4 ms·

Can you explain the propaganda angle there? To me, that reads like a straightforward summary of what is going on.

lukateake 13y ago
To me, "purportedly" is the glaring weaselword and is intended to cast aspersions or otherwise impugn the whole 'construct' of Mr. Snowden as illegitimate.
revscat 13y ago
Sure. To start with, take a look at that first clause: "The man who admitted leaking classified documents..." The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal. Were CNN to want to cast him in a positive light they could have chosen to write it something like this: "The man who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications..." Instead CNN chose to emphasize the criminal aspect, rather than the civil liberties/anti-democratic aspect. Next: "... purportedly went online..." The use of the word "purportedly" here is interesting. Why is that questioned? To associate doubt with him. It's subtle, but nevertheless there it is. Next: "declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed". Out of all the questions which were answered CNN focused on this one because it most easily supports the "egotistical" narrative they are attempting to paint him with. Implication: "He is setting himself up as some kind of martyr! How arrogant!" Next: "Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives." This one is, to me, the most blatant. The scare quotes around "abusive" are of course the most obvious. But look how the frame it: "national security initiatives". Not "domestic spying programs", or "electronic surveillance mechanisms", or something else. After all, no one who calls themselves reasonable can be opposed to national security! It's subtle, and of course debatable. But it's certainly present. CNN has their own slant, and it is obviously pro-NSA. Also note that nowhere to they actually link to the Q&A page. Let's rewrite it, communicate the same information, but make it skeptical towards the NSA: "Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications and online activities, did an online question-and-answer session today, making himself available to provide follow-up answers to questions raised by concerned citizens over the reach and power of the notoriously secretive intelligence agency."
- samstave 13y ago
  If I could give you HN-Gold, I would. Also, the "..'abusive'.." quotes serve to show a disdain for Snowden's position; "Snowden claims this was 'abusive' - and we know him to be a criminal traitor, if you think the acts of the NSA were abusive, then you clearly are a traitor sympathizer. I recall the reports of CIA handlers years ago in CNN, clearly they are still there... (I am looking for a link, but so far came up blank)
- pwf 13y ago
  "The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal." Ignoring any moral aspects, isn't he technically a criminal? This certainly seems more neutral than your suggestion. Calling him a traitor would be out of line, but I do believe it was against the law to do what he did. It IS only 'purportedly' him; why do you expect CNN to report what it cannot confirm? The quotes around 'abusive' are suggestive, but it is also how you indicate that the word came from someone other than the author of the article. If you expect neutrality, expect the writer to segregate their words from their subject's. Your summary is far more emotionally charged and subjective.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Which summary you find more emotionally charged probably depends on your existing opinion, and how often you consume mainstream news. To me CNN's wording (and, for that matter, all TV news reports) feels like a stream of verbal knives, each word chosen to induce anxiety and put the viewer/reader on edge. Regardless of their veracity, "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.
    - freyr 13y ago
      > * "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.* Of course it is. CNN competes with 250+ other channels to grab your attention, draw you deeper in, and serve you commercial breaks. You could claim it's a carefully orchestrated propaganda machine designed to scare people into ceding their rights to the government (of course, such arguments might also designed to scare you). Or you could claim that they need to do this to excite their broad audience and thereby preserve their jobs and paychecks. You could say the media dug up pictures of his girlfriend in provocative outfits to discredit him among conservative Americans. Or you could acknowledge that they didn't have to do much digging at all, that sex sells, and that the public love personality news (see all the Hollywood "news" shows). There's a conspiracy lurking around every corner, if you go looking for it.

To me, "purportedly" is the glaring weaselword and is intended to cast aspersions or otherwise impugn the whole 'construct' of Mr. Snowden as illegitimate.

revscat 13y ago

Sure. To start with, take a look at that first clause: "The man who admitted leaking classified documents..." The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal. Were CNN to want to cast him in a positive light they could have chosen to write it something like this: "The man who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications..." Instead CNN chose to emphasize the criminal aspect, rather than the civil liberties/anti-democratic aspect. Next: "... purportedly went online..." The use of the word "purportedly" here is interesting. Why is that questioned? To associate doubt with him. It's subtle, but nevertheless there it is. Next: "declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed". Out of all the questions which were answered CNN focused on this one because it most easily supports the "egotistical" narrative they are attempting to paint him with. Implication: "He is setting himself up as some kind of martyr! How arrogant!" Next: "Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives." This one is, to me, the most blatant. The scare quotes around "abusive" are of course the most obvious. But look how the frame it: "national security initiatives". Not "domestic spying programs", or "electronic surveillance mechanisms", or something else. After all, no one who calls themselves reasonable can be opposed to national security! It's subtle, and of course debatable. But it's certainly present. CNN has their own slant, and it is obviously pro-NSA. Also note that nowhere to they actually link to the Q&A page. Let's rewrite it, communicate the same information, but make it skeptical towards the NSA: "Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications and online activities, did an online question-and-answer session today, making himself available to provide follow-up answers to questions raised by concerned citizens over the reach and power of the notoriously secretive intelligence agency."

samstave 13y ago
If I could give you HN-Gold, I would. Also, the "..'abusive'.." quotes serve to show a disdain for Snowden's position; "Snowden claims this was 'abusive' - and we know him to be a criminal traitor, if you think the acts of the NSA were abusive, then you clearly are a traitor sympathizer. I recall the reports of CIA handlers years ago in CNN, clearly they are still there... (I am looking for a link, but so far came up blank)
pwf 13y ago
"The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal." Ignoring any moral aspects, isn't he technically a criminal? This certainly seems more neutral than your suggestion. Calling him a traitor would be out of line, but I do believe it was against the law to do what he did. It IS only 'purportedly' him; why do you expect CNN to report what it cannot confirm? The quotes around 'abusive' are suggestive, but it is also how you indicate that the word came from someone other than the author of the article. If you expect neutrality, expect the writer to segregate their words from their subject's. Your summary is far more emotionally charged and subjective.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Which summary you find more emotionally charged probably depends on your existing opinion, and how often you consume mainstream news. To me CNN's wording (and, for that matter, all TV news reports) feels like a stream of verbal knives, each word chosen to induce anxiety and put the viewer/reader on edge. Regardless of their veracity, "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.
  - freyr 13y ago
    > * "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.* Of course it is. CNN competes with 250+ other channels to grab your attention, draw you deeper in, and serve you commercial breaks. You could claim it's a carefully orchestrated propaganda machine designed to scare people into ceding their rights to the government (of course, such arguments might also designed to scare you). Or you could claim that they need to do this to excite their broad audience and thereby preserve their jobs and paychecks. You could say the media dug up pictures of his girlfriend in provocative outfits to discredit him among conservative Americans. Or you could acknowledge that they didn't have to do much digging at all, that sex sells, and that the public love personality news (see all the Hollywood "news" shows). There's a conspiracy lurking around every corner, if you go looking for it.