Earnest: I'll say a couple (of) things about that. The first is as it relates to the threat level. This is a decision that's made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that he makes a decision about raising or lowering the terror threat level based on available intelligence. I don't know of any plans to make a change to the terror threat level, but I would encourage you to check with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to verify that.
What I can tell you is that today's events in Paris, that are so tragic, are a reminder of how important it is for everybody to be vigilant about the threats that we face. I don't say that to hint that somehow the French fell short of needed vigilance, only that today's tragic terror attack is an indication of just how serious a threat we face. And there are men and women in the US national security infrastructure that are working around the clock to try to protect the American people and American interests both here at home and around the world.
Also Read
The threat that we face is serious, but what we have is strong international cooperation with our partners around the globe to try to mitigate the threat that is posed by foreign fighters. We are working very closely with leaders in the Muslim community, both at home and around the world, to try to counter the violent extremist messaging that ISIL (Islamic State) and other extremist organisations are using to try to radicalise individuals around the globe.
There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalise individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are. And obviously, we're still trying to figure out exactly, who's responsible for this attack in Paris, what their motivations are.
The President briefed about it?
Earnest: The President did have a Presidential Daily Briefing in the Oval Office this morning. That was the first opportunity that he had to meet in person with his national security team. And as you would expect, there was extensive discussion of this issue then.
Were there any specific threats to news organisations or other groups in the United States that you guys are looking at?
Earnest: There are no specific pieces of credible information that I'm aware of that we are paying particular attention to now. That said, as I mentioned in answer to Angela's question, we do continue to be very vigilant about this and there is a very active effort to monitor communications from ISIL that are made in public forums, to use our network of tools and our links to other countries that have a sophisticated intelligence infrastructure to try to monitor exactly what threats are emerging.
So this is something that we're carefully watching. And this is obviously something that our intelligence community watches closely and something that the DHS is obviously on top of.
This obviously isn't the first news organisation that has published something that's been deemed offensive to Muslims. I'm wondering what the President thinks - whether he thinks that new organisations have any responsibility to not publish similar cartoons or articles, or whether that should be a decision that news organisations can (inaudible) regardless of threats.
Earnest: Well, let me start by saying that there is no legitimate act of journalism, however offensive some people might find
That said, it is up to media organisations to make their own decisions about what they choose to publish, about what stories they choose to pursue, and what sort of commentary they want to broadcast about the world and about their government.
And we believe very deeply in the importance of a free and independent media. It's hard to imagine the President putting himself into a position where he's offering advice or even direction about what should or should not be published by legitimate, independent journalists. That's up to journalists to decide. It doesn't mean that the President, as we've discussed, likes every single thing that's published. But there is no piece of responsible journalism that, again, no matter how offensive some people may find it, that legitimises an act of violence.
Does he find it different from what happened with the situation with North Korea and "The Interview" movie, where he said that he thought that the movie should be released? He was putting himself in that position. You're saying that he wouldn't put himself in that position over journalism?
Earnest: I do think I would draw a bit of a distinction between entertainment - an entertainment company and something that would be more clearly branded as journalism. There are probably graduate-level courses in trying to draw these kinds of lines, so I'm going to hesitate to do that. But I do think there's a difference between those two things. I think that even in the case of the decision that Sony had to make about "The Interview" the President indicated that he disagreed with the decision that they had made, but the President made no bones about the fact that that was a decision that can and should be exercised by the leader of that company. And I don't think the President, despite his outward criticism of the decision they made, wanted to leave anybody with the impression that he was trying to suggest that he's the one who should have made that decision instead.
Edited excerpts from US Press Secretary Josh Earnest's briefing to the press aboard the Air Force One, en route to Detroit, Michigan, January 7, 2015