Media Violates Karen Pence’s Privacy, Veep Fires Back BIG LEAGUE

Mike Pence, 2016 Republican vice presidential nominee, waves on stage with wife Karen Pence after speaking at a Liberty University Convocation in Lynchburg, Virginia, U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2016. Indiana Governor Pence ended speculation Monday that he would leave the ticket, praising his running mate Donald Trump's performance in the debate with Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton on Sunday night. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

In reports that Vice President Mike Pence was using a private email account while Governor of Indiana several media outlets tried to draw parallels between this and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

During one such report, the private email of Pence’s wife, Karen Pence, was released to the public.

Per the Independent Journal Review:

In reporting the story, however, the Associated Press revealed some private information — including a still-active email account that is used by Second Lady Karen Pence.

The Vice President wasn’t having it:

4

The Vice President tweeted the letter he sent to President and CEO of the Associated Press, Gary Pruitt:

5

The Independent Journal Review reports Karen Pence has been the unfortunate victim of this unprecedented incident:

— Advertisement —

A spokesperson for the vice president tells IJR that Karen Pence has received a wave of harassing emails in the wake of the AP publishing her private address. The letter also noted that the action was unprecedented — no previous Second Lady has had her privacy violated in such a manner — and especially concerning because Karen Pence is not an elected official herself.

 

 

 

48 COMMENTS

  1. I am sure she has a government account use that and delete the old account. Then sue the papers not just for liable and damages. But also as attempting to extort a government employee (the vice president) through threats of bodily harm to his wife. I sure there are some federal laws being broken and this comes under the jurisdiction of the secret service.

  2. I’m so sorry that you, VP Pence and Mrs. Pence, are being subjected to this outragousness. So very weary of all this nonsense. Is there anyone in Washington who truly cares about all the needs we have got to solve if we are to continue to be a republic? Please put aside all these ridiculous accusations and work together like you care for the country and its people, not select people, but all its people. And, drop all the threats of investigations which just eats up precious money and time that could be better used. The bad behavior we are seeing is like petulant children, not men and women who are committed to serving their office with honor. And the media, it’s as though they are trying to undo us. Disgraceful

  3. When it comes to First Amendment rights, the founders of the Constitution, in effect, placed a responsibility on free press in return for being the only profession named in the Bill of Rights: The news media were to be a “watchdog on government,” providing us with the facts, perspective and sometimes contrarian views that help citizens better chart the course of their government. (http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/columns/first-amendment-our-free-press-has-rights-responsibilities/article_acc1934a-32ce-11e3-a982-0019bb2963f4.html)

    Next, Journalism Ethics and Standards most commonly include the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public. Unfortunately, these standards are affected by the need to have a “scoop” story because there’s a “fierce competition for ratings and a large amount of airtime to fill, so, fresh material is very valuable” even if not properly vetted for accuracy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards)

    Similarly the FCC’s webpage that was last updated on October 25, 2016 informs readers about the responsibilities that broadcasters have by writing the following:

    As public trustees, broadcasters may NOT intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.

    Moreover, the FCC’s webpage says that it receives a wide variety of comments and complaints from consumers about whether networks, stations, news reporters or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news presentations, fail to cover certain events or cover them inadequately, overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of news events. Other complaints are received regarding the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news.

    Next they say that the FCC’s authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope and the Commission is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. But, they can enforce Federal law which prohibits or limits the broadcast of obscene, indecent or profane language as defined by U.S. courts. Also, IMPORTANT to NOTE is that the FCC says it may issue penalties for knowingly broadcasting false information.

    Then the FCC recommends that if viewers have comments or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary that they “should be directed to the local station and network involved, so that the people responsible for making the programming decisions can become better informed about audience opinion.” (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-journalism)

    Obviously printed libelous communications and oral slanderous statements are difficult to prove in America because the person suing has the burden of proof. In order to win a lawsuit in the U.S., the statement must have been negligently made and resulted in harm to the person defamed. Public figures have an even higher threshold to meet, and must show the person making the statement knew it to be false or had a reckless disregard for the truth.

    Then there is, also, a high threshold to meet in order to mount a successful lawsuit against a news organization. But, despite the broad protections the law affords news organizations here in America, it is possible to win in unusual circumstances. This is probably why most targets of negative press will never sue these media [snakes], no matter how much they may want to [force journalists, bloggers, broadcasters and media companies to tell the unadulterated truth]. (http://www.mrmediatraining.com/2012/05/01/can-you-sue-those-media-bastards/)

    Similarly, I wonder if the Feb 14, 2003 Florida Appeals court ruling that reversed journalist Jane Akre’s financial award after a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling stipulated that technically it is NOT against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie, conceal or distort the news on a television broadcast BECAUSE [or at least at that time this article was written] “the FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’ licenses.”

    In this specific case, Mr. Wilson, the station’s former senior investigative reporter who helped Akre produce the story and was one of the plaintiffs in the suit, revealed that “Every editor has the right to kill a story and any honest reporter will tell you that happens from time to time when a news organization’s self interest wins out over the public interest.” “But when media managers who are not journalists have so little regard for the public trust that they actually order reporters to broadcast false information and slant the truth to curry the favor or avoid the wrath of special interests as happened here, then that is the day any responsible reporter has to stand up and say, ‘No way!’ (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/rbgh/akre022603.php ) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html)

    Another article said that the attorneys for Fox News, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated [or enforced] law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict. (http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html)

    But, as Jane Akre noted after the verdict, “the `threshold issue’ the court wrote —and all it ruled upon — was whether the technical qualifications for a whistleblower claim were ever met by me. In Florida, to file such a claim, the employer misconduct must be a violation of an adopted law, rule or regulation. FOX argued from the first — and repeatedly failed in front of three different judges — to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/rbgh/akre022603.php)

    As we are all well aware, many Americans are angry about the lies being told and the stories of omission being disseminated as in the case of Jeff Session omission story, the Zeke Miller’s fake news about MLK Jr’s bust being removed, or the debunked story about a Muslim man who said the executive order ban on the 7 nations cost his mother’s life in Iraq when in fact she died BEFORE the ban (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56216).

    So, accordingly, is there anything that organizations can initiate via petitions, via educational articles or live broadcasts that can be disseminated to the public, and/or recommendations made to listeners or readers on how to bring about positive change using other methods that will undo this travesty and therefore force the media outlets and journalists to live up to the standards that have already been set? Would it be possible to get the FCC to address the detachment between what it says on its webpage and what the 2003 appellate court ruling allowed? “FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’ licenses.” My thought is that more can be done, but the FCC just doesn’t want to do it or needs guidance to do it in a fair, Constitutional manner that puts media outlets on notice that dishonest reporting will have consequences. Joking about ways to murder Steven Miller on a late night show is NOT a joking matter (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2017/02/14/cbs-late-show-nyt-joke-about-brutally-killing-trump-adviser-voter).

    Secondly, since many believe that the fake news and stories of omission have become so rampant without consequence and then Apologies or Retraction Stories of Equal Weight and Importance are usually insincere or uncommon, I believe more should be done.

    Accordingly, I hope that there a way to have Congress amend or create more defined laws so that when journalists write, blog, tweet, or broadcast unproven or intentional fake stories or stories of omission intended to create a biased, self-serving narrative to disparage, often times influential, people who have opposing views to their own as being evil or doing unlawful, evil things, as is the case with President Trump, his policies and/or his nominees, that they will be subjected to progressively steeper penalties, such as being fined, being placed on unpaid administrative leave, being fired, &/or imprisoned depending on the severity of the occurrence(s)? But at this time, the media are not mandated to broadcast what some of us would call truthful stories.

    • WOW, you have done a lot of research into this, you should print it and send it to Donald Trump and/or start a group to fight for change, reform, and better laws concerning media. There should be no law against free truthful speech, the laws should not protect people who only want to propagate lies and slander.

  4. The good news in this…..
    Every. Single. Person. who sent a threatening email to Mrs. Pence, can be traced by the FBI and prosecuted for various crimes – making terrorist threats, etc.
    The AP should be sued for 100 billion dollars for violating the privacy of these people.
    The AP staffer who published this information should be fired.

  5. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here|Find More|Find More Informations here|There you will find 34672 more Informations|Informations to that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/05/media-violates-veep-fires-back/ […]

  6. … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on|Find More|Find More Informations here|There you will find 28107 more Informations|Informations to that Topic: sarahpalin.com/2017/03/05/media-violates-veep-fires-back/ […]

  7. I am glad that I have observed this blog. Ultimately anything not a crap, which we understand quite usually. The web site is lovingly maintained and up to date. So it really should be, thank you for this welcome transform.

  8. Oh my goodness! an amazing article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing issue with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting identical rss problem? Anyone who knows kindly respond. thanks

  9. I just wanted to compose a quick message so as to express gratitude to you for all the wonderful tricks you are showing on this site. My prolonged internet research has at the end of the day been honored with reasonable know-how to share with my companions. I ‘d say that we website visitors actually are undeniably fortunate to be in a superb community with so many perfect people with helpful techniques. I feel very lucky to have used your entire webpage and look forward to plenty of more cool minutes reading here. Thank you once more for all the details.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here