4 ms·

is there an editorial they could have written that would advance their opinion about clemency and not been treacherous? I think the nature of the opinion itsel

by maldeh 10y ago

is there an editorial they could have written that would advance their opinion about clemency and not been treacherous? I think the nature of the opinion itself makes it an unavoidable binary of betrayal / non-betrayal here, since to say now that the leaks were unjustified, is a complete reversal from their prior implicit stance. Given that Snowden approached them for editorial oversight, and they made the executive decisions to publish some documents, to declare later that those same reports were illegal would have to be a betrayal of their source's trust by definition, regardless of whether it is justified, moral or correct. I agree that hypocrisy is an independent dimension. They could do a complete moral cleansing by taking responsibility for their actions, but even that wouldn't negate the betrayal. As an aside, I am not put off by the treachery or disloyalty as much (since that can be inevitable at times - Snowden himself betrayed his employers out of his moral convictions), just WaPo's intellectual dishonesty as they went about it.

tptacek 10y ago
Apart from outing an anonymous one or altering the information they provide, what does it mean to "betray" a source? I keep asking this and not getting a clear response. In accepting documents from Snowden and profiting from them, did the Post assume an obligation never to advocate against Snowden's interests? If you believe that to be the case, could you support that argument with evidence? Is this a rule of journalism I'm not acquainted with?
- tlb 10y ago
  Surely not. For instance, the Washington Post published the Unabomber's manifesto, but wouldn't have made any argument against prosecuting him.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    Wellll, that was a very different situation. Ted Kaczynski was not a leaker. They published it in the hope that someone would recognize it and identify him -- which is exactly what happened.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      That is not why they published the Unibomber Manifesto. They published it because it was news.
      - ScottBurson 10y ago
        Of course I don't know what was in their hearts when they made the decision, but their public statement was to the contrary: Donald E. Graham, The Post's publisher, and Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, said they jointly decided to publish the document "for public safety reasons" after meeting last Wednesday with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. [...] "From the beginning, the two newspapers have consulted closely on the issue of whether to publish under the threat of violence. We have also consulted law enforcement officials," Graham and Sulzberger said in a joint statement. "Both the attorney general and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have now recommended that we print this document for public safety reasons, and we have agreed to do so." [...] "Neither paper would have printed this document for journalistic reasons," Graham said in an interview. "We thought there was an obvious public safety issue involved and therefore sought the advice of responsible federal officials. We are printing it for public safety reasons, not journalistic reasons." [0] Okay, this doesn't explicitly support my impression that the possibility of getting a lead in the case was specifically suggested in prospect as a reason to publish, though some Wikipedia editor thinks that was the case ("[Freeh and Reno] recommended publication out of concern for public safety and in hopes that a reader could identify the author" [1]; it's not clear what citation this is based on). But it does seem to indicate that if their motives were as you suggest, they managed to keep that fact to themselves. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.decsn.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Socie...
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    Weren't they asked to do so by the FBI?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The FBI recommended they publish it, after the Kaczynski sent it with a note threatening to kill more people if no newspaper published.
- maldeh 10y ago
  You're right that they don't have a bunch of obligations to stick by Snowden through legal challenges. Yes, it is ethically acceptable to publish public-interest excerpts from a source they believe is intrinsically illegal. They can also loudly have problems with the way he engaged with other media actors (a la publishing overly sensitive information) and still have a relationship with their source. Their contract with him is purely "do your best to mine and publish what you believe to be in the public interest from this trove of (possibly illegal) data". Simply put, you can say WaPo initially betrayed Snowden by (in their mind) publishing sensitive info (betrayal by incompetence). If their present thesis is correct, then they were intimately involved in increasing public harm from the leaks. At this juncture they had a number of options to make things right by their perception, but the one they chose was to attribute all blame to him (betrayal by deception). Not that Snowden had some special right not to be betrayed. He engaged with a lot of media actors, laid a lot of trust by their sense of journalistic ethics, and had to have accepted the risk of whatever fallout could happen from some of the outlets not acting in a trustworthy manner (mitigated by how selectively he involved people). That one of them "betrayed" him by not doing their job well, or pointing fingers at him is not really interesting. Again, I find the WaPo's dishonesty about their own role more interesting.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > In accepting documents from Snowden and profiting from them, did the Post assume an obligation never to advocate against Snowden's interests? That's too broad. The question is whether the Post assumed an obligation not to advocate for Snowden to be prosecuted for leaking the specific material they chose to publish. I don't know what "evidence" would apply to a moral argument, but it seems like common sense to me. If I help you commit a crime, what moral standing do I have to publicly call for your prosecution?

by maldeh 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Apart from outing an anonymous one or altering the information they provide, what does it mean to "betray" a source? I keep asking this and not getting a clear response. In accepting documents from Snowden and profiting from them, did the Post assume an obligation never to advocate against Snowden's interests? If you believe that to be the case, could you support that argument with evidence? Is this a rule of journalism I'm not acquainted with?

tlb 10y ago
Surely not. For instance, the Washington Post published the Unabomber's manifesto, but wouldn't have made any argument against prosecuting him.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Wellll, that was a very different situation. Ted Kaczynski was not a leaker. They published it in the hope that someone would recognize it and identify him -- which is exactly what happened.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That is not why they published the Unibomber Manifesto. They published it because it was news.
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      Of course I don't know what was in their hearts when they made the decision, but their public statement was to the contrary: Donald E. Graham, The Post's publisher, and Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, said they jointly decided to publish the document "for public safety reasons" after meeting last Wednesday with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. [...] "From the beginning, the two newspapers have consulted closely on the issue of whether to publish under the threat of violence. We have also consulted law enforcement officials," Graham and Sulzberger said in a joint statement. "Both the attorney general and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have now recommended that we print this document for public safety reasons, and we have agreed to do so." [...] "Neither paper would have printed this document for journalistic reasons," Graham said in an interview. "We thought there was an obvious public safety issue involved and therefore sought the advice of responsible federal officials. We are printing it for public safety reasons, not journalistic reasons." [0] Okay, this doesn't explicitly support my impression that the possibility of getting a lead in the case was specifically suggested in prospect as a reason to publish, though some Wikipedia editor thinks that was the case ("[Freeh and Reno] recommended publication out of concern for public safety and in hopes that a reader could identify the author" [1]; it's not clear what citation this is based on). But it does seem to indicate that if their motives were as you suggest, they managed to keep that fact to themselves. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.decsn.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Industrial_Socie...
- blackguardx 10y ago
  Weren't they asked to do so by the FBI?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The FBI recommended they publish it, after the Kaczynski sent it with a note threatening to kill more people if no newspaper published.
maldeh 10y ago
You're right that they don't have a bunch of obligations to stick by Snowden through legal challenges. Yes, it is ethically acceptable to publish public-interest excerpts from a source they believe is intrinsically illegal. They can also loudly have problems with the way he engaged with other media actors (a la publishing overly sensitive information) and still have a relationship with their source. Their contract with him is purely "do your best to mine and publish what you believe to be in the public interest from this trove of (possibly illegal) data". Simply put, you can say WaPo initially betrayed Snowden by (in their mind) publishing sensitive info (betrayal by incompetence). If their present thesis is correct, then they were intimately involved in increasing public harm from the leaks. At this juncture they had a number of options to make things right by their perception, but the one they chose was to attribute all blame to him (betrayal by deception). Not that Snowden had some special right not to be betrayed. He engaged with a lot of media actors, laid a lot of trust by their sense of journalistic ethics, and had to have accepted the risk of whatever fallout could happen from some of the outlets not acting in a trustworthy manner (mitigated by how selectively he involved people). That one of them "betrayed" him by not doing their job well, or pointing fingers at him is not really interesting. Again, I find the WaPo's dishonesty about their own role more interesting.
ScottBurson 10y ago
> In accepting documents from Snowden and profiting from them, did the Post assume an obligation never to advocate against Snowden's interests? That's too broad. The question is whether the Post assumed an obligation not to advocate for Snowden to be prosecuted for leaking the specific material they chose to publish. I don't know what "evidence" would apply to a moral argument, but it seems like common sense to me. If I help you commit a crime, what moral standing do I have to publicly call for your prosecution?