3 ms·

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publ

by tootie 4y ago

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoing investigations. Although it was never proven true, the Washington Times was accused of helping Osama bin Laden by revealing that US intelligence could track his satellite phone. In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
VictorPath 4y ago
> national security information The word national security used to mean protecting a country just invaded, then moved to troops on the border looking like they'll invade. Now you've stretched it to the government doing mass surveillance on its citizens (and storing it forever). During COINTELPRO, Hoover and his secret political police in the FBI spied on and worked to anonymously disrupt feminist groups and other political organizations, and this is just a continuation of that - set up in secret incidentally. I don't see how some elite trying to set up a police state to exert political control has anything to do with national security. Luckily the FBI raided Trump recently, so Republican wariness may have them go back to that old idea of a Republican secretary of state that "gentlemen do not read each others' mail".
nimbius 4y ago
>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. not true. media organizations that do not report in accordance with and to the governments favour may lose preferential access to press conferences as retaliation. their parent companies, viacom, CBS, and Warner for example, may lose the cooperation of the government on their next latest action film which may deny them access to state parks or military equipment and bases for filming and props. When you publish something the government doesnt like, they can also just straight up seize your profits from that material as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-profits-edward-snowden-book-2019-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-prof... television news in the united states is under no objective requirement to serve the public interest in the 21st century. the news was originally provided as part of a service to the mandate from the FCC that license holders contribute to the public good, but modern news is partisan, divisive, appeals extensively to emotion, and uses manipulative scare tactics to drive viewership and ratings with a combination of conjecture and talk shows.
- Retric 4y ago
  Your link is about contract law. The suit says Snowden had a contract to do X, news agencies don’t have such contracts. What the article doesn’t make clear is a publishing company could keep their profits from the book, the government only has a case for Snowden.
- tootie 4y ago
  I didn't say "television news" I said "reputable media". And no, none of them have any legal obligation whatsoever to do anything really (aside from slander/libel). What they do and don't publish is weighed against their mission and their reputation. If the mission is "spread outrage and generate ad revenue" they'll publish whatever sounds sexy. I (full disclosure) work for a non-profit newsroom that has a genuine mission to serve public interest and if we were ever perceived not to be, we'd be abandoned by our donors and disappear. But even orgs that have genuine principles guiding them can still make mistakes.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
    - hourago 4y ago
      > what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access. The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care about such high quality news as long as it follows some ideological line. Lack of access is important, but readers are way more important.
colechristensen 4y ago
There are real cases where this is true and it's the responsibility of a news organization to weigh the public good against the consequences of sharing information and being very selective about what secrets to publish. You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by publishing literally everything they get their hands on (Wikileaks) or acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice). I would argue that neither extreme count as journalists. >I don't think that's much of a revelation. Absolutely, they basically wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask. Asking is a lot different than many other tactics.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by ... acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice). But this is what they are actually doing. They saw some time ago that being in conflict with the state does not help revenue.
mercy_dude 4y ago
Of course and that’s how we get our civil rights eroded. Revolving door between security apparatus and news agency. Why do the media have fifth amendment protection then I may ask.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. I would reformulate that so that security agencies have to do that calculus too and it is suspected that they do often calculate wrongly. There is not a single example contrary to more information available to the public. There can be exceptions for immediate cases, but if you rely on information to stay hidden from the public for an extended period of time, it is a fault in your security architecture.

by tootie 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

VictorPath 4y ago

> national security information The word national security used to mean protecting a country just invaded, then moved to troops on the border looking like they'll invade. Now you've stretched it to the government doing mass surveillance on its citizens (and storing it forever). During COINTELPRO, Hoover and his secret political police in the FBI spied on and worked to anonymously disrupt feminist groups and other political organizations, and this is just a continuation of that - set up in secret incidentally. I don't see how some elite trying to set up a police state to exert political control has anything to do with national security. Luckily the FBI raided Trump recently, so Republican wariness may have them go back to that old idea of a Republican secretary of state that "gentlemen do not read each others' mail".

nimbius 4y ago

>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. not true. media organizations that do not report in accordance with and to the governments favour may lose preferential access to press conferences as retaliation. their parent companies, viacom, CBS, and Warner for example, may lose the cooperation of the government on their next latest action film which may deny them access to state parks or military equipment and bases for filming and props. When you publish something the government doesnt like, they can also just straight up seize your profits from that material as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-profits-edward-snowden-book-2019-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-prof... television news in the united states is under no objective requirement to serve the public interest in the 21st century. the news was originally provided as part of a service to the mandate from the FCC that license holders contribute to the public good, but modern news is partisan, divisive, appeals extensively to emotion, and uses manipulative scare tactics to drive viewership and ratings with a combination of conjecture and talk shows.

Retric 4y ago
Your link is about contract law. The suit says Snowden had a contract to do X, news agencies don’t have such contracts. What the article doesn’t make clear is a publishing company could keep their profits from the book, the government only has a case for Snowden.
tootie 4y ago
I didn't say "television news" I said "reputable media". And no, none of them have any legal obligation whatsoever to do anything really (aside from slander/libel). What they do and don't publish is weighed against their mission and their reputation. If the mission is "spread outrage and generate ad revenue" they'll publish whatever sounds sexy. I (full disclosure) work for a non-profit newsroom that has a genuine mission to serve public interest and if we were ever perceived not to be, we'd be abandoned by our donors and disappear. But even orgs that have genuine principles guiding them can still make mistakes.
- Kranar 4y ago
  You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
  - hourago 4y ago
    > what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access. The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care about such high quality news as long as it follows some ideological line. Lack of access is important, but readers are way more important.

colechristensen 4y ago

There are real cases where this is true and it's the responsibility of a news organization to weigh the public good against the consequences of sharing information and being very selective about what secrets to publish. You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by publishing literally everything they get their hands on (Wikileaks) or acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice). I would argue that neither extreme count as journalists. >I don't think that's much of a revelation. Absolutely, they basically wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask. Asking is a lot different than many other tactics.

hulitu 4y ago
> You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by ... acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice). But this is what they are actually doing. They saw some time ago that being in conflict with the state does not help revenue.

mercy_dude 4y ago

Of course and that’s how we get our civil rights eroded. Revolving door between security apparatus and news agency. Why do the media have fifth amendment protection then I may ask.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

> very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. I would reformulate that so that security agencies have to do that calculus too and it is suspected that they do often calculate wrongly. There is not a single example contrary to more information available to the public. There can be exceptions for immediate cases, but if you rely on information to stay hidden from the public for an extended period of time, it is a fault in your security architecture.