13 ms·

This reaction is actually scarier to me than the initial surveillance. NPR and NYT are usually sources of very solid journalism, the fact that they would drop

This reaction is actually scarier to me than the initial surveillance. NPR and NYT are usually sources of very solid journalism, the fact that they would drop the real story for some gossip about Snowden implies that someone is able to successfully exert pressure on these organizations. The surveillance alone leaves the possibility that one agency has started to go to far, but this more systematic reaction indicates that the trouble is deeper and more wide-spread.

Taylorious 13y ago
Or NPR, The NYT etc. aren't as good a sources of news as you think, and you just haven't noticed until they covered a story in your domain that you are passionate about. I used to listen to NPR everyday. In my opinion they are one of the better sources of news in America, but they are far far far from unbiased. They are very good at making it look like they are showing all sides, but they are in fact presenting things in away that supports their ideological bent.
- gohrt 13y ago
  Yes of course, but NPR's ideological bent in the past was seen to be not of the "government stooge" variety.
- pstuart 13y ago
  I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening. That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
      - xaviorm 13y ago
        You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
        pstuart 13y ago
        > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
        tekromancr 13y ago
        Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    They drop the ball more than they catch it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- bhauer 13y ago
  I clicked the up-arrow next to your comment as hard as I could without breaking my mouse. I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range. I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.
  - WalterBright 13y ago
    I once was in a building that had a natural gas leak and subsequent explosion. I then watched the local news coverage about it on several channels. Every one got the facts wrong, the story wrong, about everything wrong. It made me far less credulous of news stories.
- blago 13y ago
  I couldn't agree more. This was my aha moment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.ht... I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me: 1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host. 2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone. I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.
  - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
    I'm Bulgarian too. Born in Sofia. Btw have you been keeping up with what's been happening there with government corruption? Billions missing. The insane electric bills. Bribing the gypsies to throw human feces into the anti-government protestor crowd. It's on the news stations. My parents have DJTacho.com which streams to the US. The children of the communists that once ruled basically raped and pillaged BG for anything left. And spent 100 million on surveillance/spying equipment.
    - blago 13y ago
      Chris, I'm not really invested in any of that, and this is hardly the right thread...
- bangkoknights 13y ago
  There's a reason why the NYT is known as the Pravda on the Hudson.
- spikels 13y ago
  I agree completely. NPR is as good as it gets on US radio or TV (the competition is very weak) but has a decidedly pro-establishment and pro-government bias. This will make them particularly conflicted on the spying issue. This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator. On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you. Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint. All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views. [1] Michelle Norris is married to a senior advisor to Obama campaign[a]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-michele-norris-steps-down-husband-broderick-johnson-gets-obama-job/2011/10/24/gIQAy7zrCM_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-... [2] Partial list of NPR sponsors (couldn't find anything after 2008). http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsD... [3] Juan Williams termination report. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilliamsTermination.html http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilli... [4] NPR fundraising exec sting. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-video-npr-exec-slams-tea-party-questions-need-for-federal-funds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-... [5] NPR examines Guardian reporter who broke PRISM story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-broke-the-nsa-leaks-story-but-just-who-is-glenn-greenwald http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-... [6] AP examines Guardian reporters bias [b]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=190571323 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1905713... a-More on Michelle Norris's husband, Broderick Johnson (also former AT&T lobbyist). http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=18554 http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855... b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  Absolutely. As a young liberal in the 1990s, I listened to NPR fervently until I worked in the post-war Balkans and came to realize that most of their reporting there was total bunk. At present, they have a strong pro-government bias (particularly when that government is Democrat) and seem much more interested in weaving a beautiful narrative than in reporting the facts. I stopped listened to them several years ago -- and switched from liberal to libertarian (or at the least a civil liberties-driven liberal). NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion. All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.
rm999 13y ago
>drop the real story for some gossip You're creating a false dichotomy. NPR and NYT have consistently reported on overreaches from the government, including past bad behavior from the NSA and on PRISM (see links below). The leak itself and the details surrounding it are significant, both from a human-interest perspective and from a historical perspective - meaning, it will be in history books. I would be disappointed if news sources weren't covering it. But my point here is they have been covering PRISM, not just Snowden. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pa... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html
- Homunculiheaded 13y ago
  You're absolutely right, and I've been intentionally avoiding a lot of mainstream news sources on this so my overall picture is mostly what I've been reading about what people are reporting. I also don't mean to come across as overly paranoid, I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand. However this is the place in the news cycle where we've gotten over the initial shock, and start wanting to focus our energy on something. This would ideally be the part of the processes where we collectively ask "Now what do we do to make sure the NSA stops this?" But instead the question is "Hey, what can we find if we look through Snowden's laundry". And the thing that I find really interesting is that Snowden's laundry is very boring. Painting Assange as extremely arrogant and only using Wikileaks to feed is own egomania, while also being a potential rapists feeling from justice is an interesting story. Snowden having no HS degree and doesn't get along with his neighbors? Not so much.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    > I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand. Funny thing is that they probably did. They get there every day, with pre-written stories from several different sources. You can hire them for some $10k a month if you want. (I'm just not sure that they use suits.)
danielweber 13y ago
When the guy announces his identity, do you really expect that his life won't be part of the story? Leaking should be its own reward.
replax 13y ago
As far as I know, and according to noam Chomsky, the NYT is good journalism defined the "American" way, for it always paints the US as "the great, always correct" freedom fighters. Where was the NYT coverage when: The US vetoed UN ban on nuclear weapon development? Where was it when it vetoed UN ban on weapons from outer space? Where was it when the US intentionally shot down a commercial Iranian airliner? yes, exactly, it was non existent. a good read with a lot more information and a lot of sources also is Noam Chomsky's book: Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky, truly a great read!
- talmand 13y ago
  I would have to disagree with that one. In my experience the New York Times' definition of "the great, always correct American way" is based solely on whether they like the people in power at the time. The NYT is always quick on the disagreement if it's about a group of people they don't like. If the same actions are performed by the agreeable group then all's well.
mcantelon 13y ago
The CIA has been recruiting journalists since the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
stonemetal 13y ago
drop the real story for some gossip about Snowden implies that someone is able to successfully exert pressure on these organizations. Oh what did they drop? The leak happened they reported it. They reported the government's response. They reported Google and FB's response. There is now a massive manhunt for Snowden, they are covering that too. The only thing I am aware of that I haven't heard on NPR is the EFF and Co lawsuit. Since the EFF announcement was just today it maybe a day or two until they pick it up. What obvious and valid source of info have they not covered?
- yuliyp 13y ago
  The leak is not the story. The story is the substance behind the leak, you know, the spying program. There's so much there that hasn't been explored and properly reported on yet.
cpeterso 13y ago
I agree that NPR is more reputable than most US news organizations (and I have pledged money in the past), but there was at least one incident (in the late 1990s) of Army PSYOP soldiers "interning" at NPR and CNN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29#CNN_and_NPR_interns_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28Un...
dnautics 13y ago
why do you assume that someone is exerting pressure? NPR and NYT are very much "establishment" media outlets that have deep dependence on the government unilaterally from their side. But the more important point is: the snowden revelations are dangerous to their status quo (if only marginally so). It takes incredible willpower and self-discipline to fight the natural reaction to do anything but think about whatever is threatening to upend the reality that you are comfortable with. This is often true even if the new reality stands to your benefit. There's no need for the government to exert pressure for this to be happening.
hkolek 13y ago
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, 1880 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_(journalist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_(journalist)
- Simucal 13y ago
  I did a double take when I saw the date of that quote. I couldn't believe it wasn't from a contemporary author.
- jbattle 13y ago
  For what it's worth, I think the principle of journalists being unbiased dates from the latter half of the 19th century. I may be wrong, but my understanding was that the press was explicitly and formally partisan up until that time. Here's the only support I can find for that after a few minutes searching ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#Hi...
  - elwin 13y ago
    My guess is that the idea of objectivity started around the 1890's, when people like Pulitzer and Hearst realized they could sell cheap newspapers funded by advertising and do without the support of the local political machines. But I don't have any support for that idea.
neilk 13y ago
When you see an institution reacting in ways that you think are completely backwards, you shouldn't immediately assume that (a) they secretly think like you (b) they are being pressured to say otherwise. Institutions filter out people who don't agree with their mindset at the interview stage. Or later on, if they have a noticeably different attitude, it becomes an impediment to career success. The higher up you go, the more journalists feel themselves to be part of the governmental system, and the more they come from the same background as the people they are interviewing. Ironically, this is why whistleblowers are so rare in the first place.
upquark 13y ago
You notice the corruption of mass media when they cover a subject you are closely familiar with, but the general population can be easily misled on (say, political situation in an obscure corner of the world). They don't try too hard to be careful and maintain plausible deniability in these cases, and go for outright lies and extremely biased pieces. I've seen this happen too many times across a variety of news outlets, which makes me very skeptical of everything else I hear on the news. This recent scandal is not helping their image either.
smky80 13y ago
Or it's an indication that they (and most mainstream media sources) are not in fact sources of solid journalism.

Taylorious 13y ago

Or NPR, The NYT etc. aren't as good a sources of news as you think, and you just haven't noticed until they covered a story in your domain that you are passionate about. I used to listen to NPR everyday. In my opinion they are one of the better sources of news in America, but they are far far far from unbiased. They are very good at making it look like they are showing all sides, but they are in fact presenting things in away that supports their ideological bent.

gohrt 13y ago
Yes of course, but NPR's ideological bent in the past was seen to be not of the "government stooge" variety.
pstuart 13y ago
I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening. That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.
- kbenson 13y ago
  The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
    - xaviorm 13y ago
      You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
      - pstuart 13y ago
        > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
        tekromancr 13y ago
        Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
- WalterSear 13y ago
  They drop the ball more than they catch it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bhauer 13y ago
I clicked the up-arrow next to your comment as hard as I could without breaking my mouse. I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range. I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.
- WalterBright 13y ago
  I once was in a building that had a natural gas leak and subsequent explosion. I then watched the local news coverage about it on several channels. Every one got the facts wrong, the story wrong, about everything wrong. It made me far less credulous of news stories.
blago 13y ago
I couldn't agree more. This was my aha moment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.ht... I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me: 1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host. 2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone. I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  I'm Bulgarian too. Born in Sofia. Btw have you been keeping up with what's been happening there with government corruption? Billions missing. The insane electric bills. Bribing the gypsies to throw human feces into the anti-government protestor crowd. It's on the news stations. My parents have DJTacho.com which streams to the US. The children of the communists that once ruled basically raped and pillaged BG for anything left. And spent 100 million on surveillance/spying equipment.
  - blago 13y ago
    Chris, I'm not really invested in any of that, and this is hardly the right thread...
bangkoknights 13y ago
There's a reason why the NYT is known as the Pravda on the Hudson.
spikels 13y ago
I agree completely. NPR is as good as it gets on US radio or TV (the competition is very weak) but has a decidedly pro-establishment and pro-government bias. This will make them particularly conflicted on the spying issue. This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator. On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you. Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint. All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views. [1] Michelle Norris is married to a senior advisor to Obama campaign[a]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-michele-norris-steps-down-husband-broderick-johnson-gets-obama-job/2011/10/24/gIQAy7zrCM_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-... [2] Partial list of NPR sponsors (couldn't find anything after 2008). http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsD... [3] Juan Williams termination report. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilliamsTermination.html http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilli... [4] NPR fundraising exec sting. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-video-npr-exec-slams-tea-party-questions-need-for-federal-funds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-... [5] NPR examines Guardian reporter who broke PRISM story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-broke-the-nsa-leaks-story-but-just-who-is-glenn-greenwald http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-... [6] AP examines Guardian reporters bias [b]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=190571323 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1905713... a-More on Michelle Norris's husband, Broderick Johnson (also former AT&T lobbyist). http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=18554 http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855... b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.
jnbiche 13y ago
Absolutely. As a young liberal in the 1990s, I listened to NPR fervently until I worked in the post-war Balkans and came to realize that most of their reporting there was total bunk. At present, they have a strong pro-government bias (particularly when that government is Democrat) and seem much more interested in weaving a beautiful narrative than in reporting the facts. I stopped listened to them several years ago -- and switched from liberal to libertarian (or at the least a civil liberties-driven liberal). NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion. All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.

rm999 13y ago

>drop the real story for some gossip You're creating a false dichotomy. NPR and NYT have consistently reported on overreaches from the government, including past bad behavior from the NSA and on PRISM (see links below). The leak itself and the details surrounding it are significant, both from a human-interest perspective and from a historical perspective - meaning, it will be in history books. I would be disappointed if news sources weren't covering it. But my point here is they have been covering PRISM, not just Snowden. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pa... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html

Homunculiheaded 13y ago
You're absolutely right, and I've been intentionally avoiding a lot of mainstream news sources on this so my overall picture is mostly what I've been reading about what people are reporting. I also don't mean to come across as overly paranoid, I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand. However this is the place in the news cycle where we've gotten over the initial shock, and start wanting to focus our energy on something. This would ideally be the part of the processes where we collectively ask "Now what do we do to make sure the NSA stops this?" But instead the question is "Hey, what can we find if we look through Snowden's laundry". And the thing that I find really interesting is that Snowden's laundry is very boring. Painting Assange as extremely arrogant and only using Wikileaks to feed is own egomania, while also being a potential rapists feeling from justice is an interesting story. Snowden having no HS degree and doesn't get along with his neighbors? Not so much.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  > I don't think men in suits with dark glasses popped into NYT offices with a pre-written story in hand. Funny thing is that they probably did. They get there every day, with pre-written stories from several different sources. You can hire them for some $10k a month if you want. (I'm just not sure that they use suits.)

danielweber 13y ago

When the guy announces his identity, do you really expect that his life won't be part of the story? Leaking should be its own reward.

replax 13y ago

As far as I know, and according to noam Chomsky, the NYT is good journalism defined the "American" way, for it always paints the US as "the great, always correct" freedom fighters. Where was the NYT coverage when: The US vetoed UN ban on nuclear weapon development? Where was it when it vetoed UN ban on weapons from outer space? Where was it when the US intentionally shot down a commercial Iranian airliner? yes, exactly, it was non existent. a good read with a lot more information and a lot of sources also is Noam Chomsky's book: Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky, truly a great read!

talmand 13y ago
I would have to disagree with that one. In my experience the New York Times' definition of "the great, always correct American way" is based solely on whether they like the people in power at the time. The NYT is always quick on the disagreement if it's about a group of people they don't like. If the same actions are performed by the agreeable group then all's well.

mcantelon 13y ago

The CIA has been recruiting journalists since the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

stonemetal 13y ago

drop the real story for some gossip about Snowden implies that someone is able to successfully exert pressure on these organizations. Oh what did they drop? The leak happened they reported it. They reported the government's response. They reported Google and FB's response. There is now a massive manhunt for Snowden, they are covering that too. The only thing I am aware of that I haven't heard on NPR is the EFF and Co lawsuit. Since the EFF announcement was just today it maybe a day or two until they pick it up. What obvious and valid source of info have they not covered?

yuliyp 13y ago
The leak is not the story. The story is the substance behind the leak, you know, the spying program. There's so much there that hasn't been explored and properly reported on yet.

cpeterso 13y ago

I agree that NPR is more reputable than most US news organizations (and I have pledged money in the past), but there was at least one incident (in the late 1990s) of Army PSYOP soldiers "interning" at NPR and CNN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29#CNN_and_NPR_interns_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28Un...

dnautics 13y ago

why do you assume that someone is exerting pressure? NPR and NYT are very much "establishment" media outlets that have deep dependence on the government unilaterally from their side. But the more important point is: the snowden revelations are dangerous to their status quo (if only marginally so). It takes incredible willpower and self-discipline to fight the natural reaction to do anything but think about whatever is threatening to upend the reality that you are comfortable with. This is often true even if the new reality stands to your benefit. There's no need for the government to exert pressure for this to be happening.

hkolek 13y ago

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, 1880 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_(journalist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Swinton_(journalist)

Simucal 13y ago
I did a double take when I saw the date of that quote. I couldn't believe it wasn't from a contemporary author.
jbattle 13y ago
For what it's worth, I think the principle of journalists being unbiased dates from the latter half of the 19th century. I may be wrong, but my understanding was that the press was explicitly and formally partisan up until that time. Here's the only support I can find for that after a few minutes searching ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#Hi...
- elwin 13y ago
  My guess is that the idea of objectivity started around the 1890's, when people like Pulitzer and Hearst realized they could sell cheap newspapers funded by advertising and do without the support of the local political machines. But I don't have any support for that idea.

neilk 13y ago

When you see an institution reacting in ways that you think are completely backwards, you shouldn't immediately assume that (a) they secretly think like you (b) they are being pressured to say otherwise. Institutions filter out people who don't agree with their mindset at the interview stage. Or later on, if they have a noticeably different attitude, it becomes an impediment to career success. The higher up you go, the more journalists feel themselves to be part of the governmental system, and the more they come from the same background as the people they are interviewing. Ironically, this is why whistleblowers are so rare in the first place.

upquark 13y ago

You notice the corruption of mass media when they cover a subject you are closely familiar with, but the general population can be easily misled on (say, political situation in an obscure corner of the world). They don't try too hard to be careful and maintain plausible deniability in these cases, and go for outright lies and extremely biased pieces. I've seen this happen too many times across a variety of news outlets, which makes me very skeptical of everything else I hear on the news. This recent scandal is not helping their image either.

smky80 13y ago

Or it's an indication that they (and most mainstream media sources) are not in fact sources of solid journalism.