31 ms·

The Smears Against Edward Snowden Have Begun

518 points by nqureshi 13y ago

jfoutz 13y ago
How long till we get to the articles about the articles about the smears against Edward Snowden?
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Well, that's essentially what these comments are.
jeremyjh 13y ago
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
- squozzer 13y ago
  You are unorthodox. Eurasia has always been at war with East Asia.
lowmagnet 13y ago
That was the first thing I noticed. I guess we should all look a little closer at the news commentary and ask "Cui bono?"
tropicalmug 13y ago
I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issues at hand.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Indeed, Politico had ran a story about how Snowden himself essentially came to save Obama's day, or at least grant him a short reprieve. I guarantee you by the time attention shifts to Obama again he'll have some better defense and counter-attack for the media narrative prepared (though it will remain to be seen how effective it ends up, I don't see how the extra time can be worse for him).
- notatoad 13y ago
  I imagine he did so out of fear for his life. If the government had learned who he was before he announced it publicly, he would have been disappeared before anybody heard anything. being a public figure means that whatever happens to him will also be public.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    I know people like to accuse the media of having ADHD, but do you really think that people would just forget that the leak had to come from somewhere?
    - beat 13y ago
      Well, it had to come from somewhere. But if that leak happened to be getting waterboarded by our freedom-loving allies in Khazakstan rather than a face and a name, it'd be easier to, um, keep quiet.
      - Kylekramer 13y ago
        That is kind of my point. We know his name, but we always knew there was a person behind it. Snowdon could be captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory, after all it isn't like we expect to hear from him in the public), or an anonymous whistleblower could have been captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory). Having a name out there doesn't change the equation much while distracting from the contents of the leak.
    - andyjohnson0 13y ago
      I think @notatoad meant to write "he would have been disappeared". The implication is that being known to the media means that any retribution by the US government will be visible. Whereas, if he'd remained anonymous, he could have been assassinated or rendered without anyone knowing.
      - notatoad 13y ago
- pekk 13y ago
  Glory. The man has already been canonized and deified. For some people that is irresistible. Alternatively, if he is really smart, this would be excellent chaff to throw up in front of espionage and come up smelling like roses
- Homunculiheaded 13y ago
  I believe part of the thinking was: the leaker will be found eventually, who do you want to start the story about the leaker? If some government agency were to unveil Snowden's identity they could cast him in whatever light they chose from the very first image (who looks like a defender of freedom in a mugshot?) Look what happened to Bradley Manning, the first public image of him was his chat confession and a huge amount of deeply personal details that really had nothing to do with the leak.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Indeed .. although if this is the best that they can come up with, they had better start making stuff up.
LandoCalrissian 13y ago
This is happening in all the news media now. I listen to NPR every day and it's almost insufferable to listen to when they talk about the NSA leak. Very little of the debate is about the actual NSA monitoring program itself, most of of the time they talk about why this leak happened and why Edward Snowden is a "strange" guy. It's completely unbelievable.
- danielcampos93 13y ago
  I fully agree. I find it ridiculous that everyone now is focusing on this man his life, his girlfriend and blah blah blah. The news that is going out about the actual program and what he caused is minuscule. I have seen far more articles and new pieces about how his credit cars are running out, how the Hong Kong government doesn't understand him, how his girlfriend didn't know anything, to that about the PRISM program. Unbelievable.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  Smearing him only strengthens the argument that this program shouldn't have been put in place to begin with. He had access to everything.
- deelowe 13y ago
  Was happening yesterday on my local talk radio station. "Isn't it a bit odd that this guy, a high school drop out somehow got into the NSA? Is he a plant? Isn't it odd that he's taking refuge in a COMMUNIST nation? I think he's a spy. How does a high school dropout get into the nsa?... High school drop out... High school dropout... communist... china..." etc.. Not very hard to see who controls the media these days.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    Doesn't smearing Snowden only justify his leaking of the information? If a communist-spy-high-school-dropout is able to access everyone's private information, what does this say of the NSA program that allowed him to do this?
  - hga 13y ago
pbharrin 13y ago
The fact that he didn't have to complete high school, (he does have a GED) to get a job at Booz paying $200k/year should be speak to his intelligence. I know people with graduate degrees from Harvard that made less than that at the same company.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Yes, this is something that should be mentioned more and stated loud and clear. I gather he was also a CIA employee, which is not granted to everyone and which -I guess- is subject to deep scrutiny by the very government... Unless the CIA is just like in the films: a bunch of retarded authocrats.
- hga 13y ago
  Booz says it is a much more plausible 122K: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/11/contractor-um-snowden-didnt-make-200000/ http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/11/contractor-um-snowden-d... ADDED: or The Guardian could have goofed, 122K in GB Pounds is 190K in US$. A comment to the item I noted he'd only worked for Booz for 3 months.
  - sesteel 13y ago
    There is probably truth on both sides. Intelligence work is well funded by the government. Most government contracting companies hire at salary, but pay by the hour. So, if he was working a lot of overtime, he could have expected to bring in 200K for the coming year.
    - hga 13y ago
      In my experience they really hate to pay overtime, instead, you must put down exactly 40 hours per week. Any less and they can't bill the government the full normal maximum, any more and they have to pay time and a half or more, which the government generally doesn't go for.
      - sesteel 13y ago
kylelibra 13y ago
Ad hominem much? This is inevitable, from what I've seen there aren't any substantial claims being made against him. Conduct in his personal life really sets him apart from Assange.
beat 13y ago
The sub-headline of the dead-tree version of the St Paul Pioneer Press yesterday bothered to point out that he didn't have a high school diploma. Sigh. We must find SOME reason someone would report that America is spying on its own citizens. Couldn't possibly be patriotism. And there must be SOME reason that a guy who isn't formally credentialed by the appropriate authority figures could land a high-paying, important job. Couldn't possibly be talent.
jessedhillon 13y ago
I am so tired of people abusing the phrase ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said. Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education. He was a sys admin, not an engineer. His claims, in that light, do seem bizarre and uninformed. I mean, ffs he seemed to insinuate in the Guardian interview that the NSA keeps a list of undercover assets and he had access to it!? These are the people who created selinux -- if I extend him some credibility, I doubt greatly that he had any real idea what it is he was looking at. Elsewhere he talks about every machine being bugged and things like that. And the tapping he claims to have intimate knowledge of -- that kind of stuff would be happening inside of some kind of data store, maybe like Apache Accumulo which the NSA also developed. Let alone the implications of what he's saying on the security of all crypto systems everywhere -- how many uneducated sys admins do you know who can inspect a data store and actually understand what they're looking at, and also understand deeply how consumer encryption works. And this all presumes that the NSA's systems are so poorly configured that a contractor in HI could access all this. My verdict is that all he had was some slideshow that he turned over to the Guardian, the rest is a bullshit story.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  I am so tired of people abusing the phrase ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said. Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education. He was a sys admin, not an engineer. His claims, in that light, do seem bizarre and uninformed. You've just committed an ad hominem. As if having a piece of paper from a college would make his claims more informed.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  And how do most of these "personal details" actually have anything to do with his credibility? Considering that we know almost nothing about how the NSA/CIA and their ilk actually work internally, the high-school diploma bit may or may not factor into this at all. At any rate, we know the basic details of his story are true, as BAH confirmed that he worked there, and the government has not denied that the PRISM slides and the FISA court order are real. Given what he has shown us so far seems to stand up to scrutiny, I'd say his credibility is fine. A few random people on HN speculating about what the NSA would or wouldn't do, versus now well confirmed knowledge that he did work for the CIA, and for the NSA as a BAH contractor? I'll take the latter as having more weight. And if he didn't have some fairly serious access, how did he get the PRISM slides and the court order in the first place? Anyway... not saying every detail of his story is true, but all things told, I don't see how carping about his high-school education is relevant here. In fact, I don't see how talking about Snowden much at all is relevant here. The story isn't Snowden, the story is PRISM, rubber-stamping by the FISA courts, tech companies possibly in collusion with the NSA to make our nominally "private" data widely available, etc.
mehmehshoe 13y ago
Because of his job skills, Edward had a very small internet footprint. I can imagine this is making a very lazy press very cranky. "How dare this guy not have a FB page"!! The press is going to have to do their job and hit the streets to get a background story on this guy.
hullo 13y ago
It takes Assange-level arrogance to believe that the only reason someone would think that Assange is arrogant is that he's been the victim of a media smear campaign.
- g8oz 13y ago
  And you have to be some kind of mindless sheep to be distracted by his character at the expense of his work.
  - hullo 13y ago
    Well, reasonable people will have to agree to disagree about whether the concept of arrogance is relevant or not to to the wikileaks project. I'd say it's far from a distraction, and in fact it's the key problem with the whole endeavor.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      You're right, we shouldn't talk about the contents of those leaks when we can bicker about whether or not someone is arrogant. We'll put 2 guys on TV, one will take the 'arrogant' side, the other will take the 'non-arrogant' side, and any fair-minded listener can conclude that they're both half-right, the dude is sort of arrogant (or whichever insult), and we'll all just forget about the contents of those cables or the fact that we're being monitored. Brave New World was indeed scarier than 1984. But hey, why not have both?
  - Pinatubo 13y ago
    Speaking of ad hominem attacks ...
- intrazoo 13y ago
  Sure, but the point is Assange should be a side dish to the Wikileak related issues (like civilian casualties, privacy, transparency), and Assange's personality a side dish to their actions and writings/ideas (which I find interesting/fun). "We always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod ... to attract the attacks against the organization for our work, and that is a difficult role. On the other hand, I get undue credit." Julian Assange
MarkHarmon 13y ago
Can we conclude from this that it is better to leak anonymously? On one hand, anonymous leaks might be more immune to character assassination attempts. On the other, having a real live person stand behind the information adds some credibility and possibly deeper understanding of surrounding conditions.
JonFish85 13y ago
I'd be surprised if the government was even behind any of the "smears". To some people, he's a hero. To some, he's a traitor. The people at either extreme have a reason to spread their viewpoint; those who don't care, or who want to wait for more information to come out, simply don't give a voice of reason for the most part. On the other hand, maybe the government can simply call up 5-10 journalists and run the "standard smear campaign".
- hga 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList and it's pretty clear its still running in some fashion.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Influence on journalists is typically not exerted overtly. Journalists know what behaviors are rewarded internally by the media organization (which is itself influenced by the government and corporations), through things like promotions and good work assignments, and externally by the government and corporations, though things like access, social connections and being in the "in" crowd by being invited to exclusive dinners and events. Moreover journalists at these media organizations are selected and retained based largely on whether they are going to support the organization, one aspect of which is being held in a favorable opinion by government leaders.
redcircle 13y ago
I wouldn't call David Brooks' quotes smears. His whole article, perhaps, but not the quotes. The quotes are pieces of evidence in his thesis, which is that Snowden doesn't participate in a community --- Snowden has isolated himself, and that this leak is behavior consistent with someone that has isolated himself from a community. Brooks' outlook on the world tends to be built on models of culture, community, and psychology, and this article is just an application of those models to the particular topic of Snowden. Someone that writes columns tends to have some models that they've developed, and produces new columns by applying those models to current events. In that sense, he is profiting from Snowden's dilemma, and taking advantage of it --- if what Brooks says is true, then what Snowden really needs is support.
vbo 13y ago
That's fine, irrelevant, and expected. At least free speech is still around.
jmduke 13y ago
So, to clarify, it's only called 'smearing someone' if that someone is someone we're on the same side of, right? Otherwise, its called activism or journalism or some other, vaguely more pleasant verb? If you don't think that the fact that Snowden's claims are tempered slightly by the fact that he doesn't have a formal high school or computer science education; hell, why not? I'm not saying that Snowden won't be dragged through the mud, but that's irrespective of what he did, besides the fact that he did anything at all. It's 2013, and 24-hour cable news channels need content: they will say and find anything and everything if it means finding or saying something new. (Also, Brooks and Toobin are both respected journalists and academics. They've both spoken vocally against the current administration, against the PATRIOT Act, and other things.)
- _delirium 13y ago
  David Brooks is a "respected journalist" in the same sense that USA Today is a "respected newspaper"...
  - joonix 13y ago
    He is not even a journalist. He is a pundit, no better than the talking heads on Fox News, he just knows how to dress himself up as an "intellectual" to cater to the NYT/Charlie Rose audience.
    - r00fus 13y ago
      He pretty much "is" the voice of the establishment. If he's saying it, you can bet the military industrial complex shares his opinion.
- lambda 13y ago
  Why should it matter whether he has a high school diploma? That type of attack is precisely the definition of an ad-hominem. The truth of his claims does not depend on whether he has obtained a high school diploma. It depends on whether or not his claims are true. Someone with no high school diploma can tell the truth just as well as someone with a PhD. And it's not like his claims require an advanced education to understand. If he was claiming to have built a cold fusion reactor, that would be one thing; it would be pretty hard to believe that someone without formal education and with no prior results in the area had made such an advance. But all he's claiming is that the systems he administered had the ability to wiretap any given American at his whim. That just takes some basic technical knowledge and being in the right place at the right time.
clarkmoody 13y ago
Anything remotely political has been transformed by the media into this name-calling garbage. Elections turn on people's impression of the character of the candidates, much of the time fueled by irresponsible rumor-reporting by the media. It seems that all you have to do to win the public opinion battle is to resort to schoolyard bully tactics. Maybe it won't work this time...
JonnieCache 13y ago
So what's the link here? Are these reporters actually agents? Are they in the pay of the security services? Are they being blackmailed by the security services? Are they doing it voluntarily, but in partnership with the intelligence services, out of an IC-cultivated sense of patriotic duty? Or is it all just coincidence and these reporters all genuinely think like this of their own volition? I mean, obviously the answer is "all of the above," like it always is, but I'd like to hear some informed speculation.
- SolarUpNote 13y ago
  Would the NYTimes hire someone who would stick up for Snowden?
meritt 13y ago
And what if quite simply Snowden isn't the leak, he's a character created specifically for this to occur. Whether you're defending or attacking "Snowden", the reality is you're not focusing on the bigger issue at hand.
znowi 13y ago
Reading this thread, I see that it works very well :) People arguing, dividing, burying themselves into the details of exact salary figures and GED scores. Spies, they know their craft :)
ryguytilidie 13y ago
I've had one friend tweet about how he was a traitor and a coward. I'll let you guess who they work for... ...DARPA. Seems legit.
cleis 13y ago
While I completely agree with most of this article, there was one thing I found utterly repellent. This line - 'People largely stopped talking about what Wikileaks revealed years ago, & now discussion of Assange is dominated by the usual cliches about him being arrogant, a rapist, etc.' Oh yes, those usual boring cliches - arrogance and rape. Repulsive. People talk about Assange being creepy because he has been accused of rape by two female (former) supporters, not because of a series of subtle derogatory digs in the mainstream media. And arguing that these rape cases are a fabrication to bring Assange to justice for what happened over wikileaks (which I don't believe at all) isn't an argument in this instance, because the two cases are so unlike each other it seems ridiculous to make the comparison. I'm not disagreeing that Edward Snowden is being subjected to unpleasant ad hominem attacks, he is and it's outrageous, but to compare him to the treatment that Assange has received is ridiculous.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  They did not accuse him of rape.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Did you read anything about the accusations? (Like why the police threw them away, for example.) Or, at a minimum, you should take note of the fact that Assange was not formaly accused of rape yet.
untog 13y ago
One note I would make: Another whistleblower, Julian Assange, received even more brutal treatment. Here’s another hit piece on him, again run by the NYT, filled with subtly negative phrases like “dwindling number of loyalists”, “notoriety”, “erratic and imperious behavior”, “delusional grandeur” et al. Those same accusations are leveled against Assange by people who used to work with him. For example, read James Ball's account: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-f... Many of these 'smears' are essentially irrefutable facts ("Snowden did not complete high school"), and while I agree that many will try to smear him, regarding any negative coverage of him as an attack against liberty is not very productive.
- gohrt 13y ago
  > NYT, filled with subtly negative phrases like “dwindling number of loyalists”, “notoriety”, “erratic and imperious behavior”, “delusional grandeur” et al. Do NYT articles about Obama or Bush use these phrases? If not, why not? They certainly could.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  Ball's credibility is questionable. At a high level it seems that he was trying to advance his career and leveraged his Wikileaks access to do so. Part of that appeared to be feeding information and possibly documents to David Leigh who he later wrote a book with and helped him secure a job at the Guardian. http://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4004 http://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4... As a counterpoint to the Shamir story: http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186
jroseattle 13y ago
I don't care about his education, his salary, his friends, or his demeanor. What I care about are the documents he showed the Guardian and/or the Washington Post. Anyone can shoot the messenger, but as history has shown, it just doesn't kill the message as intended.
malandrew 13y ago
High school diploma or no high school diploma. It doesn't matter because that was 11 years ago and the things he has done in those intervening years were sufficiently impressive that both the NSA and Booz Allen, after reviewing what he's done since high school considered him capable of doing the work they asked of him by hiring him. Not only did they hire him, but they kept him on for several years, implying that his work was satisfactory to them. I know someone who ended up freebasing meth freshman year of college, cleaning himself up, going to another university, improving his grades, transferring to a better university, doing research that eventually got him a full-ride offer for a masters or PhD in biomedical engineering at Harvard. People can and do change and they can change so much in 10 years to have practically nothing in common with the person they were 10 years ago.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dylangs1030 13y ago
A few points: 1. I don't like that this is being said about Edward Snowden, but Occam's Razor implies it's not necessarily a conspiracy (yet). I'm sure it will be, at some point, but as a software engineer who made it without a college degree, I can personally attest that it's not unnatural for people to bring up and question a lack of education. People love to do this - before I was making any real progress in engineering, and even after I succeeded, people thought it was unusual and strange that I didn't pursue a degree. The only people exempt from this are people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, David Karp, et al. 2. On citing use of the "fallacy" ad hominem - just stop. You're not doing it properly. Yes, the literal definition means bringing in personal qualities, but personal qualities and background can be relevant. Just as the appeal to authority is not a fallacy if you cite a legitimate expert with established research, it is OK and legitimate to question a high school dropout's ability to understand what he leaked. This should be self-evident - the person is being questioned because they don't have an obvious legitimatization of their expertise. That said, I don't agree with the fact being explored more than the leaked information itself. I'd also like to note that you don't sound any more convincing to people because you just say "ad hominem" - it makes people defensive, causes an audience to think you're pompous (sometimes) and conditions you to try and rebut an entire argument by citing a fallacy and ignoring the substance - which is a method that tends to fail utterly. For more on this, see [1]. 3. Finally, it is sad they're talking about his neighbors and school life so much. They have nothing else to go on and they're grasping at straws. It sounds arrogant to say, but that's what most people do. They react to a big crisis and their fear of the unknown causes them to grasp ar any conversation points they can, legitimate or otherwise. The community of people who recognize this (i.e. Hacker News for one) would benefit from being in a position to correct this mentality and steer the conversation towards the hard issues - the things that really matter. Dump all that shit about his high school diploma, let's start talking about the NSA. [1]: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  it is OK and legitimate to question a high school dropout's ability to understand what he leaked. This is mistaken. A CS graduate isn't necessarily any more competent than a given highschool dropout working in engineering is necessarily incompetent.
doki_pen 13y ago
I suspect that the type of person who is capable of becoming a whistle-blower, is also a lot less institutionalized. I'm not surprised that he didn't finish high school, if he is an extremely critical thinker. There are a ton of things that don't make sense about our education system. It certainly doesn't make him dumb. Whistle blowing can be considered an extremely irrational act. It is basically ruining this guys life. Most people would never accept that sacrifice on the off chance that their small action might contribute to positive change in the world, for future generations. It takes a certain type of person to do it. Someone who is so irrationally devoted to the truth that they can't help but ruin their own lives in the name of what they perceive as the truth. If he is sincere in his motivations, then I'm sure this isn't the first time that he has bucked a system.
meshko 13y ago
But do I take someone with a link called "You should follow me on Twitter" seriously?
lsiebert 13y ago
When quoted, he sounds fairly intelligent and thoughtful. I think the only mistake he made is not going directly to Sweden, but HK was closer, and it's not like there is a "whistle blowing for dummies" book. If you want to assess him personally, go read his words. Ultimately he provided documentation to support his assertions. If another whistle blower steps up, we can reassess.
noamsml 13y ago
I care exactly zero about who Edward Snowden is. As far as I'm concerned, he could be a dick who loves kicking puppies and taking candy from children. What I do care about is, you know, the NSA spying on my phone calls and emails.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
Congratulations! We've done it! 1. Government being attacked releases information about alleged enemy of the state. 2. The forth estate does its duty and publishes the information. In order to draw in eyes, the information is sensationalized. 3. Someone totally against the piece writes an article as a counterpoint, adding plenty of backlinks and precious relevance to an article nobody wants to see gain traction. 4. Social aggregates like HN pick up the story, giving relevance to the article that gives relevance to an article we all disagree with. Ads are viewed, money is made, and an agenda is fulfilled.
sixQuarks 13y ago
Look at the fact that we had to rely on a British newspaper to break the NSA scandal. A foreign newspaper is doing the job that our news organizations are supposed to be doing. Pathetic!
squozzer 13y ago
Some of Brooks' conclusions should have never been printed. They defy logic. For instance, >He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there >is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of >trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more. Considering the project itself was a secret, I'm not sure how exposing something that would never have been exposed otherwise could be construed as damaging to "open government", a position I doubt Mr. Brooks has ever endorsed without mind-numbing qualification. >He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security >agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably >revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods. Gee, and I guess if Dr. Oppenheimer hadn't built The Bomb, we'd have to have used incendiary bombing to win the war. >He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create >the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could >make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. >Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic >structures of accountability, putting his own preferences >above everything else. So what Mr. Brooks says here is that government regulations trump individual conscience, and that Snowden should have just followed orders. I think they hanged a few Germans and Japanese for following orders too. But before someone scorches me for DARING TO COMPARE PRISM WITH THE HOLOCAUST, to whom did Snowden really have to turn? The Founders (Hallowed Be Their Names), maybe?
- hughw 13y ago
  Can you imagine the founders approving Ben Franklin's postal service had they imagined its agents would open every piece of mail? Or even kept records of senders, recipients, locations, and dates?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bhauer 13y ago
Sometimes I wish whomever downvotes/moderates submissions (not comments) would post a note about why they are doing so. This submission has a 20.86 score presently but it's in position 11 on the home page. The article seems a decent piece that links to some interesting sources. No better or worse than the average submission in my estimation.
Mikeb85 13y ago
The US is about as Democratic as Iran or Russia. Let's face it, in the US, no matter who is 'officially' in power, it's still the same institutions, the same people in charge. Dissent is censored by a creating a consensus in society, which itself is a product of indoctrination and propaganda. Examples would be the communist and Muslim scares. The American population is not only powerless to stand up to their institutions, they have convinced themselves that the very institutions that oppress them are necessary. The 2 party system, and various security agencies are examples. Now the 'average law-abiding citizen' is going to convince themselves that the NSA is preventing 'terrorism' and that Snowden is a 'traitor', and eventually, by demonizing the anti-surveillance elements of society, the US will become even more oppressive, with the full support of the population...
systematical 13y ago
If you threaten the system then you're tarred and feathered.
perlpimp 13y ago
I see how these articles don't have comments sections. FWIF they are not having the conversation - but telling what to think. I wonder if there is some sort of way to punish these large publishing houses in terms of destroyed credibility etc. To produce news is a right and when you have large audience you have responsiblity and when you behave like an bumhat you make it worse for everyone. my 2c.
michaelfeathers 13y ago
Everyone seems to think that it is a coordinated smear campaign. I think it is basic human psychology at work. People tend to group other people into "us" and "them" categories. When there is too much cognitive dissonance in relation to what people want to think about their country or institutions, the easiest way to appease the psychological tension is to move the promulgator into the category of "them." The smears as are attempt by people to humanize Snowden.. make him less scary, and simultaneously one of "the other."
yeellow 13y ago
It's very funny when they say he is not educated enough, etc and it was not a problem when he was hired and got access to top level secrets. The more he is defamed, the more
MrQuincle 13y ago
This is not entirely on-topic, but there are a lot of comments on how journalism should be actually performed. It is advocacy journalism, but western journalists might use it as an example Anas Aremeyaw Anas: http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_shamed_and_jailed.html http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_sham.... Sorry, just trying to turn this topic into something positive.
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
Great article. They've begun and they'll continue. Intelligent people will see propaganda for what it is.
VonGuard 13y ago
Just to add some insight as to why the press is doing this. First of all, there is a legitimate reason to snoop into his personal and past life: checking for source integrity. Frankly, this should end with "Did he work where he said he did, is he mentally ill, does he have an axe to grind?" The media has clearly gone beyond this, though. David Brooks' rather pompous style could be mistaken for going too far, but instead I think he was stepping just an inch or two over this line, while other sites and outlets are mentioning things like his lack of a high school diploma casually and without any real need or purpose. At this point in the life of this story, there is little to report on that doesn't require deep knowledge and GREAT sources. Sources are the lifeblood of journalism. Right now, there's only one, and most of the media has had no access to him. It's jealousy, I expect, that leads them to denigrate him now. The newsroom thinking is like this, and it's not entirely a conscious level thing: "We did not break this story. We do not have anything to add to this story. We are too technically inept to comment on this story. There still exists a possibility that this whistle-blower is wrong, and that's something we can investigate because we know his name and we have Google/LexisNexis... Well, shit, we gotta have something to fill the airwaves for 24 hours!" It's not like they're being directly controlled by the NSA, here. Outside of a few folks, like Brooks, the media is just being inept and lazy, not viscous and conspiratorial.
lignuist 13y ago
Oh, he is a unfriendly neighbor and sort of undereducated. Probably he even killed a cat when he was a child! Well, in this case I have no problem with being spied on.
timothyh2ster 13y ago
Terrorism's premise is that those in our culture were so self-absorbed in their private world, that they would be unable to suspend some of their privacy to achieve a collective good, i.e. safety from the terrorists. Luckily, most Americans are able to see the complexity of the issue, and have chosen safety. Not so Snowden. He is a criminal, period.
vijucat 13y ago
The way he spoke in the video from Hong Kong, his articulateness, the vocabulary used, and demeanour, attests to his honesty, integrity and character. It is saddening to see so many journalist-stooges come out of the woodwork and attack him. Shame on these "journalists". Julian Assange is a journalist, not these pathetic talking heads.
droopybuns 13y ago
Thomas Jefferson had an interesting strategy for activating the consciousness of the nation prior to the revolutionary war. It's important to remember that divorce from england was a final step- they were british subjects trying to find justice until it finally became apparent that secession was the only solution. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distress in the war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the portbill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert us from the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation and justice I'd love to see a day of fasting over prism. It might help people move beyond just posting their opinions on facebook/reddit/twitter/the bar.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
KenL 13y ago
Many of the comments here debate whether the news media should be reporting about his lack of degree or other facts about him. Consider the corollary, though. Should the media be omitting parts of his life or credentials? We have a man who took a significant unilateral action and as we debate that action and the proper response to it, issues like his motivations and qualifications need to be reported, not hidden. Given the magnitude of the revelations, Snowden himself shouldn't be the media's primary focus, but information on cell phone data grabs and PRISM for everyone except his leakees is very hard to come by. We're at the early stages of this debate and we're just scratching the surface.
hughw 13y ago
I just heard this weird moment on "The World" radio program [1]. Discussing Russia's offer of asylum to Snowden, at 25:02 the announcer says, "But last year Julian Assange was given his own show on the state TV channel, propaganda channel, Russia Today..." RT surely is a propaganda channel, but if you listen to the clip, the announcer forgot to say "propaganda channel" at first, then hastily corrected himself. It sounded forced, and odd for them. This, from a show co-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation, a famous propaganda organ, and PRI, a not as famous one. [1] http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ (edit: grammar)
hughw 13y ago
I just heard this weird moment on "The World" radio program [1]. Discussing Russia's offer of asylum to Snowden, at 25:02 the announcer says, "But last year Julian Assange was given his own show on the state TV channel, propaganda channel, Russia Today..." RT surely is a propaganda channel, but if you listen to the clip, the announcer forgot to say "propaganda channel" at first, then hastily corrected himself. It sounded forced, and odd for them. This, from a show co-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation, a famous propaganda organ, and PRI, a not as famous one. [1] http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ (edit: grammar)
spikels 13y ago
Jefferey Toobin calls Snowden "reckless", "irresponsible", "grandiose narcissist". Jeffery would know since he is very familiar with all of these character flaws. According to news reports after he got his long-term mistress pregnant he tried to bribe her to get an abortion. When she refused he abandoned her until a court forced him to take a DNA test and acknowledge his son. Only agreeing to contribute to his support after being threatened with having his wages garnished at CNN. You can't make this stuff up. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-cnn-star-jeffrey-toobin-offered-casey-greenfield-money-abortion-sources-article-1.446944 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-c...
psimondo 13y ago
I am very glad that people like Elsberg, Assange, Manning and Snowden exist in the world. They are exactly the type of people that stand between the imperfect and unfair world we live in, and absolute tyranny. I don't give a shit what they are like over a beer or if they are overbearing narcissist assholes.

518 points by nqureshi 13y ago

jfoutz 13y ago

How long till we get to the articles about the articles about the smears against Edward Snowden?

tlrobinson 13y ago
Well, that's essentially what these comments are.

jeremyjh 13y ago

Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

squozzer 13y ago
You are unorthodox. Eurasia has always been at war with East Asia.

lowmagnet 13y ago

That was the first thing I noticed. I guess we should all look a little closer at the news commentary and ask "Cui bono?"

tropicalmug 13y ago

I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issues at hand.

mpyne 13y ago
Indeed, Politico had ran a story about how Snowden himself essentially came to save Obama's day, or at least grant him a short reprieve. I guarantee you by the time attention shifts to Obama again he'll have some better defense and counter-attack for the media narrative prepared (though it will remain to be seen how effective it ends up, I don't see how the extra time can be worse for him).
notatoad 13y ago
I imagine he did so out of fear for his life. If the government had learned who he was before he announced it publicly, he would have been disappeared before anybody heard anything. being a public figure means that whatever happens to him will also be public.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I know people like to accuse the media of having ADHD, but do you really think that people would just forget that the leak had to come from somewhere?
  - beat 13y ago
    Well, it had to come from somewhere. But if that leak happened to be getting waterboarded by our freedom-loving allies in Khazakstan rather than a face and a name, it'd be easier to, um, keep quiet.
    - Kylekramer 13y ago
      That is kind of my point. We know his name, but we always knew there was a person behind it. Snowdon could be captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory, after all it isn't like we expect to hear from him in the public), or an anonymous whistleblower could have been captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory). Having a name out there doesn't change the equation much while distracting from the contents of the leak.
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    I think @notatoad meant to write "he would have been disappeared". The implication is that being known to the media means that any retribution by the US government will be visible. Whereas, if he'd remained anonymous, he could have been assassinated or rendered without anyone knowing.
    - notatoad 13y ago
pekk 13y ago
Glory. The man has already been canonized and deified. For some people that is irresistible. Alternatively, if he is really smart, this would be excellent chaff to throw up in front of espionage and come up smelling like roses
Homunculiheaded 13y ago
I believe part of the thinking was: the leaker will be found eventually, who do you want to start the story about the leaker? If some government agency were to unveil Snowden's identity they could cast him in whatever light they chose from the very first image (who looks like a defender of freedom in a mugshot?) Look what happened to Bradley Manning, the first public image of him was his chat confession and a huge amount of deeply personal details that really had nothing to do with the leak.

w_t_payne 13y ago

Indeed .. although if this is the best that they can come up with, they had better start making stuff up.

LandoCalrissian 13y ago

This is happening in all the news media now. I listen to NPR every day and it's almost insufferable to listen to when they talk about the NSA leak. Very little of the debate is about the actual NSA monitoring program itself, most of of the time they talk about why this leak happened and why Edward Snowden is a "strange" guy. It's completely unbelievable.

danielcampos93 13y ago
I fully agree. I find it ridiculous that everyone now is focusing on this man his life, his girlfriend and blah blah blah. The news that is going out about the actual program and what he caused is minuscule. I have seen far more articles and new pieces about how his credit cars are running out, how the Hong Kong government doesn't understand him, how his girlfriend didn't know anything, to that about the PRISM program. Unbelievable.
fragsworth 13y ago
Smearing him only strengthens the argument that this program shouldn't have been put in place to begin with. He had access to everything.
deelowe 13y ago
Was happening yesterday on my local talk radio station. "Isn't it a bit odd that this guy, a high school drop out somehow got into the NSA? Is he a plant? Isn't it odd that he's taking refuge in a COMMUNIST nation? I think he's a spy. How does a high school dropout get into the nsa?... High school drop out... High school dropout... communist... china..." etc.. Not very hard to see who controls the media these days.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  Doesn't smearing Snowden only justify his leaking of the information? If a communist-spy-high-school-dropout is able to access everyone's private information, what does this say of the NSA program that allowed him to do this?
- hga 13y ago

pbharrin 13y ago

The fact that he didn't have to complete high school, (he does have a GED) to get a job at Booz paying $200k/year should be speak to his intelligence. I know people with graduate degrees from Harvard that made less than that at the same company.

pfortuny 13y ago
Yes, this is something that should be mentioned more and stated loud and clear. I gather he was also a CIA employee, which is not granted to everyone and which -I guess- is subject to deep scrutiny by the very government... Unless the CIA is just like in the films: a bunch of retarded authocrats.
hga 13y ago
Booz says it is a much more plausible 122K: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/11/contractor-um-snowden-didnt-make-200000/ http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/06/11/contractor-um-snowden-d... ADDED: or The Guardian could have goofed, 122K in GB Pounds is 190K in US$. A comment to the item I noted he'd only worked for Booz for 3 months.
- sesteel 13y ago
  There is probably truth on both sides. Intelligence work is well funded by the government. Most government contracting companies hire at salary, but pay by the hour. So, if he was working a lot of overtime, he could have expected to bring in 200K for the coming year.
  - hga 13y ago
    In my experience they really hate to pay overtime, instead, you must put down exactly 40 hours per week. Any less and they can't bill the government the full normal maximum, any more and they have to pay time and a half or more, which the government generally doesn't go for.
    - sesteel 13y ago

kylelibra 13y ago

Ad hominem much? This is inevitable, from what I've seen there aren't any substantial claims being made against him. Conduct in his personal life really sets him apart from Assange.

beat 13y ago

The sub-headline of the dead-tree version of the St Paul Pioneer Press yesterday bothered to point out that he didn't have a high school diploma. Sigh. We must find SOME reason someone would report that America is spying on its own citizens. Couldn't possibly be patriotism. And there must be SOME reason that a guy who isn't formally credentialed by the appropriate authority figures could land a high-paying, important job. Couldn't possibly be talent.

jessedhillon 13y ago

I am so tired of people abusing the phrase ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said. Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education. He was a sys admin, not an engineer. His claims, in that light, do seem bizarre and uninformed. I mean, ffs he seemed to insinuate in the Guardian interview that the NSA keeps a list of undercover assets and he had access to it!? These are the people who created selinux -- if I extend him some credibility, I doubt greatly that he had any real idea what it is he was looking at. Elsewhere he talks about every machine being bugged and things like that. And the tapping he claims to have intimate knowledge of -- that kind of stuff would be happening inside of some kind of data store, maybe like Apache Accumulo which the NSA also developed. Let alone the implications of what he's saying on the security of all crypto systems everywhere -- how many uneducated sys admins do you know who can inspect a data store and actually understand what they're looking at, and also understand deeply how consumer encryption works. And this all presumes that the NSA's systems are so poorly configured that a contractor in HI could access all this. My verdict is that all he had was some slideshow that he turned over to the Guardian, the rest is a bullshit story.

sillysaurus 13y ago
I am so tired of people abusing the phrase ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said. Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education. He was a sys admin, not an engineer. His claims, in that light, do seem bizarre and uninformed. You've just committed an ad hominem. As if having a piece of paper from a college would make his claims more informed.
mindcrime 13y ago
And how do most of these "personal details" actually have anything to do with his credibility? Considering that we know almost nothing about how the NSA/CIA and their ilk actually work internally, the high-school diploma bit may or may not factor into this at all. At any rate, we know the basic details of his story are true, as BAH confirmed that he worked there, and the government has not denied that the PRISM slides and the FISA court order are real. Given what he has shown us so far seems to stand up to scrutiny, I'd say his credibility is fine. A few random people on HN speculating about what the NSA would or wouldn't do, versus now well confirmed knowledge that he did work for the CIA, and for the NSA as a BAH contractor? I'll take the latter as having more weight. And if he didn't have some fairly serious access, how did he get the PRISM slides and the court order in the first place? Anyway... not saying every detail of his story is true, but all things told, I don't see how carping about his high-school education is relevant here. In fact, I don't see how talking about Snowden much at all is relevant here. The story isn't Snowden, the story is PRISM, rubber-stamping by the FISA courts, tech companies possibly in collusion with the NSA to make our nominally "private" data widely available, etc.

mehmehshoe 13y ago

Because of his job skills, Edward had a very small internet footprint. I can imagine this is making a very lazy press very cranky. "How dare this guy not have a FB page"!! The press is going to have to do their job and hit the streets to get a background story on this guy.

hullo 13y ago

It takes Assange-level arrogance to believe that the only reason someone would think that Assange is arrogant is that he's been the victim of a media smear campaign.

g8oz 13y ago
And you have to be some kind of mindless sheep to be distracted by his character at the expense of his work.
- hullo 13y ago
  Well, reasonable people will have to agree to disagree about whether the concept of arrogance is relevant or not to to the wikileaks project. I'd say it's far from a distraction, and in fact it's the key problem with the whole endeavor.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    You're right, we shouldn't talk about the contents of those leaks when we can bicker about whether or not someone is arrogant. We'll put 2 guys on TV, one will take the 'arrogant' side, the other will take the 'non-arrogant' side, and any fair-minded listener can conclude that they're both half-right, the dude is sort of arrogant (or whichever insult), and we'll all just forget about the contents of those cables or the fact that we're being monitored. Brave New World was indeed scarier than 1984. But hey, why not have both?
- Pinatubo 13y ago
  Speaking of ad hominem attacks ...
intrazoo 13y ago
Sure, but the point is Assange should be a side dish to the Wikileak related issues (like civilian casualties, privacy, transparency), and Assange's personality a side dish to their actions and writings/ideas (which I find interesting/fun). "We always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod ... to attract the attacks against the organization for our work, and that is a difficult role. On the other hand, I get undue credit." Julian Assange

MarkHarmon 13y ago

Can we conclude from this that it is better to leak anonymously? On one hand, anonymous leaks might be more immune to character assassination attempts. On the other, having a real live person stand behind the information adds some credibility and possibly deeper understanding of surrounding conditions.

JonFish85 13y ago

I'd be surprised if the government was even behind any of the "smears". To some people, he's a hero. To some, he's a traitor. The people at either extreme have a reason to spread their viewpoint; those who don't care, or who want to wait for more information to come out, simply don't give a voice of reason for the most part. On the other hand, maybe the government can simply call up 5-10 journalists and run the "standard smear campaign".

hga 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList and it's pretty clear its still running in some fashion.
foobarqux 13y ago
Influence on journalists is typically not exerted overtly. Journalists know what behaviors are rewarded internally by the media organization (which is itself influenced by the government and corporations), through things like promotions and good work assignments, and externally by the government and corporations, though things like access, social connections and being in the "in" crowd by being invited to exclusive dinners and events. Moreover journalists at these media organizations are selected and retained based largely on whether they are going to support the organization, one aspect of which is being held in a favorable opinion by government leaders.

redcircle 13y ago

I wouldn't call David Brooks' quotes smears. His whole article, perhaps, but not the quotes. The quotes are pieces of evidence in his thesis, which is that Snowden doesn't participate in a community --- Snowden has isolated himself, and that this leak is behavior consistent with someone that has isolated himself from a community. Brooks' outlook on the world tends to be built on models of culture, community, and psychology, and this article is just an application of those models to the particular topic of Snowden. Someone that writes columns tends to have some models that they've developed, and produces new columns by applying those models to current events. In that sense, he is profiting from Snowden's dilemma, and taking advantage of it --- if what Brooks says is true, then what Snowden really needs is support.

vbo 13y ago

That's fine, irrelevant, and expected. At least free speech is still around.

jmduke 13y ago

So, to clarify, it's only called 'smearing someone' if that someone is someone we're on the same side of, right? Otherwise, its called activism or journalism or some other, vaguely more pleasant verb? If you don't think that the fact that Snowden's claims are tempered slightly by the fact that he doesn't have a formal high school or computer science education; hell, why not? I'm not saying that Snowden won't be dragged through the mud, but that's irrespective of what he did, besides the fact that he did anything at all. It's 2013, and 24-hour cable news channels need content: they will say and find anything and everything if it means finding or saying something new. (Also, Brooks and Toobin are both respected journalists and academics. They've both spoken vocally against the current administration, against the PATRIOT Act, and other things.)

_delirium 13y ago
David Brooks is a "respected journalist" in the same sense that USA Today is a "respected newspaper"...
- joonix 13y ago
  He is not even a journalist. He is a pundit, no better than the talking heads on Fox News, he just knows how to dress himself up as an "intellectual" to cater to the NYT/Charlie Rose audience.
  - r00fus 13y ago
    He pretty much "is" the voice of the establishment. If he's saying it, you can bet the military industrial complex shares his opinion.
lambda 13y ago
Why should it matter whether he has a high school diploma? That type of attack is precisely the definition of an ad-hominem. The truth of his claims does not depend on whether he has obtained a high school diploma. It depends on whether or not his claims are true. Someone with no high school diploma can tell the truth just as well as someone with a PhD. And it's not like his claims require an advanced education to understand. If he was claiming to have built a cold fusion reactor, that would be one thing; it would be pretty hard to believe that someone without formal education and with no prior results in the area had made such an advance. But all he's claiming is that the systems he administered had the ability to wiretap any given American at his whim. That just takes some basic technical knowledge and being in the right place at the right time.

clarkmoody 13y ago

Anything remotely political has been transformed by the media into this name-calling garbage. Elections turn on people's impression of the character of the candidates, much of the time fueled by irresponsible rumor-reporting by the media. It seems that all you have to do to win the public opinion battle is to resort to schoolyard bully tactics. Maybe it won't work this time...

JonnieCache 13y ago

So what's the link here? Are these reporters actually agents? Are they in the pay of the security services? Are they being blackmailed by the security services? Are they doing it voluntarily, but in partnership with the intelligence services, out of an IC-cultivated sense of patriotic duty? Or is it all just coincidence and these reporters all genuinely think like this of their own volition? I mean, obviously the answer is "all of the above," like it always is, but I'd like to hear some informed speculation.

SolarUpNote 13y ago
Would the NYTimes hire someone who would stick up for Snowden?

meritt 13y ago

And what if quite simply Snowden isn't the leak, he's a character created specifically for this to occur. Whether you're defending or attacking "Snowden", the reality is you're not focusing on the bigger issue at hand.

znowi 13y ago

Reading this thread, I see that it works very well :) People arguing, dividing, burying themselves into the details of exact salary figures and GED scores. Spies, they know their craft :)

ryguytilidie 13y ago

I've had one friend tweet about how he was a traitor and a coward. I'll let you guess who they work for... ...DARPA. Seems legit.

cleis 13y ago

While I completely agree with most of this article, there was one thing I found utterly repellent. This line - 'People largely stopped talking about what Wikileaks revealed years ago, & now discussion of Assange is dominated by the usual cliches about him being arrogant, a rapist, etc.' Oh yes, those usual boring cliches - arrogance and rape. Repulsive. People talk about Assange being creepy because he has been accused of rape by two female (former) supporters, not because of a series of subtle derogatory digs in the mainstream media. And arguing that these rape cases are a fabrication to bring Assange to justice for what happened over wikileaks (which I don't believe at all) isn't an argument in this instance, because the two cases are so unlike each other it seems ridiculous to make the comparison. I'm not disagreeing that Edward Snowden is being subjected to unpleasant ad hominem attacks, he is and it's outrageous, but to compare him to the treatment that Assange has received is ridiculous.

foobarqux 13y ago
They did not accuse him of rape.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Did you read anything about the accusations? (Like why the police threw them away, for example.) Or, at a minimum, you should take note of the fact that Assange was not formaly accused of rape yet.

untog 13y ago

One note I would make: Another whistleblower, Julian Assange, received even more brutal treatment. Here’s another hit piece on him, again run by the NYT, filled with subtly negative phrases like “dwindling number of loyalists”, “notoriety”, “erratic and imperious behavior”, “delusional grandeur” et al. Those same accusations are leveled against Assange by people who used to work with him. For example, read James Ball's account: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-f... Many of these 'smears' are essentially irrefutable facts ("Snowden did not complete high school"), and while I agree that many will try to smear him, regarding any negative coverage of him as an attack against liberty is not very productive.

gohrt 13y ago
> NYT, filled with subtly negative phrases like “dwindling number of loyalists”, “notoriety”, “erratic and imperious behavior”, “delusional grandeur” et al. Do NYT articles about Obama or Bush use these phrases? If not, why not? They certainly could.
foobarqux 13y ago
Ball's credibility is questionable. At a high level it seems that he was trying to advance his career and leveraged his Wikileaks access to do so. Part of that appeared to be feeding information and possibly documents to David Leigh who he later wrote a book with and helped him secure a job at the Guardian. http://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4004 http://justice4assange.com/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4... As a counterpoint to the Shamir story: http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1412 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186 http://wlcentral.org/node/1186

jroseattle 13y ago

I don't care about his education, his salary, his friends, or his demeanor. What I care about are the documents he showed the Guardian and/or the Washington Post. Anyone can shoot the messenger, but as history has shown, it just doesn't kill the message as intended.

malandrew 13y ago

High school diploma or no high school diploma. It doesn't matter because that was 11 years ago and the things he has done in those intervening years were sufficiently impressive that both the NSA and Booz Allen, after reviewing what he's done since high school considered him capable of doing the work they asked of him by hiring him. Not only did they hire him, but they kept him on for several years, implying that his work was satisfactory to them. I know someone who ended up freebasing meth freshman year of college, cleaning himself up, going to another university, improving his grades, transferring to a better university, doing research that eventually got him a full-ride offer for a masters or PhD in biomedical engineering at Harvard. People can and do change and they can change so much in 10 years to have practically nothing in common with the person they were 10 years ago.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dylangs1030 13y ago

A few points: 1. I don't like that this is being said about Edward Snowden, but Occam's Razor implies it's not necessarily a conspiracy (yet). I'm sure it will be, at some point, but as a software engineer who made it without a college degree, I can personally attest that it's not unnatural for people to bring up and question a lack of education. People love to do this - before I was making any real progress in engineering, and even after I succeeded, people thought it was unusual and strange that I didn't pursue a degree. The only people exempt from this are people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, David Karp, et al. 2. On citing use of the "fallacy" ad hominem - just stop. You're not doing it properly. Yes, the literal definition means bringing in personal qualities, but personal qualities and background can be relevant. Just as the appeal to authority is not a fallacy if you cite a legitimate expert with established research, it is OK and legitimate to question a high school dropout's ability to understand what he leaked. This should be self-evident - the person is being questioned because they don't have an obvious legitimatization of their expertise. That said, I don't agree with the fact being explored more than the leaked information itself. I'd also like to note that you don't sound any more convincing to people because you just say "ad hominem" - it makes people defensive, causes an audience to think you're pompous (sometimes) and conditions you to try and rebut an entire argument by citing a fallacy and ignoring the substance - which is a method that tends to fail utterly. For more on this, see [1]. 3. Finally, it is sad they're talking about his neighbors and school life so much. They have nothing else to go on and they're grasping at straws. It sounds arrogant to say, but that's what most people do. They react to a big crisis and their fear of the unknown causes them to grasp ar any conversation points they can, legitimate or otherwise. The community of people who recognize this (i.e. Hacker News for one) would benefit from being in a position to correct this mentality and steer the conversation towards the hard issues - the things that really matter. Dump all that shit about his high school diploma, let's start talking about the NSA. [1]: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html

sillysaurus 13y ago
it is OK and legitimate to question a high school dropout's ability to understand what he leaked. This is mistaken. A CS graduate isn't necessarily any more competent than a given highschool dropout working in engineering is necessarily incompetent.

doki_pen 13y ago

I suspect that the type of person who is capable of becoming a whistle-blower, is also a lot less institutionalized. I'm not surprised that he didn't finish high school, if he is an extremely critical thinker. There are a ton of things that don't make sense about our education system. It certainly doesn't make him dumb. Whistle blowing can be considered an extremely irrational act. It is basically ruining this guys life. Most people would never accept that sacrifice on the off chance that their small action might contribute to positive change in the world, for future generations. It takes a certain type of person to do it. Someone who is so irrationally devoted to the truth that they can't help but ruin their own lives in the name of what they perceive as the truth. If he is sincere in his motivations, then I'm sure this isn't the first time that he has bucked a system.

meshko 13y ago

But do I take someone with a link called "You should follow me on Twitter" seriously?

lsiebert 13y ago

When quoted, he sounds fairly intelligent and thoughtful. I think the only mistake he made is not going directly to Sweden, but HK was closer, and it's not like there is a "whistle blowing for dummies" book. If you want to assess him personally, go read his words. Ultimately he provided documentation to support his assertions. If another whistle blower steps up, we can reassess.

noamsml 13y ago

I care exactly zero about who Edward Snowden is. As far as I'm concerned, he could be a dick who loves kicking puppies and taking candy from children. What I do care about is, you know, the NSA spying on my phone calls and emails.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

Congratulations! We've done it! 1. Government being attacked releases information about alleged enemy of the state. 2. The forth estate does its duty and publishes the information. In order to draw in eyes, the information is sensationalized. 3. Someone totally against the piece writes an article as a counterpoint, adding plenty of backlinks and precious relevance to an article nobody wants to see gain traction. 4. Social aggregates like HN pick up the story, giving relevance to the article that gives relevance to an article we all disagree with. Ads are viewed, money is made, and an agenda is fulfilled.

sixQuarks 13y ago

Look at the fact that we had to rely on a British newspaper to break the NSA scandal. A foreign newspaper is doing the job that our news organizations are supposed to be doing. Pathetic!

squozzer 13y ago

Some of Brooks' conclusions should have never been printed. They defy logic. For instance, >He betrayed the cause of open government. Every time there >is a leak like this, the powers that be close the circle of >trust a little tighter. They limit debate a little more. Considering the project itself was a secret, I'm not sure how exposing something that would never have been exposed otherwise could be construed as damaging to "open government", a position I doubt Mr. Brooks has ever endorsed without mind-numbing qualification. >He betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security >agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably >revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods. Gee, and I guess if Dr. Oppenheimer hadn't built The Bomb, we'd have to have used incendiary bombing to win the war. >He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create >the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could >make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. >Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic >structures of accountability, putting his own preferences >above everything else. So what Mr. Brooks says here is that government regulations trump individual conscience, and that Snowden should have just followed orders. I think they hanged a few Germans and Japanese for following orders too. But before someone scorches me for DARING TO COMPARE PRISM WITH THE HOLOCAUST, to whom did Snowden really have to turn? The Founders (Hallowed Be Their Names), maybe?

hughw 13y ago
Can you imagine the founders approving Ben Franklin's postal service had they imagined its agents would open every piece of mail? Or even kept records of senders, recipients, locations, and dates?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

bhauer 13y ago

Sometimes I wish whomever downvotes/moderates submissions (not comments) would post a note about why they are doing so. This submission has a 20.86 score presently but it's in position 11 on the home page. The article seems a decent piece that links to some interesting sources. No better or worse than the average submission in my estimation.

Mikeb85 13y ago

The US is about as Democratic as Iran or Russia. Let's face it, in the US, no matter who is 'officially' in power, it's still the same institutions, the same people in charge. Dissent is censored by a creating a consensus in society, which itself is a product of indoctrination and propaganda. Examples would be the communist and Muslim scares. The American population is not only powerless to stand up to their institutions, they have convinced themselves that the very institutions that oppress them are necessary. The 2 party system, and various security agencies are examples. Now the 'average law-abiding citizen' is going to convince themselves that the NSA is preventing 'terrorism' and that Snowden is a 'traitor', and eventually, by demonizing the anti-surveillance elements of society, the US will become even more oppressive, with the full support of the population...

systematical 13y ago

If you threaten the system then you're tarred and feathered.

perlpimp 13y ago

I see how these articles don't have comments sections. FWIF they are not having the conversation - but telling what to think. I wonder if there is some sort of way to punish these large publishing houses in terms of destroyed credibility etc. To produce news is a right and when you have large audience you have responsiblity and when you behave like an bumhat you make it worse for everyone. my 2c.

michaelfeathers 13y ago

Everyone seems to think that it is a coordinated smear campaign. I think it is basic human psychology at work. People tend to group other people into "us" and "them" categories. When there is too much cognitive dissonance in relation to what people want to think about their country or institutions, the easiest way to appease the psychological tension is to move the promulgator into the category of "them." The smears as are attempt by people to humanize Snowden.. make him less scary, and simultaneously one of "the other."

yeellow 13y ago

It's very funny when they say he is not educated enough, etc and it was not a problem when he was hired and got access to top level secrets. The more he is defamed, the more

MrQuincle 13y ago

This is not entirely on-topic, but there are a lot of comments on how journalism should be actually performed. It is advocacy journalism, but western journalists might use it as an example Anas Aremeyaw Anas: http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_shamed_and_jailed.html http://www.ted.com/talks/anas_aremeyaw_anas_how_i_named_sham.... Sorry, just trying to turn this topic into something positive.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

Great article. They've begun and they'll continue. Intelligent people will see propaganda for what it is.

VonGuard 13y ago

Just to add some insight as to why the press is doing this. First of all, there is a legitimate reason to snoop into his personal and past life: checking for source integrity. Frankly, this should end with "Did he work where he said he did, is he mentally ill, does he have an axe to grind?" The media has clearly gone beyond this, though. David Brooks' rather pompous style could be mistaken for going too far, but instead I think he was stepping just an inch or two over this line, while other sites and outlets are mentioning things like his lack of a high school diploma casually and without any real need or purpose. At this point in the life of this story, there is little to report on that doesn't require deep knowledge and GREAT sources. Sources are the lifeblood of journalism. Right now, there's only one, and most of the media has had no access to him. It's jealousy, I expect, that leads them to denigrate him now. The newsroom thinking is like this, and it's not entirely a conscious level thing: "We did not break this story. We do not have anything to add to this story. We are too technically inept to comment on this story. There still exists a possibility that this whistle-blower is wrong, and that's something we can investigate because we know his name and we have Google/LexisNexis... Well, shit, we gotta have something to fill the airwaves for 24 hours!" It's not like they're being directly controlled by the NSA, here. Outside of a few folks, like Brooks, the media is just being inept and lazy, not viscous and conspiratorial.

lignuist 13y ago

Oh, he is a unfriendly neighbor and sort of undereducated. Probably he even killed a cat when he was a child! Well, in this case I have no problem with being spied on.

timothyh2ster 13y ago

Terrorism's premise is that those in our culture were so self-absorbed in their private world, that they would be unable to suspend some of their privacy to achieve a collective good, i.e. safety from the terrorists. Luckily, most Americans are able to see the complexity of the issue, and have chosen safety. Not so Snowden. He is a criminal, period.

vijucat 13y ago

The way he spoke in the video from Hong Kong, his articulateness, the vocabulary used, and demeanour, attests to his honesty, integrity and character. It is saddening to see so many journalist-stooges come out of the woodwork and attack him. Shame on these "journalists". Julian Assange is a journalist, not these pathetic talking heads.

droopybuns 13y ago

Thomas Jefferson had an interesting strategy for activating the consciousness of the nation prior to the revolutionary war. It's important to remember that divorce from england was a final step- they were british subjects trying to find justice until it finally became apparent that secession was the only solution. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distress in the war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the portbill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert us from the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation and justice I'd love to see a day of fasting over prism. It might help people move beyond just posting their opinions on facebook/reddit/twitter/the bar.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

KenL 13y ago

Many of the comments here debate whether the news media should be reporting about his lack of degree or other facts about him. Consider the corollary, though. Should the media be omitting parts of his life or credentials? We have a man who took a significant unilateral action and as we debate that action and the proper response to it, issues like his motivations and qualifications need to be reported, not hidden. Given the magnitude of the revelations, Snowden himself shouldn't be the media's primary focus, but information on cell phone data grabs and PRISM for everyone except his leakees is very hard to come by. We're at the early stages of this debate and we're just scratching the surface.

hughw 13y ago

I just heard this weird moment on "The World" radio program [1]. Discussing Russia's offer of asylum to Snowden, at 25:02 the announcer says, "But last year Julian Assange was given his own show on the state TV channel, propaganda channel, Russia Today..." RT surely is a propaganda channel, but if you listen to the clip, the announcer forgot to say "propaganda channel" at first, then hastily corrected himself. It sounded forced, and odd for them. This, from a show co-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation, a famous propaganda organ, and PRI, a not as famous one. [1] http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ http://www.theworld.org/2013/06/the-world-06-11-2013/ (edit: grammar)

hughw 13y ago

spikels 13y ago

Jefferey Toobin calls Snowden "reckless", "irresponsible", "grandiose narcissist". Jeffery would know since he is very familiar with all of these character flaws. According to news reports after he got his long-term mistress pregnant he tried to bribe her to get an abortion. When she refused he abandoned her until a court forced him to take a DNA test and acknowledge his son. Only agreeing to contribute to his support after being threatened with having his wages garnished at CNN. You can't make this stuff up. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-cnn-star-jeffrey-toobin-offered-casey-greenfield-money-abortion-sources-article-1.446944 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/baby-drama-c...

psimondo 13y ago

I am very glad that people like Elsberg, Assange, Manning and Snowden exist in the world. They are exactly the type of people that stand between the imperfect and unfair world we live in, and absolute tyranny. I don't give a shit what they are like over a beer or if they are overbearing narcissist assholes.