KConWiki (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I hope the page creator approves. †TE†Talk 23:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plan[edit]

Figured this would be a good place to compile refs and content. I'd like to write a quick lead, sans citations. Then maybe try to link up a background on the DOJ's prosecution of whistle-blowers (Leak-ers). Followed by AP, Rosen, reactions, etc. Make sense? †TE†Talk 22:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions. There have been a lot of reactions from across the political spectrum. I understand that even some of the dedicated professionals at MSNBC were upset by all of this. Eric Holder offered to brief news media representatives about this stuff, and some took him up on his offer, but most flat-out refused: "Either it's on the record for publication, or we don't want to talk to you." That was just amazing, and it should be described here. Excellent work so far, but a lot more needs to be done. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, it's going to blow up. There can be a whole section on just Holder having that off the record meeting with certain media outlets (most declined). You have Jay Carney, poor guy. Media and politicians from all sides. Patriot Act implications. This is a hugely historic story and I'm shocked nobody is building the article. More like disappointed. I'm just trying to lay the groundwork. There's so much to do. †TE†Talk 03:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BTW. All help is appreciated. I've been trying to link this up. Where is everyone? Seriously. †TE†Talk 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're too busy spinning everything that's capable of being spun. This isn't. Have fun while it lasts. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the spinning, NYT has been in an especially uncomfortable positon of not getting targeted by Eric Holder for their Bin Laden raid and cyber-bombing of Iran's nuke program leaks. But, we all know those were White House sanctioned leaks. Haven't had much time lately. I'd like to get back to it. All in good time, I guess. †TE†Talk 12:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Bias When I read this I noted a strong bias in the wording toward recrimination of the US Government. Is there any hope of toning it down? deepsack (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deepsack, please provide an example of such bias. KalHolmann (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bias I just ran across this article and there does appear to be bias. For one thing the title should be, "2013 Articles on the Department of Justice investigations of reporters". The events in the article spanned from 2009 to 2012. There is hardly a mention that the investigations were conducted to find out who was leaking classified information to reporters, and that Holder stated there was no intention of prosecuting journalists (from citations). Journalists were concerned about their sources and how it would affect their news gathering ability, but other news organizations editorialized that the journalists themselves were in jeopardy. I just removed misrepresentations and apparent fabrication in the article. The article reads like Rosen's phone records were surveilled, but it appears that only Kim's records were, and that may have implicated Rosen. Rosen only had 2 days worth of e-mails seized under warrants.Ward20 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the introduction to take account of some of these issues. I came to this article after seeing "criminal co-conspirator" in quotes in a CBS News op-ed here: [1]. "Criminal co-conspirator" is kind of like "rigged witch hunt" -- jarringly redundant. The DoJ doesn't name people as "co-conspirators" UNLESS it's a criminal case, so why the qualification of "criminal"? Who or what was being quoted? Delving into sources, I couldn't find any that used that specific collocation. Then I realized that the whole introduction was making it all about some supposed targeting of Rosen. Rosen was implicated, but there was never, as far as I can tell, any DoJ claim of actual guilt. The case resulted in an eventual guilty plea by Kim, for what Kim divulged to Rosen, so it wasn't some specific targeting of Fox News reporters, nor was it some random fishing expedition. If the op-ed's wording of "criminal co-conspirator" was inspired by Wikipedia, well, I guess this article needs more work. Yakushima (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. I've been waiting for more editors to notice this before I changed too much. I didn't want to get into a possibly contentious article alone. I've got a lot of RL on my plate right more but I will put this on my list. Ward20 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_articles_about_the_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters&oldid=1196650471"