This reaction is actually scarier to me than the initial surveillance. NPR and NYT are usually sources of very solid journalism, the fact that they would drop the real story for some gossip about Snowden implies that someone is able to successfully exert pressure on these organizations.
The surveillance alone leaves the possibility that one agency has started to go to far, but this more systematic reaction indicates that the trouble is deeper and more wide-spread.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
For what it's worth, I think the principle of journalists being unbiased dates from the latter half of the 19th century. I may be wrong, but my understanding was that the press was explicitly and formally partisan up until that time. Here's the only support I can find for that after a few minutes searching ...
A cynical view would be that a public devotion to Objectivity is the perfect vessel for concealing an ideological agenda. (Look how proudly Fox News wears its "Fair & Balanced" slogan.)
But I think there have always been a select few responsible journalists of conscience, who have had to weather different obstacles in trying to be heard amongst the throng of schills and entertainers. The golden age of journalism from the 40s to 70s is (a) probably not as golden as remembered, and (b) probably the anomaly rather than the norm.
All I can say is, thank the gods for the web. While it can also be used for evil, at least it makes it hard to shut people up.
My guess is that the idea of objectivity started around the 1890's, when people like Pulitzer and Hearst realized they could sell cheap newspapers funded by advertising and do without the support of the local political machines. But I don't have any support for that idea.
Or NPR, The NYT etc. aren't as good a sources of news as you think, and you just haven't noticed until they covered a story in your domain that you are passionate about. I used to listen to NPR everyday. In my opinion they are one of the better sources of news in America, but they are far far far from unbiased. They are very good at making it look like they are showing all sides, but they are in fact presenting things in away that supports their ideological bent.
I clicked the up-arrow next to your comment as hard as I could without breaking my mouse.
I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range.
I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.
I once was in a building that had a natural gas leak and subsequent explosion. I then watched the local news coverage about it on several channels. Every one got the facts wrong, the story wrong, about everything wrong.
I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me:
1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host.
2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone.
I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.
I'm Bulgarian too. Born in Sofia. Btw have you been keeping up with what's been happening there with government corruption? Billions missing. The insane electric bills. Bribing the gypsies to throw human feces into the anti-government protestor crowd. It's on the news stations. My parents have DJTacho.com which streams to the US. The children of the communists that once ruled basically raped and pillaged BG for anything left. And spent 100 million on surveillance/spying equipment.
Absolutely. As a young liberal in the 1990s, I listened to NPR fervently until I worked in the post-war Balkans and came to realize that most of their reporting there was total bunk. At present, they have a strong pro-government bias (particularly when that government is Democrat) and seem much more interested in weaving a beautiful narrative than in reporting the facts. I stopped listened to them several years ago -- and switched from liberal to libertarian (or at the least a civil liberties-driven liberal).
NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion.
All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.
I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this.
Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening.
That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.
The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours.
You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly.
As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia").
You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement.
What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document.
There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
> You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement.
You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy).
Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest.
Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified.
> There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part.
Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either.
I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense.
By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults.
You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact".
I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that.
By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly?
Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other.
I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious.
If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment?
That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here>
I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be.
The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do.
No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.
Hi. I'm a member of the US Militia. You probably are too, if you're a male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. See the Militia Act of 1792. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 (Edit: this was reiterated by the Militia Act of 1903)
I agree completely. NPR is as good as it gets on US radio or TV (the competition is very weak) but has a decidedly pro-establishment and pro-government bias. This will make them particularly conflicted on the spying issue.
This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator.
On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you.
Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint.
All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views.
b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Michelle Norris took a leave of absence from All Things Considered during the campaign - I listened to the show in which she announced this and the reason for it. I very rarely watch Morning Joe, but the show doesn't hide the fact that Mika Brzezinski is the daughter of a former NSA.
Not a fan of Mika Brzezinski but you're being unfair in calling these unreported relationships. How would you suggest they go about reporting these relationships?
1) I think most people were surprised by her sudden leave of absence. Did you know before her announcement how cozy her husband was with the administration she covered every day for 3 years plus the 2008 campaign?
2) I don't watch MSNBC - you do. I was referring to the AP article linked as [6] above where Mika attacks the Guardian reporter. That is why [b] was next to that link. Mika's father was not mentioned there. I just recognized the last name and checked - bingo! Did you look before calling me "unfair"? Guess not - sigh!
I was referring to the AP article linked as [6] above where Mika attacks the Guardian reporter.
That's ridiculous! She isn't even quoted in that article. Here's the paragraph you're referring to:
On "Morning Joe," he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using "Obama talking points" when she challenged him with a question.
Do you really expect a reference to her father's former post anytime she's mentioned in an article?
Did you know before her announcement how cozy her husband was with the administration she covered every day for 3 years plus the 2008 campaign?
Michele Norris announced her leave of absence soon after her husband accepted a position with the Obama campaign in 2011 [1][2]. Admittedly the journalist/politician-lobbyist relationship thing is troubling and she didn't take a leave of absence in 2008 when he was an unpaid adviser, although she did in 2004 when her husband worked with the Kerry campaign [3].
And no, I don't watch MSNBC, or any of the other toy news networks. But three years ago, when I still had a TV and paid more attention to politics, I would occasionally watch that show while I got ready for the day. Mika is a lightweight, you can hardly call her a journalist. But even she shouldn't have to have her father's name tattooed to her forehead for the rest of her life.
You're creating a false dichotomy. NPR and NYT have consistently reported on overreaches from the government, including past bad behavior from the NSA and on PRISM (see links below). The leak itself and the details surrounding it are significant, both from a human-interest perspective and from a historical perspective - meaning, it will be in history books. I would be disappointed if news sources weren't covering it.
But my point here is they have been covering PRISM, not just Snowden.
You're absolutely right, and I've been intentionally avoiding a lot of mainstream news sources on this so my overall picture is mostly what I've been reading about what people are reporting.
I also don't mean to come across as overly paranoid, I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand.
However this is the place in the news cycle where we've gotten over the initial shock, and start wanting to focus our energy on something. This would ideally be the part of the processes where we collectively ask "Now what do we do to make sure the NSA stops this?" But instead the question is "Hey, what can we find if we look through Snowden's laundry".
And the thing that I find really interesting is that Snowden's laundry is very boring. Painting Assange as extremely arrogant and only using Wikileaks to feed is own egomania, while also being a potential rapists feeling from justice is an interesting story. Snowden having no HS degree and doesn't get along with his neighbors? Not so much.
They may not have had "men in suits" with a pre-written story - but Woolsey [Ex CIA Head] was on NPR yesterday. I KNEW that he was going to provide a slant for people to be swayed by - so I took notes:
The first thing he said was that Snowden was, by this release, attempting to make the decision for us about having this information public and this was "extraordinarily terrible" that he would "make the decision for us"
Then he said that this action "makes it easier for terrorists to avoid being monitored" because Snowden was explaining exactly how the monitored communications actually get monitored and thus terrorists will be able to avoid it.
Then he went on to repeatedly state how "full of himself" and arrogant Snowden is. He said that he is so full of himself that he thinks he is better than both congress and the president. He said "he is so full of himself that he barely even knows what actual good conscious is!"
He said that "collection is NOT eavesdropping" and the scope of this collection is due to the new world we live in. He said that for normal people it shouldnt matter - if you talk to some friend every day but then out of the blue you call a terrorist, then a red flag is raised.
I had to drop the convo at this point as I had a Dr. appt..
The guy was an utter joke - the level of palpable disdain and contempt for Snowden was almost unbearable.
Many knew that the smear campaign was going to start - it was even posted about a couple days ago on /r/conspiracy.
In this video - Woolsey even says "we are not focused on terrorists" -- He is a tool.
I heard the whole thing and it did not get better. It was rather uncomfortable in how the interviewer just basically let him go with whatever statement or rant he wanted to make. Little to no follow-ups, no interjections or disagreements that I recall, nor any real thoughtful questions.
It was as if both were reading lines from a cue card.
EDIT: Also, just remembering, at least once he was allowed to not answer a direct question by rambling on with rhetoric that had little to do with the question. Plus, he tried to pass off the idea that Snowden only saw a small section of the big picture so that he had no idea what the total represented, meaning he couldn't possibly know if it were bad or not, but at the same time it was totally devastating to the country's security that he leaked what he did know.
Absolutely nailed it with this comment, wish I could upvote this more than once. How is it still the case that nobody is doing anything about this? Is there anything we can do about it?
I mean, did anyone read the David Brooks article that was linked to? It was absolutely ridiculously stupid, and David Brooks is a very intelligent guy and experienced reporter -- there's got to be something going on there.
How could we all be so short-sighted as to focus on literally anything about Snowden, when anything about his personal life (which, as you mentioned, there is very little of any consequence) is dwarfed in importance by the fact that there's a gigantic network of lies around the government spying on us that still nobody has officially fessed up to?
I too was shocked.. David Brooks took some weird slant on the guy not reflecting well before taking action, and betraying his family yadda yadda.
Basically a character assassination, rather than looking at the issue.
I think its pretty obvious the material was filtered pretty well..theres basically no hard facts there, bare minimum to support the claim. Which I think is responsible whistle-blowing.
David Brooks is among the most disgustingly boot-licking, power-worshiping authoritarians I've ever read in print, so his reaction here was not surprising at all. As always, here he is whining that people won't just shut up and trust the existing institutions and power structures without stopping to question whether they have earned that trust.
> I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand.
Funny thing is that they probably did. They get there every day, with pre-written stories from several different sources. You can hire them for some $10k a month if you want. (I'm just not sure that they use suits.)
True. I remember when Newswipe had a story on how news are made. It's not a pretty story. From their tales, most reporters don't report, but pay PR firms to pretty much write the article for them.
The articles are probably indistinguishable from real reports for most audiences, so reporters lap it up like milk. I mean why write, when you can pay someone else to write them for you?
As far as I know, and according to noam Chomsky, the NYT is good journalism defined the "American" way, for it always paints the US as "the great, always correct" freedom fighters.
Where was the NYT coverage when:
The US vetoed UN ban on nuclear weapon development? Where was it when it vetoed UN ban on weapons from outer space? Where was it when the US intentionally shot down a commercial Iranian airliner?
yes, exactly, it was non existent.
a good read with a lot more information and a lot of sources also is Noam Chomsky's book: Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky, truly a great read!
I would have to disagree with that one. In my experience the New York Times' definition of "the great, always correct American way" is based solely on whether they like the people in power at the time. The NYT is always quick on the disagreement if it's about a group of people they don't like. If the same actions are performed by the agreeable group then all's well.
I agree that NPR is more reputable than most US news organizations (and I have pledged money in the past), but there was at least one incident (in the late 1990s) of Army PSYOP soldiers "interning" at NPR and CNN.
drop the real story for some gossip about Snowden implies that someone is able to successfully exert pressure on these organizations.
Oh what did they drop? The leak happened they reported it. They reported the government's response. They reported Google and FB's response. There is now a massive manhunt for Snowden, they are covering that too. The only thing I am aware of that I haven't heard on NPR is the EFF and Co lawsuit. Since the EFF announcement was just today it maybe a day or two until they pick it up. What obvious and valid source of info have they not covered?
The leak is not the story. The story is the substance behind the leak, you know, the spying program. There's so much there that hasn't been explored and properly reported on yet.
You notice the corruption of mass media when they cover a subject you are closely familiar with, but the general population can be easily misled on (say, political situation in an obscure corner of the world). They don't try too hard to be careful and maintain plausible deniability in these cases, and go for outright lies and extremely biased pieces. I've seen this happen too many times across a variety of news outlets, which makes me very skeptical of everything else I hear on the news. This recent scandal is not helping their image either.
When you see an institution reacting in ways that you think are completely backwards, you shouldn't immediately assume that (a) they secretly think like you (b) they are being pressured to say otherwise.
Institutions filter out people who don't agree with their mindset at the interview stage. Or later on, if they have a noticeably different attitude, it becomes an impediment to career success.
The higher up you go, the more journalists feel themselves to be part of the governmental system, and the more they come from the same background as the people they are interviewing.
Ironically, this is why whistleblowers are so rare in the first place.
why do you assume that someone is exerting pressure? NPR and NYT are very much "establishment" media outlets that have deep dependence on the government unilaterally from their side.
But the more important point is: the snowden revelations are dangerous to their status quo (if only marginally so). It takes incredible willpower and self-discipline to fight the natural reaction to do anything but think about whatever is threatening to upend the reality that you are comfortable with. This is often true even if the new reality stands to your benefit.
There's no need for the government to exert pressure for this to be happening.
The surveillance alone leaves the possibility that one agency has started to go to far, but this more systematic reaction indicates that the trouble is deeper and more wide-spread.