CIA Claims the Right to Decide What is News

[a_small_death]

From C2ore

Archive Sues to Break FOIA Fee Barrier for Journalists
by Meredith Fuchs and Thomas Blanton
The National Security Archive
Washington D.C., 7.03.06- The National Security Archive today filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), challenging the Agency's recent practice of charging Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fees to journalists pursuing news. The FOIA says that "representatives of the news media" can be charged only copying fees since they help to carry out the mission of the law by disseminating government information; but the CIA last year began claiming authority to assess additional fees if the Agency decides any journalist's request is not newsworthy enough. In adopting this new practice, the CIA reversed its prior 15-year practice of presumptively waiving additional fees for news media representatives, including the National Security Archive.

"The CIA takes the position that it should decide what is 'news' instead of the reporters and editors who research and publish the stories," explained attorney Patrick J. Carome of the law firm Wilmer Hale, who is representing the Archive. "If the CIA succeeds in exercising broad discretion to charge additional fees to journalists, despite the plain language of the law, then too often we will find out only what the government wants us to know."

"Today is the day that federal agencies are turning in their FOIA improvement plans under President Bush's Executive Order for a more 'citizen-centered' and 'results-oriented' FOIA system. But the CIA has taken the opposite approach, and is instead trying to close off use of the FOIA by journalists," commented Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs.

In 1989 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized the Archive as a representative of the news media that cannot be charged for searches for records requested under the FOIA. The next year, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held the CIA "must treat plaintiff as a 'representative of the news media' within the meaning of" the FOIA. For over 15 years, the CIA, like other federal agencies receiving FOIA requests from the Archive, abided by these decisions. Since these decisions, the Archive's news media activity has expanded dramatically, and its journalistic work has received numerous awards, including most recently the 2005 Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in News and Documentary Research.

Suddenly, in October 2005, the CIA changed its practice and began to require the Archive to meet a new test for what information qualifies as "news." The CIA demanded that the Archive show that its requests for records meet several criteria that are not found in the FOIA itself, specifically, that the requests "concern current events," "interest the general public," and "enhance the public understanding of the operations and activities of the U.S. government." Among the requests that the CIA determined did not concern "current events" were two requests for biographical documents relating to members of the Taliban in Afghanistan and documents regarding the development of U.S. policy in Afghanistan in the five months before President Carter authorized U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen opposition to the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. The CIA rejected the notion that information about U.S. knowledge regarding the Taliban and the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Afghanistan could result in "news." And although the CIA determined that FOIA requests about NAFTA and illegal Mexican immigration could result in "news," it rejected the idea that President Clinton's 1993 meetings with President Salinas on the subject could result in "news."

"This policy is a clear attempt to prevent journalists from getting information out to the public," said Archive Director Thomas Blanton. "Given the timing - when the intelligence community is under serious scrutiny about its activities - this appears to be an effort to shut down the growth of a vibrant public debate in the print, broadcast and online communities."

[Anarkey]

WOW WTF !
why am i not surprized..."This policy is a clear attempt to prevent journalists from getting information out to the public," said Archive Director Thomas Blanton. "Given the timing - when the intelligence community is under serious scrutiny about its activities - this appears to be an effort to shut down the growth of a vibrant public debate in the print, broadcast and online communities."

That statement say's it all

[bohoki]

i think the cia should charge the press as much money as they can why shouldn't they get a cut of the what the network gets in its advertising seems unfair that they get to make money off the freedom of information gatherers work with little in reward

although there should be a clearly defined charge not some subjective judgement call by who knows whom

[Buster Friendly]

nope. its FREEdom of information.

if it's really that important, they can just fucking lie about it. like they do anyway.

[Kidthorazine]

i think the cia should charge the press as much money as they can why shouldn't they get a cut of the what the network gets in its advertising seems unfair that they get to make money off the freedom of information gatherers work with little in reward

although there should be a clearly defined charge not some subjective judgement call by who knows whom

Wait a minute, the governmant should not have the right to charge for information, that creates all kinds of problems, even if there was a standard fee they would probably set it to higher price than what is available to more independant journalists that dont work for a mega news corp, that would lead to a method of controlling the media by the government which would set a very bad precident and gennerally restrict the publics access to information, which is of course bad.

[bohoki]

just because something is free to look at doesn't mean that it costs nothing

the freedom of information act does not mean that the government researchers had to do this for "no charge" and the journalists if they do their job right will make money by compiling information

if i made my money off of making stained glass art out of broken bottles would i have any standing to demand the dump to give me the bottles for free

[Kidthorazine]

we aleready pay taxes to support the governernment, so its aleready been paid for, this is just an attempt by the CIA to restrict information.

[One Eyed Cat]

The CIA is too inept to even control its own leaks (albeit some are deliberate) I would agree with Kidthorazine beyond that. We pay enough in taxes.

[Buster Friendly]

it isn't about charging a use fee.

it's about limiting access to information, plain and simple.

[Sara X]

i should probably, you know, pay attention to the news more. apparently israel is at war (again). all of my southern baptist relatives think this is the beginning of the end (again). sigh.

[Bondage Clown]

Thats it I am going ot by an island, and the only people aloowed to live there would be US....

[One Eyed Cat]

i should probably, you know, pay attention to the news more. apparently israel is at war (again). all of my southern baptist relatives think this is the beginning of the end (again). sigh.

Israel is being attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah at the same time. It is always the beginning of the end. Israel will prevail, however.

OEC

PS Me and m'lady are planning to buy an island haha.

[Mr Karl]

oh well....who really believes the news anyway?

[DARKGYM]

Hey, George Orwell called...he wants Big Brother back.