3 ms·

This article is almost a conspiracy itself! Haha I really went through it slowly, and unless I missed something...it really doesn't seem to read the government

This article is almost a conspiracy itself! Haha I really went through it slowly, and unless I missed something...it really doesn't seem to read the government was repressing documents...more they just struggled to find all the emails. From what I can tell no document was revealed which shows Snowden really raised concerns in the way he claims. The title of the article is definitely misleading and sensationalist.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> The title of the article is definitely misleading and sensationalist. I had forgotten what the title was in the process of reading the article. You're right, it's a near perfect example of spun journalism. Consider the following: > Because none of the people interviewed by the NSA in the wake of the leaks said that "Snowden mentioned a specific NSA program," and "many" of the people interviewed "affirmed that he never complained about any NSA program," the NSA's counterintelligence chief concluded that these conversations about the Constitution and privacy did not amount to raising concerns about the NSA's spying activities. > That was the basis for the agency's public assertions — including those made by Ledgett during a TED talk later that month — that Snowden never attempted to voice his concerns about the scope of NSA surveillance while at the agency. Note the infrequent 'Because ... Than ...' type of construct -- but that a particular fact is selected for the 'Because ...' clause it inclines the reader to believe that something is being omitted or hidden from public view (one spuriously continues reading the article hoping to find what it was) - but all the reader gets is: > Snowden declined to answer a number of very specific questions for this story. The whole article is written as if something is hidden, omitted and about to come into view! How else to justify the headline title!? But there's really nothing at all.
someguydave 10y ago
Yes I agree it was misleading. At most the article established that the US government was making statements that implied a greater certainty than what they had.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> The title of the article is definitely misleading and sensationalist. I had forgotten what the title was in the process of reading the article. You're right, it's a near perfect example of spun journalism. Consider the following: > Because none of the people interviewed by the NSA in the wake of the leaks said that "Snowden mentioned a specific NSA program," and "many" of the people interviewed "affirmed that he never complained about any NSA program," the NSA's counterintelligence chief concluded that these conversations about the Constitution and privacy did not amount to raising concerns about the NSA's spying activities. > That was the basis for the agency's public assertions — including those made by Ledgett during a TED talk later that month — that Snowden never attempted to voice his concerns about the scope of NSA surveillance while at the agency. Note the infrequent 'Because ... Than ...' type of construct -- but that a particular fact is selected for the 'Because ...' clause it inclines the reader to believe that something is being omitted or hidden from public view (one spuriously continues reading the article hoping to find what it was) - but all the reader gets is: > Snowden declined to answer a number of very specific questions for this story. The whole article is written as if something is hidden, omitted and about to come into view! How else to justify the headline title!? But there's really nothing at all.

someguydave 10y ago

Yes I agree it was misleading. At most the article established that the US government was making statements that implied a greater certainty than what they had.