Truth is dead! The bold face lying happens daily with this administration. I can’t even listen to Leavitt anymore in her press briefings. All the misinformation from RFK recently. We’ve normalized deception and this will have repercussions for decades!
Yes we will. The worst part about misinformation is that it takes exponentially more time to undo the damage than it does to spread it in the first place. And that's if it's possible at all.
Who is Leavitt’s intended audience? To me she sounds like she’s almost trying to play a villain out of a Harry Potter novel, but I think that’s because I’m not who she’s really talking to. Aside from her loose relationship with facts, she keeps wanting people to trust her…and that’s supposed to end of the conversation. “Who are you going to believe?” and “I’ve seen the evidence!” are the two moments that stand out to me the most. Later Goldberg posted the remaining details from the Signal chat, and (at least from what I’m hearing) both sides of the aisle think there should be due process before you send someone to a gulag in El Salvador. Is she talking specifically to the MAGA base? I have to believe that there is some strategy in her approach, I just can’t figure out what it is.
Transparency is vital at all levels of government. I remember some of the big battles my mother had with the city council while she was running the local newspaper, over their attempts to circumvent state Sunshine laws and conduct city business in secret. She held their feet to the fire over the peoples’ right to know and the whole city was better off for it. Fast forward to now and think of all of the government actions we would have never known about were it not for the media. You can’t have true transparency at any level without a vigorous, free and fair press to ensure it so it’s no surprise that this period of darkness regarding transparency coincides with the decline of the media, both in sheer numbers and in its denigration as the enemy of the people. The last t-shirt I bought for my mom was from the Washington Post, and said on the front, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” She wore that shirt every chance she got.
Thank you, she was! A military widow at the age of 29, with an infant and toddler in tow, she returned to her hometown and found new purpose in fighting for the people’s right to know. I miss her.
This is so true. Local journalism matters and we are losing it. I read the Orlando Sentinel and follow Scott Maxwell, a columnist. He frequently reports on the difficulty obtaining information from state government in Florida and the abuses of power. Lots to report on here.
Thank you, Sharon, for such a thorough and balanced exploration of presidential transparency across administrations. Your piece excellently demonstrates how this isn't a partisan issue - every modern president has promised transparency while delivering secrecy to varying degrees. I especially appreciate your reminder about Obama's aggressive prosecution of leakers, which often gets overlooked in discussions about press freedom.
However, I'd like to provide some additional context on the Obama-Fox News feud that might explain why it wasn't simply a case of presidential thin skin. Fox's coverage of Obama went far beyond standard opposition reporting: they aired demonstrably false claims that never received corrections, like the January 2007 Fox & Friends segment falsely stating Obama attended an Islamic school in Indonesia, and a 2013 broadcast where host Anna Kooiman cited a completely fabricated story that Obama was personally funding a Muslim museum during the government shutdown. Fox personalities routinely crossed lines other networks wouldn't, with Glenn Beck calling Obama "a racist" with "deep-seated hatred for white people," Sean Hannity repeatedly calling him "disloyal" over seemingly mundane disagreements, and internal directives instructing staff to avoid neutral terminology like "public option" in favor of politically charged phrases like "government-run health insurance."
The "OBAMAGATE" conspiracy theory received wall-to-wall coverage despite ultimately resulting in zero charges, and even standard intelligence practices like "unmasking" were portrayed as unprecedented scandals.
Meanwhile, today’s president is openly vindictive for the most minor, petty “infractions” like the AP getting the boot from the press pool for parenthetically using both names for the Gulf of Mexico/America in its reporting so as to not confuse its readers about the recent name change. That’s a different story.
Your article addresses the broader issue perfectly - we should demand more transparency from all administrations. But it's worth noting that when media outlets abandon journalistic standards entirely, pushing demonstrably false narratives without corrections or apologies, there's a substantive difference between criticizing such practices and attacking legitimate press freedom.
Once again, we see that saying something loudly enough does not make it so. It takes broad awareness of the problem to keep these secrets from falling down the Memory Hole. Thank you, Sharon.
The irony here is that when the government becomes less transparent--they demand more transparency from the people. While "W's" presidency pales in comparison to Trump's with regard to secrecy, let's not forget The Patriot Act. When 9/11 occurred, I had just started my second year as a teacher. Previous to that, during my college days, I spent a lot of time researching the Cold War. The books and references that I accessed from the university library were often related to Marxist philosophy ("The Communist Manifesto"), the Bolshevik Revolution, and the "Red Scares." For a time--following passage of the Patriot Act--I was fearful that library records would be seized, and I could be implicated as a potential subversive. While there was little doubt that I could prove my benign intentions--being a probationary teacher--the implication alone could have precipitated my termination.
I mention this story to illustrate the fear that is experienced by individuals when powerful entities practice extreme levels of secrecy. Of course, history now reveals that the Bush II administration seldom used the Patriot Act to its extreme. My personal fears were probably unfounded. This was mostly due to the fact that John Ashcroft (of whom I'm not a fan) while pushing the limits, still believed in the rule of law. However, today we see a different playbook being carried out by a president and cronies who are more demonstrably secretive than the Bush II administration, and are obviously rule-of-law averse. Scary times.
Such an excellent point, Todd! I hadn't thought about that dynamic between the transparency they demand from us. And while you might be right that the Bush admin wasn't as aggressive as you had feared, that's only half the point. They probably got you to change your library book habits out of fear of the power they had, even if they didn't ultimately care about which books you had already checked out.
You are absolutely correct, Timothy. In these early years of my teaching, our high school library didn't keep a copy of "The Communist Manifesto"--which I wanted to use and present to students when introducing the Bolsheviks. It was a few years later, when I felt safe to do so that I finally purchased a copy to keep in my classroom. I only had to convince administration that I used it as an example of the founding document that inspired Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It was not intended to "promote" communism--just knowledge. This is a little off-topic with regard to today's post...but, as my former students would say about me, "he's the easiest teacher to force off-topic."
It's all interconnected! And yeah, kinda crazy that the number one way people dismiss liberals is by calling them communists, but actually teaching what communism *is* to students, not to promote it, but to educate what it is, is so taboo. I never learned about what it was in high school, except in abstract ways.
As a Biden voter and Democrat I was not happy with this lack of availability to the press, I wish we would have heard more from him about all the legislation he worked on that was helping Americans. I do think what Trump does is good for people to hear what comes out of his mouth, lots of press conferences or casual answering of questions. Trump however, as accessible as he is, isn't actually providing us with reality and facts, I wouldn't say he's the most transparent as far as useful, helpful, or accurate information as he claims. He certainly is highly visible but I think that is because of his desire to be on tv, it's just ego driven.
Was looking for this— Trump’s many press conferences has nothing to do with his will to be “transparent.” Because he only speaks in lie and hyperbole — he holds press conferences because he is a raging narcissist that thrives on attention. A room full of cameras on him and people wanting him to call on them for their chance to ask him a question? It’s literally his wet dream.
Thanks Sharon! Another important point in regards to FOIA within this administration is the offices specifically staffed to respond to FOIA requests are being fired. As in, everyone who works in them is being terminated. The CDC had their entire FOIA office eliminated, along with others, to leave HHS as a whole with only one office to respond to an enormous amount of requests (of course under the guise of "efficiency"). The administration is behind the scenes decimating the ability of the government to even attempt to respond to FOIA requests, all while claiming to be the most transparent ever. File this under one more thing to investigate, while knowing we may never know the true extent of the misconduct.
It's interesting to read and think about how people view transparency. What some view as transparent is holding conferences, whether or not the information being presented is true. My brain would not have gone to FOIA requests but it's very interesting seeing the differences over time across presidencies. It's also interesting to look at official websites and what is kept and what is removed. It's also a good reminder that campaign promises are just that. It would be nice to see Congress step up and offer compromise on so many issues and when they do remind us how things should work.
I had this thought too. And it's an inherently difficult thing to objectively measure transparency. If it's the percentage of FOIA requests rejected, that's an incomplete story, because it doesn't take into account whether an administration is getting way more requests than other administrations. I think I've heard before that over-requesting can be a tactic to paint an administration as obstructive.
I think what we might need, like you're saying, get Congress involved. Get some codified laws about this somehow, so that we aren't always relying on a president's respect for norms to guide how much transparency we get. Perhaps institute a consequence for over-withholding, like when Bush hid climate change science as a response to 9/11.
Firstly, I have to say I'm super excited to see the Committee to Protect Journalists' info cited, as I used to work there, and it's a GREAT resource for tracking press freedom! Secondly, I'm glad it was used in discussing Obama. I know that in the administrations since, the Obama period feels like a nostalgic time for a lot of us, but the truth is that he set the stage for a lot of the attacks on media and press freedom that Trump has run now run with.
It is easy to forget how past president's actions set the stage for the next ones. It's always helpful to me as well to hear about past presidential terms now. Where you were in life and what was going on for you determines how plugged in you were to certain things.
Thank you for researching and comparing the transparency, or lack there of, from the past several administrations. It is so easy to point fingers at the administration you don’t want to agree with, but to see similar tendencies across the board is good (yes, the current admin is scary right now!). We should hold the presidential office to higher expectations than what currently is expected, no matter the party.
In other instances it made sense that various presidents handled transparency they way they did. Bush was facing a country after a terrible terrorist attack where he was just trying to figure out what could be shared and what would put us at risk. Obama probably went in thinking that he could be transparent, but being the first Black president he faced a lot of racism about how he wasn’t a citizen or that his name was Muslim sounding. Biden has a speech impediment which makes public speaking difficult. Obviously we want our leaders to be as transparent as possible, but sometimes there are obstacles.
Truth is dead! The bold face lying happens daily with this administration. I can’t even listen to Leavitt anymore in her press briefings. All the misinformation from RFK recently. We’ve normalized deception and this will have repercussions for decades!
Yes we will. The worst part about misinformation is that it takes exponentially more time to undo the damage than it does to spread it in the first place. And that's if it's possible at all.
Who is Leavitt’s intended audience? To me she sounds like she’s almost trying to play a villain out of a Harry Potter novel, but I think that’s because I’m not who she’s really talking to. Aside from her loose relationship with facts, she keeps wanting people to trust her…and that’s supposed to end of the conversation. “Who are you going to believe?” and “I’ve seen the evidence!” are the two moments that stand out to me the most. Later Goldberg posted the remaining details from the Signal chat, and (at least from what I’m hearing) both sides of the aisle think there should be due process before you send someone to a gulag in El Salvador. Is she talking specifically to the MAGA base? I have to believe that there is some strategy in her approach, I just can’t figure out what it is.
Transparency is vital at all levels of government. I remember some of the big battles my mother had with the city council while she was running the local newspaper, over their attempts to circumvent state Sunshine laws and conduct city business in secret. She held their feet to the fire over the peoples’ right to know and the whole city was better off for it. Fast forward to now and think of all of the government actions we would have never known about were it not for the media. You can’t have true transparency at any level without a vigorous, free and fair press to ensure it so it’s no surprise that this period of darkness regarding transparency coincides with the decline of the media, both in sheer numbers and in its denigration as the enemy of the people. The last t-shirt I bought for my mom was from the Washington Post, and said on the front, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” She wore that shirt every chance she got.
Your mom sounds very cool
Thank you, she was! A military widow at the age of 29, with an infant and toddler in tow, she returned to her hometown and found new purpose in fighting for the people’s right to know. I miss her.
This is so true. Local journalism matters and we are losing it. I read the Orlando Sentinel and follow Scott Maxwell, a columnist. He frequently reports on the difficulty obtaining information from state government in Florida and the abuses of power. Lots to report on here.
Thank you, Sharon, for such a thorough and balanced exploration of presidential transparency across administrations. Your piece excellently demonstrates how this isn't a partisan issue - every modern president has promised transparency while delivering secrecy to varying degrees. I especially appreciate your reminder about Obama's aggressive prosecution of leakers, which often gets overlooked in discussions about press freedom.
However, I'd like to provide some additional context on the Obama-Fox News feud that might explain why it wasn't simply a case of presidential thin skin. Fox's coverage of Obama went far beyond standard opposition reporting: they aired demonstrably false claims that never received corrections, like the January 2007 Fox & Friends segment falsely stating Obama attended an Islamic school in Indonesia, and a 2013 broadcast where host Anna Kooiman cited a completely fabricated story that Obama was personally funding a Muslim museum during the government shutdown. Fox personalities routinely crossed lines other networks wouldn't, with Glenn Beck calling Obama "a racist" with "deep-seated hatred for white people," Sean Hannity repeatedly calling him "disloyal" over seemingly mundane disagreements, and internal directives instructing staff to avoid neutral terminology like "public option" in favor of politically charged phrases like "government-run health insurance."
The "OBAMAGATE" conspiracy theory received wall-to-wall coverage despite ultimately resulting in zero charges, and even standard intelligence practices like "unmasking" were portrayed as unprecedented scandals.
Meanwhile, today’s president is openly vindictive for the most minor, petty “infractions” like the AP getting the boot from the press pool for parenthetically using both names for the Gulf of Mexico/America in its reporting so as to not confuse its readers about the recent name change. That’s a different story.
Your article addresses the broader issue perfectly - we should demand more transparency from all administrations. But it's worth noting that when media outlets abandon journalistic standards entirely, pushing demonstrably false narratives without corrections or apologies, there's a substantive difference between criticizing such practices and attacking legitimate press freedom.
I remember hearing the term Post-Truth during the George W. Bush administration. Thank you for putting it into context.
As horrifying as that is, it has only gotten worse. The Trump administration is not only Post-Truth, it is also Post-Law.
lol and the Colbert version, "truthiness"
I feel like the Trump administration views themselves as mushroom farmers, and everyone else as mushrooms: feed them manure and keep them in the dark.
Great, and tragic, analogy
Once again, we see that saying something loudly enough does not make it so. It takes broad awareness of the problem to keep these secrets from falling down the Memory Hole. Thank you, Sharon.
The irony here is that when the government becomes less transparent--they demand more transparency from the people. While "W's" presidency pales in comparison to Trump's with regard to secrecy, let's not forget The Patriot Act. When 9/11 occurred, I had just started my second year as a teacher. Previous to that, during my college days, I spent a lot of time researching the Cold War. The books and references that I accessed from the university library were often related to Marxist philosophy ("The Communist Manifesto"), the Bolshevik Revolution, and the "Red Scares." For a time--following passage of the Patriot Act--I was fearful that library records would be seized, and I could be implicated as a potential subversive. While there was little doubt that I could prove my benign intentions--being a probationary teacher--the implication alone could have precipitated my termination.
I mention this story to illustrate the fear that is experienced by individuals when powerful entities practice extreme levels of secrecy. Of course, history now reveals that the Bush II administration seldom used the Patriot Act to its extreme. My personal fears were probably unfounded. This was mostly due to the fact that John Ashcroft (of whom I'm not a fan) while pushing the limits, still believed in the rule of law. However, today we see a different playbook being carried out by a president and cronies who are more demonstrably secretive than the Bush II administration, and are obviously rule-of-law averse. Scary times.
Such an excellent point, Todd! I hadn't thought about that dynamic between the transparency they demand from us. And while you might be right that the Bush admin wasn't as aggressive as you had feared, that's only half the point. They probably got you to change your library book habits out of fear of the power they had, even if they didn't ultimately care about which books you had already checked out.
You are absolutely correct, Timothy. In these early years of my teaching, our high school library didn't keep a copy of "The Communist Manifesto"--which I wanted to use and present to students when introducing the Bolsheviks. It was a few years later, when I felt safe to do so that I finally purchased a copy to keep in my classroom. I only had to convince administration that I used it as an example of the founding document that inspired Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It was not intended to "promote" communism--just knowledge. This is a little off-topic with regard to today's post...but, as my former students would say about me, "he's the easiest teacher to force off-topic."
It's all interconnected! And yeah, kinda crazy that the number one way people dismiss liberals is by calling them communists, but actually teaching what communism *is* to students, not to promote it, but to educate what it is, is so taboo. I never learned about what it was in high school, except in abstract ways.
As a Biden voter and Democrat I was not happy with this lack of availability to the press, I wish we would have heard more from him about all the legislation he worked on that was helping Americans. I do think what Trump does is good for people to hear what comes out of his mouth, lots of press conferences or casual answering of questions. Trump however, as accessible as he is, isn't actually providing us with reality and facts, I wouldn't say he's the most transparent as far as useful, helpful, or accurate information as he claims. He certainly is highly visible but I think that is because of his desire to be on tv, it's just ego driven.
Was looking for this— Trump’s many press conferences has nothing to do with his will to be “transparent.” Because he only speaks in lie and hyperbole — he holds press conferences because he is a raging narcissist that thrives on attention. A room full of cameras on him and people wanting him to call on them for their chance to ask him a question? It’s literally his wet dream.
Anyone else listen to this? “Underscore” 😅
Came to the comments specifically to see this! Totally made me laugh while I was listening on my way to work
I came to the comments to see if anyone had said anything, hilarious! 😆
wait, how do you listen? I don't see that as an option!
On the top right there should be 3 dots. The one farthest left with the triangle in it is the play button!
Thanks Sharon! Another important point in regards to FOIA within this administration is the offices specifically staffed to respond to FOIA requests are being fired. As in, everyone who works in them is being terminated. The CDC had their entire FOIA office eliminated, along with others, to leave HHS as a whole with only one office to respond to an enormous amount of requests (of course under the guise of "efficiency"). The administration is behind the scenes decimating the ability of the government to even attempt to respond to FOIA requests, all while claiming to be the most transparent ever. File this under one more thing to investigate, while knowing we may never know the true extent of the misconduct.
It's interesting to read and think about how people view transparency. What some view as transparent is holding conferences, whether or not the information being presented is true. My brain would not have gone to FOIA requests but it's very interesting seeing the differences over time across presidencies. It's also interesting to look at official websites and what is kept and what is removed. It's also a good reminder that campaign promises are just that. It would be nice to see Congress step up and offer compromise on so many issues and when they do remind us how things should work.
I had this thought too. And it's an inherently difficult thing to objectively measure transparency. If it's the percentage of FOIA requests rejected, that's an incomplete story, because it doesn't take into account whether an administration is getting way more requests than other administrations. I think I've heard before that over-requesting can be a tactic to paint an administration as obstructive.
I think what we might need, like you're saying, get Congress involved. Get some codified laws about this somehow, so that we aren't always relying on a president's respect for norms to guide how much transparency we get. Perhaps institute a consequence for over-withholding, like when Bush hid climate change science as a response to 9/11.
Thank you Sharon. I’d also add that spewing lies while talking is the opposite of transparency & is veering toward coverup.
Firstly, I have to say I'm super excited to see the Committee to Protect Journalists' info cited, as I used to work there, and it's a GREAT resource for tracking press freedom! Secondly, I'm glad it was used in discussing Obama. I know that in the administrations since, the Obama period feels like a nostalgic time for a lot of us, but the truth is that he set the stage for a lot of the attacks on media and press freedom that Trump has run now run with.
It is easy to forget how past president's actions set the stage for the next ones. It's always helpful to me as well to hear about past presidential terms now. Where you were in life and what was going on for you determines how plugged in you were to certain things.
Thank you for researching and comparing the transparency, or lack there of, from the past several administrations. It is so easy to point fingers at the administration you don’t want to agree with, but to see similar tendencies across the board is good (yes, the current admin is scary right now!). We should hold the presidential office to higher expectations than what currently is expected, no matter the party.
Thank you for taking the long view about issues...it provides so much perspective in how we got here.
In other instances it made sense that various presidents handled transparency they way they did. Bush was facing a country after a terrible terrorist attack where he was just trying to figure out what could be shared and what would put us at risk. Obama probably went in thinking that he could be transparent, but being the first Black president he faced a lot of racism about how he wasn’t a citizen or that his name was Muslim sounding. Biden has a speech impediment which makes public speaking difficult. Obviously we want our leaders to be as transparent as possible, but sometimes there are obstacles.