Live Breaking News & Updates on News gathering process
Stay updated with breaking news from News gathering process. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
individuals. they post that online. the news gathering process has become much more of a two-way street than it ever used to be. >> what do you say to people who say that this is a very sort of subjective kind of thing, that when there was the haiti earthquake for example, cnn was wall to wall with so much of it others were wall to wall, and in nepal there's been a lot of coverage but not nearly enough. and this is a very subjective kind of coverage. >> it is. and it's always a judgment call on how much these stories you feel are going to resonate with your audiences. and candidly you also have to take your place in the news queue. baltimore has been an american moment. there's no doubt about that. we're fortunate at cnn that we can do many big stories at the same time and get enormous exposure across all platforms. this nepal story has been eight out of ten of the top stories on our international digital sites this week. the videos have had millions of views from there. and across domestic as well. i just want people to not just think of these stories in terms
but -- >> there was a heads up that was provided by the british government, so this is something that we had an indication was likely to occur but it's not something that we requested and it's something that was done specifically by the british law enforcement agents there. >> reporter: u.s. officials won't say whether they've got their hands on miranda's computer but the state department notes -- >> we do have a close law enforcement and intelligence relationship with the uk. >> reporter: neither the state department nor the white house is condemning miranda's detention, an indirect way of saying they think it's justified. greenwald meanwhile calls the detention of his partner a profound escalation of the government's attacks on the news gathering process and on journalism but the uk police are calling it legally and procedurally sound. chris? >> jill, thank you very much for the reporting. let's figure this out analytically. joining me is cnn's senior legal
to make sure no one leaks any information to anyone, whether it's national security related or not. >> right. i think that's really the key context, jake, for everything that we discussed about why he's going to ecuador, about why it is he's trying to travel through he's other countries. we do have a climate in the united states that has been created over the last five years in which leakers and whistleblowers, people who step forward to inform the public about classified information because they think it is wrong doing, they're treated as enemies of the state. just anybody who discloses anybody that the government marks classified is deemed to be an enemy of the state and punished severely. that is a very dangerous threat to the news gathering process and it's the reason why whistleblowers who come forward like mr. snowden feel the need to flee because the government has become so oppressive toward that behavior.
people consider this a serious issue. but is there any possibility here that the press is exaggerating the importance of this disagreement between one news organization and the department of justice because our own special interests are threatened and there is a knee jerk reaction. hey, they shouldn't do that to reporters? >> well, there may be a knee jerk reaction. i think we need to do pr for the first amendment. the first amendment is for the democracy. it's a constitutionally protected profession journalism. >> that suggests the government was trying to stop publication. >> that suggested the government is going on a fishing expedition to stop leaks and to intrude on the news gathering process of a lot of reporters who weren't even on this story. >> to play devil's advocate, while it is illegal and half dozen people have been prosecuted for leaking classified information, it is not illegal for journalists to receive it. maybe a fine distinction. so, the government prosecutors
groups. "post" reports additional irs employees in washington, d.c., and out in california also looked at the tea party groups to determine their eligibility for tax exemption. the irs says steven miller who's been serving as acting commissioner since last fall was told this has been happening, well, was happening back in may of 2012, about a year after lois lerner who oversees that division was informed herself. miller wrote in "usa today" in an op-ed piece in part, quote, we should have done a better job of handling the influx of applications by advocacy groups. mistakes were made but in no way due to political or partisan motivation. he also said there was a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed atigsal review. the mistakes we made were due to absence of sufficient process for working the increase in cases and a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made. senator sherrod brown is a democrat from ohio and member of the banking and finance committees. senator brown, does this cover it, lack of sensitivity when you see patriot and tea party on the name of a group and you don't
the united states that this is the policy. to say that there was no knowledge in quotes specifically about this in the white house is nonsense. >> well, there you saw one of the high priests of journalism there, carl bernstein there, rachel, speaking i believe for the political -- the journalistic establishment. krou start messing with us, you start collecting our phone numbers, our records of who we call, you're challenging the first amendment. he certainly made that statement there. is he right? >> he made it very strongly. i don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement among members of the press corps on that. it really does go to the heart of the news gathering process. i mean, reporters assure sources, we're going to keep your information confidential. sources can turn around and say, really? confidential forever or just until the department of justice subpoenas your phone records? it makes it very hard for us to do our jobs. you're going to hear a lot of outrage, certainly, from journalists on this. the question is whether there will be continued outrage from lawmakers on this as well. >> so you're going to have to be -- michael, you're going to have to be like the menendez brothers
the united states that this is the policy. to say that there was no knowledge in quotes specifically about this in the white house is nonsense. >> well, there you saw one of the high priests of journalism there, carl bernstein there, rachel, speaking i believe for the political -- the journalistic establishment. krou start messing with us, you start collecting our phone numbers, our records of who we call, you're challenging the first amendment. he certainly made that statement there. is he right? >> he made it very strongly. i don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement among members of the press corps on that. it really does go to the heart of the news gathering process. i mean, reporters assure sources, we're going to keep your information confidential. sources can turn around and say, really? confidential forever or just until the department of justice subpoenas your phone records? it makes it very hard for us to do our jobs. you're going to hear a lot of outrage, certainly, from journalists on this. the question is whether there will be continued outrage from lawmakers on this as well. >> so you're going to have to
everything but use the name of your opponent. >> right. you can do all of that. but you hide the names of donors. it's a way to funnel money, launder money, hide money. this is a problem. >> by the way -- >> this is not healthy for american democracy. >> the city we live in, sam stein, is packed with so-called -- what do you call them? think tanks. every one of them with dedicated senior fellow this, senior fellow that. just to push a political argument. i mean, it's all over this town. all -- >> you know -- >> the problem with this as chuck alluded to is that instead of going after the big fish, which there might have been reason to do for the irs, they went after the little guys. they ended up making this process incredibly problematic and burdensome for mom and pop shops so to speak. that's one major problem. the other one you have to understand the political climate in 2010-2011 was a lot different than it was now. there were several democratic senators begging the irs practically to go after conservative 501 c 4 groups
>> right. this is all internal. again, if i were a member of congress and i want to -- i'd sit there and say, you know what? i want to question these individuals. i want to question the individuals in the cincinnati office. i want to know what made them come up with this criteria. what -- >> you mean ask if they had their own prejudice? >> yeah. their own prejudices, the same questions, frankly, that they were asking of these groups. these were sort of -- you know, the request for names of donors. they were making requests of all issues that are important to the organization. these were some -- it was clear that they were looking to see, you know, specifics on conservative groups, potentially. why were they doing that? what was their motivation in doing that? here you get a little bit in the report that says, well, the motivation was they were trying to streamline the process and this seemed to be easy. by the way, that's another part of this -- this reporting and this story, this is -- the 501 c 3 and c 4 status, particularly c 4, it's the most ridiculous loophole in campaign finance. >> basically you can do
the office that had been tasked with reviewing the non-profit groups. "post" reports additional irs employees in washington, d.c., and out in california also looked at the tea party groups to determine their eligibility for tax exemption. the irs says steven miller who's been serving as acting commissioner since last fall was told this has been happening, well, was happening back in may of 2012, about a year after lois lerner who oversees that division was informed herself. miller wrote in "usa today" in an op-ed piece in part, quote, we should have done a better job of handling the influx of applications by advocacy groups. mistakes were made but in no way due to political or partisan motivation. he also said there was a shortcut taken in our processes to determine which groups needed atigsal review. the mistakes we made were due to absence of sufficient process for working the increase in cases and a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made. senator sherrod brown is a democrat from ohio and member of the banking and finance committees.