2 ms·
But he didn't published anything, that's what so great about Snowden's story. He shared documents with journalists and let them chose if it was worth publishing
by BiteCode_dev 4y ago
But he didn't published anything, that's what so great about Snowden's story. He shared documents with journalists and let them chose if it was worth publishing, and moral to do so. He worked in the way the system was supposed to work.
- photochemsyn 4y agoYou don't need some special government certification or corporate media job to be a journalist, do you? And why should 'responsible journalists' be the only ones who get to look at spuriously classified documents? We all know that over-classification with the goal of hiding corruption or incompetence is very common. A journalist may need a reputation to be taken as a reliable source of information... but I don't believe WikiLeaks has had to retract any documents as fake, unlike say, the New York Times on the claims of Iraqi WMDs, or dozens of other examples over the years by 'leading corporate media outlets'.
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoThat's the whole purpose of journalism: look at facts, analyse, report to the public, and balance other powers in place. What did you think journalist were for, repeating gov and companies press conferences? For once the system has been used as it's supposed to, and it has never been more criticized.
- pessimizer 4y agoAre you replying to the right comment? I have no idea what this is supposed to be an answer to or a comment on, and I have no idea what system you think is working, or who you think has the authority to assign journalists a "purpose."
- pessimizer 4y agoThe way the system is supposed to work is a desperate run from US authorities, ending up trapped in a country that the US is hostile to? Sounds like Snowden and Assange did it the same way.