• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeland Security to Compile Database of Journalists, Bloggers

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,868
Reaction score
8,352
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
It certainly looks like a preliminary step that could lead to government censorship and suppression of journalists, don't you think? Although, to be fair, I must admit that so far this is only a request for the database service, a request for providers of such a database to bid on the contract.

Homeland Security to Compile Database of Journalists, Bloggers

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security wants to monitor hundreds of thousands of news sources around the world and compile a database of journalists, editors, foreign correspondents, and bloggers to identify top “media influencers.”

It’s seeking a contractor that can help it monitor traditional news sources as well as social media and identify “any and all” coverage related to the agency or a particular event, according to a request for information released April 3.

The data to be collected includes a publication’s “sentiment” as well as geographical spread, top posters, languages, momentum, and circulation. No value for the contract was disclosed.

“Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers,” according to the statement. DHS agencies have “a critical need to incorporate these functions into their programs in order to better reach federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners,” it said.

The DHS wants to track more than 290,000 global news sources, including online, print, broadcast, cable, and radio, as well as trade and industry publications, local, national and international outlets, and social media, according to the documents. It also wants the ability to track media coverage in more than 100 languages including Arabic, Chinese, and Russian, with instant translation of articles into English.
Click to expand...
Computer-based translation which is what I understand by the phrase "instant translation" is not always accurate. This is especially problematic when translating slang and vernacular understanding of certain words and phrases commonly found on alternative media webpages.

Found on another website after I first read the linked article were some of the requirements for the database

  1. Services shall enable [the DHS’s National Protection and Program’s Directorate] to monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.
  3. The database should be able to create an archive of detailed information on journalists and “influencers”, including contact information and past coverage produced by that individual:
  5. For each influencer found, [the database shall be able to] present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer.
  7. [The database shall have the] ability to analyze the media coverage in terms of content, volume, sentiment, geographical spread, top publications, media channels, reach, AVE, top posters, influencers, languages, momentum, circulation.
 
Well, it’s good to see that they are now looking at the 1st Amendment the same way they are the 2nd. Maybe it wont be too long now before they start “studying the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. All these rights really are problematic in that they require us to trust people that might be untrustworthy and that’s a danger to national security. The police state is a necessity if we’re to preserve our freedom.
 
Looks alarming to me. You can't enforce censorship until you identify the targets of censorship. This would be a beginning step. The USA MSM is such a fantasyland that they fear independent, open, investigative, objective journalism that counters their narrative that is an agenda driven priority. A harbinger of the future.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
Looks alarming to me. You can't enforce censorship until you identify the targets of censorship. This would be a beginning step. The USA MSM is such a fantasyland that they fear independent, open, investigative, objective journalism that counters their narrative that is an agenda driven priority. A harbinger of the future.
/
Click to expand...


Whaaa? The American Mainstream Media is in fear of "independent . . . journalism" and therefore the Dept of Homeland Security is looking at establishing a database of journalists?

I really hope you are attempting sarcasm but I would say you have failed mightily.
 
so, OUR own government HATES The Constitution; I am not at all surprised, particularly given the folks currently 'in charge' ............ **** them .........

welcome to 1930's Germany .......
 
Somerville said:
Whaaa? The American Mainstream Media is in fear of "independent . . . journalism" and therefore the Dept of Homeland Security is looking at establishing a database of journalists?

I really hope you are attempting sarcasm but I would say you have failed mightily.
Click to expand...

I'm saying HS is establishing a database of journalists that they want to censor because they do not follow the Company (insert CIA if you like) line. Don't you remember the recent Prop 200 or something like that? That would be the contemporaty home of a vanishing breed, the Investigative Reporter/journalist?.
/
 
Lutherf said:
Well, it’s good to see that they are now looking at the 1st Amendment the same way they are the 2nd. Maybe it wont be too long now before they start “studying the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. All these rights really are problematic in that they require us to trust people that might be untrustworthy and that’s a danger to national security. The police state is a necessity if we’re to preserve our freedom.
Click to expand...

What’s perplexing to me is how those that advocate for a strong and powerful central government when that government is infringing upon other people’s rights that they agree should be limited, restricted, suppressed, and even oppressed out of existence with ‘common sense’ acts or laws, regulations, or outright bans, suddenly can’t understand how or why that same strong and powerful central government they so advocated for - when in the hands of “the other people” - can turn on them and limit, restrict, suppress, oppress, or intimidate, with ‘common sense’ acts like that in the OP.

Perplexing it is.
 
This sounds a lot like gun registration and permitting. It should absolutely not be allowed.
 
Somerville said:
It certainly looks like a preliminary step that could lead to government censorship and suppression of journalists, don't you think? Although, to be fair, I must admit that so far this is only a request for the database service, a request for providers of such a database to bid on the contract.


Computer-based translation which is what I understand by the phrase "instant translation" is not always accurate. This is especially problematic when translating slang and vernacular understanding of certain words and phrases commonly found on alternative media webpages.

Found on another website after I first read the linked article were some of the requirements for the database

  1. Services shall enable [the DHS’s National Protection and Program’s Directorate] to monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.
  3. The database should be able to create an archive of detailed information on journalists and “influencers”, including contact information and past coverage produced by that individual:
  5. For each influencer found, [the database shall be able to] present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer.
  7. [The database shall have the] ability to analyze the media coverage in terms of content, volume, sentiment, geographical spread, top publications, media channels, reach, AVE, top posters, influencers, languages, momentum, circulation.
Click to expand...

I remember when the government said, "it's just a background check, to buy a gun".
 
apdst said:
This sounds a lot like gun registration and permitting. It should absolutely not be allowed.
Click to expand...

Hell, if that's the argument you have to go with in order to not defend this decision, I'll take it.
 
Lutherf said:
Well, it’s good to see that they are now looking at the 1st Amendment the same way they are the 2nd. Maybe it wont be too long now before they start “studying the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. All these rights really are problematic in that they require us to trust people that might be untrustworthy and that’s a danger to national security. The police state is a necessity if we’re to preserve our freedom.
Click to expand...

Just one problem with your argument: you can't defend the 2A on its merits.
 
Somerville said:
It certainly looks like a preliminary step that could lead to government censorship and suppression of journalists, don't you think? Although, to be fair, I must admit that so far this is only a request for the database service, a request for providers of such a database to bid on the contract.


Computer-based translation which is what I understand by the phrase "instant translation" is not always accurate. This is especially problematic when translating slang and vernacular understanding of certain words and phrases commonly found on alternative media webpages.

Found on another website after I first read the linked article were some of the requirements for the database

  1. Services shall enable [the DHS’s National Protection and Program’s Directorate] to monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.
  3. The database should be able to create an archive of detailed information on journalists and “influencers”, including contact information and past coverage produced by that individual:
  5. For each influencer found, [the database shall be able to] present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer.
  7. [The database shall have the] ability to analyze the media coverage in terms of content, volume, sentiment, geographical spread, top publications, media channels, reach, AVE, top posters, influencers, languages, momentum, circulation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this looks more than a little scary. I can see so many ways this could be abused.
 
Cardinal said:
Just one problem with your argument: you can't defend the 2A on its merits.
Click to expand...

But, it can be defended on the fact that it's a constitutional right.
 
apdst said:
Why wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

That DHS shouldn’t be compiling a list of “influential media?” Absolutely. It’s heartening to see trump supporters defend a democratic principle even if the person threatening it is a trump appointee.
 
Cardinal said:
That DHS shouldn’t be compiling a list of “influential media?” Absolutely. It’s heartening to see trump supporters defend a democratic principle even if the person threatening it is a trump appointee.
Click to expand...

You're selective about which civil rights you'll defend.
 
apdst said:
You're selective about which civil rights you'll defend.
Click to expand...

I’m just happy to see that you disapprove of this decision. You had to get there your own way, but so be it.
 
Cardinal said:
I’m just happy to see that you disapprove of this decision. You had to get there your own way, but so be it.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that your defense of freedom and liberty is very selective.
 
apdst said:
I'm not surprised that your defense of freedom and liberty is very selective.
Click to expand...

If you need to rationalize agreeing with me by finding something completely separate to beat up on me for then that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
 
Cardinal said:
If you need to rationalize agreeing with me by finding something completely separate to beat up on me for then that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that we should support one civil liberty and not another.
 
DHS ultimately reports and answers to the president.

This journalist database is not a good idea and the potential for political abuse is high.
 
Rogue Valley said:
DHS ultimately reports and answers to the president.

This journalist database is not a good idea and the potential for political abuse is high.
Click to expand...

I see little difference between this and the election commission put together by Kobach that Trump was eventually forced to dissolve. I don't know if there could be standing to sue, but the decision is ominous as hell, especially in light of the President's ongoing campaign against media that report critical stories on him.
 
Lutherf said:
Well, it’s good to see that they are now looking at the 1st Amendment the same way they are the 2nd. Maybe it wont be too long now before they start “studying the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. All these rights really are problematic in that they require us to trust people that might be untrustworthy and that’s a danger to national security. The police state is a necessity if we’re to preserve our freedom.
Click to expand...

Yes, the police state brought by the war on drugs has done such a great job preserving our freedoms over the last few decades that now our legislature has nullified the Fourth Amendment by statute, and Habeas Corpus is no longer allowed.

Yes, the police state is a great idea.
 
apdst said:
But, it can be defended on the fact that it's a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

To borrow from a previous POTUS, the constitution is really just a damn piece of paper.
 
This is balderdash. Trump, aka has less chance of silencing the Left than he has of silencing Stormy Daniels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom