Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

Posted by on Jan. 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM
  • 7 Replies

“White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles,” by Neil Munro,Daily Caller, January 13, 2015:

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said….

by on Jan. 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-7):
12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 3:13 PM
3 moms liked this

The Obama WH had no problem with the release of classified documents on CIA's use of interrogation tactics used on Muslims terrorists even thought they admitted it would put military at risk.

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 3:40 PM
3 moms liked this

 He has been, is, and will always be more aligned with the terrorists than the USA.

Quoting 12hellokitty:

The Obama WH had no problem with the release of classified documents on CIA's use of interrogation tactics used on Muslims terrorists even thought they admitted it would put military at risk.

 

jaxTheMomm
by Platinum Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 5:45 PM
1 mom liked this

Well now, this is a hot wad of crazy triple-dipped in innuendo.

So the below is "hinting strongly that journalists submit to threats", eh?  LOL My goodness.  What STRONG HINTS.


Quote:

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said…."


pvtjokerus
by Ruby Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 9:38 PM

So much for free speech.

CountryMomma123
by Bronze Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 10:07 PM

 what ever

LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Jan. 14, 2015 at 10:25 PM
1 mom liked this
The article does not appear to say what the header suggests it says. I despise that the Admin will not acknowledge that we are at war with radical Islam but I just do not see the WH words meaning what you want so badly for them to mean.
Momniscient
by Obama licker on Jan. 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM
Lol.

Jesus you idiots dig deep.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)