4 ms·

The NYTimes was not "privileged" enough to have been a part of this new leak. To me this is them displaying their sour grapes. I also don't believe it was any

by swalsh 11y ago

The NYTimes was not "privileged" enough to have been a part of this new leak. To me this is them displaying their sour grapes. I also don't believe it was any accident they were not a part of the leaks. This is not the same paper that published the Watergate burglary.

throwaway2048 11y ago
considering they readily print unconfirmed government propaganda from "anonymous sources", its not surprising. Look how hard they cheer-led Iraq II and an anticipated attack on Iran.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Look how hard they cheer-led Iraq II and an anticipated attack on Iran. For a newspaper that's otherwise pretty progressive on other societal issues, I wonder if it makes any sense for them to be pro-war and all.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    I think you're mistaking a distinct strain of upper class liberalism including a strong neoliberalism for progressivism. Plus an oft servile relationship to power.
  - mafribe 11y ago
    The US upper class tends to be liberal on social issues (e.g. gay marriage), but hawkish on foreign policy, especially as regards the middle east. Media content aligns with the political views of media owners. You can see this clearly at work now when 'progressive' US companies threaten to boycott North Carolina over a ridiculously minor issue to do with who should use what kind of toilet, but are happily trading with Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most repressive regimes. Adding 2 and 2 together gives an indication why the NYT, like most other US mainstream media, cheerled the second Iraq war.
    - greglindahl 11y ago
      I have co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender. So no, it's not a minor issue.
      - mafribe 11y ago
        This strikes my as a parochial viewpoint of a bunch of people riding their first-world privilege. I suggest that you, your co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender spend some time in Saudi-Arabia or on ISIS-controlled territory to get a perspective on what really matters.
orta 11y ago
Agreed, reminds me of this tweet from around the time the panama leaks were first announced, https://twitter.com/Politepix/status/716711380091539461 https://twitter.com/Politepix/status/716711380091539461 > Intriguing about this leak/others: the NYT's decision to suppress their NSA story in 2005 directly robbed them of influence in this decade.
danso 11y ago
The New York Times is quite literally not the paper that published the (main) Watergate story...Watergate came from the Washington Post. Maybe you're thinking of the Pentagon Papers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S... The NYT's public editor looked into the matter here: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-... > I talked Tuesday afternoon with Marina Walker, the deputy director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who told me that her organization’s model – which she calls “radical sharing” – has not proved a good fit for every news organization. In previous projects, she said, ICIJ worked with, or tried to work with, other news organizations, including The Times, and “it wasn’t always a good fit.” > Part of that, she said, is the idea of sharing all material, not keeping anything exclusive. Another part is agreeing to observe embargoes for when material would be published.
- swalsh 11y ago
  You know, you're right... i completely messed that up. Though I think my original intent of the post is right. It's a shame HN doesn't let me go back, and edit my post to hide my shame :D
prawn 11y ago
Might also be the result of staff having a more external view of the leak and resulting stories. The Guardian might have all their resources thrown into covering the detail rather than wondering what it all might mean.
johansch 11y ago
I found this in an NPR morning show: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/05/panama-papers-global-corruption http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/05/panama-papers-global-corr... The part I have transcribed below starts at 23:29. Tom Ashbrook (NPR host): "Gerard, why weren't there more american papers, more american news organizations involved in this investigation - New York Times not part, Washington Post ... not part of it - why not, Gerard?" Gerard Ryle (Director of the ICIJ): "We found it very difficult to get major US newspapers or organizations to collaborate. I guess they feel that they are big enough on their own, they don't need to do this, whereas we found it much easier outside the US to get people to listen to this new way of working. And that's really,... it's been driven by necessity." Tom Ashbrook: "Was it because you weren't prepared to share all the data with these papers?" Gerard Ryle: "No, that's not the issue at all. We were absolutely prepared to share everything from day one. What we want them to do though is join the investigation with us and with our colleagues around the world and go on a journey together. So it's not like go at the very end and give them a fully made story - we make the stories together as we go along."
- johansch 11y ago
  This contrasts quite a bit with: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-... 'Because The Times was not a part of the global consortium and was not aware that the story was coming, it needed some time to get its own story going. “We didn’t know these documents were out there and being worked on,” he said. “We didn’t have access to the documents, and that is a very big issue,” he said. But Mr. Purdy said he hoped, and had good reason to believe, that that would change soon.'
  - cmsmith 11y ago
    Your link goes on to say, in a paraphrased quote corroborated by the NYT: "we approached them in the past for a similar story, and they didn't want to be involved in such a large collaborative effort, so we didn't bother this time around" The NYT can't turn up their noses when they were invited to my birthday party last year, then complain when they don't get invited to my much cooler party this year.
tootie 11y ago
I'd have sour grapes. They ran a much bigger corruption story than the Panama Papers on the day the Papers were released and no one cared. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/americas/insiders-account-of-how-graft-fed-brazils-political-crisis.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/americas/insiders...
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Bigger for who. That kind of story works to US's advantage in negotiations with Brazil. Especially considering leaks showing NSA spying on Petrobas with NSA proponents defending if as necessary due to their corruption.

by swalsh 11y ago

throwaway2048 11y ago

considering they readily print unconfirmed government propaganda from "anonymous sources", its not surprising. Look how hard they cheer-led Iraq II and an anticipated attack on Iran.

ekianjo 11y ago
> Look how hard they cheer-led Iraq II and an anticipated attack on Iran. For a newspaper that's otherwise pretty progressive on other societal issues, I wonder if it makes any sense for them to be pro-war and all.
- x0x0 11y ago
  I think you're mistaking a distinct strain of upper class liberalism including a strong neoliberalism for progressivism. Plus an oft servile relationship to power.
- mafribe 11y ago
  The US upper class tends to be liberal on social issues (e.g. gay marriage), but hawkish on foreign policy, especially as regards the middle east. Media content aligns with the political views of media owners. You can see this clearly at work now when 'progressive' US companies threaten to boycott North Carolina over a ridiculously minor issue to do with who should use what kind of toilet, but are happily trading with Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most repressive regimes. Adding 2 and 2 together gives an indication why the NYT, like most other US mainstream media, cheerled the second Iraq war.
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    I have co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender. So no, it's not a minor issue.
    - mafribe 11y ago
      This strikes my as a parochial viewpoint of a bunch of people riding their first-world privilege. I suggest that you, your co-workers, hacker colleagues, and friends who are transgender spend some time in Saudi-Arabia or on ISIS-controlled territory to get a perspective on what really matters.

orta 11y ago

Agreed, reminds me of this tweet from around the time the panama leaks were first announced, https://twitter.com/Politepix/status/716711380091539461 https://twitter.com/Politepix/status/716711380091539461 > Intriguing about this leak/others: the NYT's decision to suppress their NSA story in 2005 directly robbed them of influence in this decade.

danso 11y ago

The New York Times is quite literally not the paper that published the (main) Watergate story...Watergate came from the Washington Post. Maybe you're thinking of the Pentagon Papers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S... The NYT's public editor looked into the matter here: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-... > I talked Tuesday afternoon with Marina Walker, the deputy director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who told me that her organization’s model – which she calls “radical sharing” – has not proved a good fit for every news organization. In previous projects, she said, ICIJ worked with, or tried to work with, other news organizations, including The Times, and “it wasn’t always a good fit.” > Part of that, she said, is the idea of sharing all material, not keeping anything exclusive. Another part is agreeing to observe embargoes for when material would be published.

swalsh 11y ago
You know, you're right... i completely messed that up. Though I think my original intent of the post is right. It's a shame HN doesn't let me go back, and edit my post to hide my shame :D

prawn 11y ago

Might also be the result of staff having a more external view of the leak and resulting stories. The Guardian might have all their resources thrown into covering the detail rather than wondering what it all might mean.

johansch 11y ago

I found this in an NPR morning show: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/05/panama-papers-global-corruption http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/04/05/panama-papers-global-corr... The part I have transcribed below starts at 23:29. Tom Ashbrook (NPR host): "Gerard, why weren't there more american papers, more american news organizations involved in this investigation - New York Times not part, Washington Post ... not part of it - why not, Gerard?" Gerard Ryle (Director of the ICIJ): "We found it very difficult to get major US newspapers or organizations to collaborate. I guess they feel that they are big enough on their own, they don't need to do this, whereas we found it much easier outside the US to get people to listen to this new way of working. And that's really,... it's been driven by necessity." Tom Ashbrook: "Was it because you weren't prepared to share all the data with these papers?" Gerard Ryle: "No, that's not the issue at all. We were absolutely prepared to share everything from day one. What we want them to do though is join the investigation with us and with our colleagues around the world and go on a journey together. So it's not like go at the very end and give them a fully made story - we make the stories together as we go along."

johansch 11y ago
This contrasts quite a bit with: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-splash-for-panama-papers/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/why-no-big-... 'Because The Times was not a part of the global consortium and was not aware that the story was coming, it needed some time to get its own story going. “We didn’t know these documents were out there and being worked on,” he said. “We didn’t have access to the documents, and that is a very big issue,” he said. But Mr. Purdy said he hoped, and had good reason to believe, that that would change soon.'
- cmsmith 11y ago
  Your link goes on to say, in a paraphrased quote corroborated by the NYT: "we approached them in the past for a similar story, and they didn't want to be involved in such a large collaborative effort, so we didn't bother this time around" The NYT can't turn up their noses when they were invited to my birthday party last year, then complain when they don't get invited to my much cooler party this year.

tootie 11y ago

I'd have sour grapes. They ran a much bigger corruption story than the Panama Papers on the day the Papers were released and no one cared. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/americas/insiders-account-of-how-graft-fed-brazils-political-crisis.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/americas/insiders...

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Bigger for who. That kind of story works to US's advantage in negotiations with Brazil. Especially considering leaks showing NSA spying on Petrobas with NSA proponents defending if as necessary due to their corruption.