Homeland Security To Compile Database Of Journalists, Media Influencers
Homeland Security To Compile Database Of Journalists, Media Influencers
The work request from DHS seeks a firm that has the ability to monitor up to 290,000 global news sources; ability to track media coverage in up to 100 languages and the ability to "track online, print, broadcast, cable, radio, trade and industry publications, local sources, national/international outlets, traditional news sources, and social media."
The work request also seeks the ability to build lists of journalists based on beat, location, outlet type/size and journalist role. Creating an online "media influence database" is also included.
DHS spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton tweeted that "despite what some reporters may suggest," this is "standard."
"Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists," Houlton wrote.
Despite what some reporters may suggest, this is nothing more than the standard practice of monitoring current events in the media. Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists.
— Tyler Q. Houlton (@SpoxDHS) April 6th, 2018
Responses are due April 13.
The news comes amid attacks on the media by President Trump, who frequently calls mainstream media outlets "fake news." Watchdog organization Freedom House said in its 2017 press freedom report that global media freedom has reached its lowest level in 13 years -- including attacks by Mr. Trump.
"But it is the far-reaching attacks on the news media and their place in a democratic society by Donald Trump, first as a candidate and now as president of the United States, that fuel predictions of further setbacks in the years to come," the report said.
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
This story probably won't get much attention being Friday night but everyone should be deeply concerned by this...
The left wingers have been doing the same thing for years, especially during the Obama years. I think it is essential to find out if some in this group, collectively called "journalists", have the best interests of the USA at heart, and are not a threat to our national security...as some seem to be. They put out large volumes of fake and erroneous "news", trying to confuse and frighten the gullible masses.
Really? Then why are they putting a work order out to create a whole new system? Why not just update the one used by the Obama Administration? Hmmmm?
That is a $20,000,000,000 question.This is an attempt to scare journalists and even bloggers.
This is far more than an 'attempt'. The system doesn't just pop out work orders on it's own. There are well thought out standards for the SOW in that work order and a team took some time setting the parameters for a company to qualify to bid for the contract.
Journalists from BOTH sides SHOULD be freaking out about this. What can be used against one can be used against all.
I am with you but as predicted out of all the other things going on this is going under the radar...
Wonder what shinny object will be the next distraction? Though I have a feeling that a lot of journalists will grab onto this story and not let go. I have read it @ multiple different sources, on was Forbes, another Bloomberg.
What you are seeing in this article is the beginning of what has happened in other country's over the past century. Most notably Germany.
We have a protection in our Constitution that is suppose to stop the suppression of the press but, with the current administration and, the DHS looking to "collect" the names of Journalists who don't present the news the way the administration thinks it should be done puts that amendment in danger.
If you love the Constitution as much as you have claimed in the past then you have to love ALL of it, including the bolded part of the first amendment.
Wouldn't you want to root out spies and traitors posing as journalists? The days of honest and unbiased news coverage and journalistic integrity are long gone.
If you want that done then wait for Mueller to get done with his investigation. The people working at NBC, CBS, ABC, Reuters, BBC America aren't spies or, traitors. Making a journalist afraid to present what has been found and, afraid to ask important questions is creating a problem, not solving a problem. A free press means, that the press can follow a story no matter where it goes, even if it goes into the White House, that is what people like Donald Trump don't understand, Nixon didn't understand that either.
Trump's Homeland Security is doing this without constitutionally required congressional authorization.
DHS has gone over Congress's collective heads.
Does the Freedom of the Press clause of the 1st Amendment mean anything to you, or does that only apply to news sources that you agree with?
Is this an attempt to move the goalposts?
It will probably ultimately be harmless, but I am not a fan of the idea.
This is the first step to getting rid of this,
I volunteer for a VOSB group with .gov contract searches and that statement is total bullshit.
If this were 'standard practice' the SOW wouldn't require the CREATION of an entirely NEW password protected online database, one would ALREADY exist and they would only be looking for subcontractors to manage the system.
Oh and BTW, the SOW calls for monitoring JOURNALISTS, not just 'events in the media'. It requires data collection on current AND prior publishing.
This is some Orwellian shit y'all.
Headed for a brave new world as we enter the way back machine and motor back to 1984.
Its pretty obvious that Trump is obsessed with atemptiong to stifle dissent-- any voioce that disagrees with him. And of course he's especially upset with any in the media who have different opinions than he does.
While constantly supporting the Second Amendment, for some strange reason he is just as dedicated to bashing theb First Amendment-- particularly the part about our right to free speech:
Never Forget, Big Brother Is Watching... You.
And, All Pigs Are Equal. Some Pigs Are Just More Equal...
Quit being hysterical....nothing is being abridged and no law is being made. Do you really trust clowns likes Wolff Blather or Rachael Madcow or F. Chuck Todd, not to mention Georgie Step-On-All-Of-Us?
Are these even real people? Never heard of them. Do they work at FAUX Noise or, Breitbart?
Lame and retarded response.
So appropriate considering the comment being responded to...
Like "WE" have never been monitored ?
Simple "Facebook" or "Smart phones" anyone ?
Poor media "Whores", they're gonna be watched too. BooFuckingHoo !
I was curious to see the SOW on this contract before I commented. I found the RFQP here:
The SOW's goals and objectives are interesting but it's just too brief to really get a sense of what they want to do with the information once gathered. If I were to guess I'd say it seems to be a tool in which to develop a counter campaign against what information is being reported.
I'm honestly more interested in learning who submits a proposal and quote against the contract request and how they interpret the SOW.
You and a few others seem to know a lot more about this kind of thing. As reported it sounds ominous...
Writing contracts is one of my responsibilities but I'm no expert on the solicitation side.
I'm not so sure this is outside the realm of previous government contracts. What caught my attention with this SOW was the term "re-branding". Only Congress can approve re-branding a government Agency. Smart contract officers use the term "re-imaging" ...but I digress.
At a glance (and not knowing the solicitor's intent) it sounds more like a campaign to monitor how the Agency's messaging is being reported so that they can make adjustments internally. That is standard for many Agencies. They want to make sure that the information they are communicating to their stakeholders and constituents are the messages they are trying to convey.
This is kind of a boring subject for most people. hahahahaha
You know what the word "monitoring" means don't you?
yes...
Whatever is going on the usual suspects are all riled up saying it is a nothing. So, why so agitated? Hmmm...
Whatever is going on the usual suspects are all riled up saying it is a nothing. So, why so agitated? Hmmm...
That comment makes zero sense...
Not a huge fan of lists. Like lists of Jounalists, lists of religious preference, lists of ethnicity, lists of legal gun owners, etc, etc.
Interesting how certain folks believe in some lists like that but not others.
Yeah, Obama's FEMA Camps all of a sudden became Trump's FEMA Camps overnight Jan 20, 2017...
The political tables turn. They go both ways. Who do you trust with a Gov list with your name on it?
Yeah be honest. I bet you’d have people who are NOK to you on all sorts of lists if you had your way. Me? Not so much.
You leave me and mine alone, don’t intentionally do harm to others in my sphere of influence and we’ve got no problem. I could care less how you live your life. It’s the sanctimonious pricks, who think they know better for people they don’t even know, that are problem.
Yeah, those are the pricks wanting to make lists on both sides.
Lets be honest. It is partisans on both sides of the spectrum who should be concerned. Not the mussy middle...
Four warning signs of a dictatorship:
1) Hide personal assets, like tax returns.
2) Keep family and friends close to the administration.
3) Militarize the police force.
4) Control/discredit/silence/manipulate the media.
Donny Trump, to a "T".
Where you upset when Obama did both of these?
In 2013 over $300,000,000 worth of military surplus was transferred to police departments. It was only after Ferguson and at the end of 2014 did Obama stop the 1033 program, but 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and up until the end of 2014 Obama did nothing. I guess burning down businesses in total anarchy made him realize the police departments didn't need any of these items. <sarc>
can anyone tell me how this would be any different from the different fact checkers or pants on fire , or pinochios the media has set up for politics ?
with all the screw ups in the media , and inside journalism , maybe its time they were subjected to some of their own medicine so folks can decide if THEY are worth listening to. might make some of the political bias go the way of the dinosaur, not that people don't do that already whatever bias they hold themselves.
Trump or Obama can criticize the media all they want, but it will make no difference. The media still has its freedom of speech whether they are lying or telling the truth, it doesn't matter. The fact it is hard to find the truth when we are looking for it in the only places it could be found and when we find it, we find it is tainted.
I'm reminded of Reagan being confronted with a journalist who said his credibility had been severely damaged and what was he going to do about it? Reagan said he imagined he was the only one who wanted to repair it and he didn't have anything to do with damaging it.