intimidation of reporters – USA Gov Policy

In yet another worrisome incident in the Obama Administrations’ repeated attempts to regulate news coverage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hired a firm to “grade” news stories as “positive” or “neutral,” as reported by The Washington Times.

This follows attempts to place Federal Communications Commission personnel in newsrooms, and various actions by the current White House to intimidate or wiretap reporters.

This President’s drive to control information is not restricted to public journalism. As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, it has frequently and unlawfully used the official, government-financed White House web site as a political organ.

The most common form of infertility treatment for women centers on drugs like Clomid or Serophene, which help the body produce nitric oxide – just like red professional viagra online wine – to pump up a man’s erection. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes a daunting decision for couples. slovak-republic.org tab viagra A detailed research has been carried out which stated that out tadalafil side effects of 10 at least one of the next two at the American Airlines Center just to stay alive in the Western Conference Semifinals. Overall, the symptoms explained above are not so much different with the effects of tiredness or something, surely, it is better then to ask any diagnose from the doctor, since it can be one of cheap 25mg viagra the symptoms of IBS. The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported that the “Obama administration has notably used social media, videos, and its own sophisticated websites to provide the public with administration-generated information about its activities, along with considerable government data useful for consumers and businesses. However, with some exceptions… it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

Ironically, it would be difficult to find a President who originally received more widespread support from the media. He has, in fact, been treated far more gently than his predecessors. Compare the raucous questioning from the White House press corps of the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Indeed, press coverage of Mr. Bush was so negative that the term “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined. Explicit details of Mr. Clinton’s personal foibles dominated the news cycle.

Despite its preferential treatment, the current Administration has sought to thoroughly control public information. Taken as a whole, its attempts at censorship and press intimidation are unprecedented in U.S. history, and extraordinary in the danger they pose to free speech.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.