4 ms·

I would say 1) this revelation is too shocking to be parroted without smoking gun evidence to support it (eg copies of the top secret documents themselves) and

by pvnick 13y ago

I would say 1) this revelation is too shocking to be parroted without smoking gun evidence to support it (eg copies of the top secret documents themselves) and 2) journalists these days are too much in bed with the establishment to stir the waters that much and ask these kinds of hard questions posed by "fringe elements". What do you think?

tptacek 13y ago
I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused. It would be one thing to argue that some specific venue, like the NYT, is captured somehow (that would be an extraordinary claim but let's stipulate it). But to say that every major media outlet is somehow blinded to its own incentives on a story like this? That's flatly implausible.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  You could say the same thing about the suppressed NYT NSA story a few years back. Incentives are more complicated than short term profits of the firm. Being in the good graces of powerful government actors is certainly a strong incentive in terms of personal benefits and long term profits. Given the above, and not making any judgment as to the veracity of the claim, there isn't enough evidence for mainstream media to publish. Compare with allegation of the Syrian government's use of Sarin for which there is equally little evidence but media outlets are quick to publish because it is inline with government interests.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Is there a single major media outlet --- The New York Times, The Washington Post (which is already out in front of this story), The Wall Street Journal (a Murdoch paper), The Washington Times (a strongly partisan anti-Obama paper), Bloomberg News, heck, Le Monde --- a single one that appears to be taking this story seriously? Why not? Is your argument that every reputable major media outlet in the world is somehow cowed by the administration?
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      There is systemic influence by the US government on US institutions. To be clear I am only speaking to media influence and bias, not the veracity of the claim in question. Again look at the sarin example or consider how readily this would have been reported if it were about an enemy of the United States. Your point about international media outlets is taken and it is the best evidence of how less-biased outlets feel about the story. I can't find the story on Russia Today or Al-Jazeera for example.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I have a pretty high opinion of Al Jazeera, which has not run a story about how the NSA might have spied on pre-candidate Barack Obama, and a very very low opinion of Russia Today, which is likely to have at some point in the past run a story about how Obama is actually a space alien.
        foobarqux 13y ago
        My point had nothing to do with the credibility of either of those outlets only that they both routinely publish stories critical of the United States and since they didn't publish this story then they must not have faith in it. In short, I agree with you that lack of reporting from foreign outlets is indicative that they think there isn't enough evidence to report it. Just to be clear we are talking about different things: You are talking about whether the claims are true, or more sensibly, whether they are supported by credible evidence. I am making a more narrow point about the fact that media institutions are strongly influenced^ by government and corporate interests. That is true independent of whether Tice's claims are. ^ Obviously foreign institutions are far less influenced by other foreign governments and are therefore more reliable when reporting on those foreign governments, though not always (e.g. Iraq WMD claims).
- specialist 13y ago
  I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused. Name three. Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, the crew at Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales). Who else? It's a pretty short list. I can't think of any remaining "mainstream" (corporate) journalists. They've all gotten the Dan Rather treatment. Some bloggers have managed to swim upstream, eg Paul Krugman and Matthew Yglesias. But most muckraking work (eg Fire Dog Lake) is not corporate funded. Thom Hartmann is kinda unique. And lefties like Rachel Maddow are commentators, not doing original reporting.
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    Wasn't this entire thing started by "corporate funded" journalists at the Guardian and Washington Post?
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      Don't interrupt rant. It serves no purpose and makes them cranky.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      Note that the Washington Post went to the government to cooperate with them. It is not clear if WaPo would have published the same story if there wasn't a competitor (the Guardian) who had access to the same material. Snowden may have shared material with the Guardian purposefully either before or after he found out the WaPo was working the government in order to ensure this. Note also that Greenwald has special circumstances which reduce his influence from corporate and US interests. First he works for a subsidiary of a UK corporation and does not report on UK issues. I also don't think he reports on corporate issues that would affect Guardian advertising. Finally, he lives in Brazil which may reduce US influence on him. All that said no one is saying that corporate journalists never break stories that are critical to government or corporations, only that they are under strong influence not to and the effect is that few such stories are produced.
      - tptacek 13y ago
- foobarqux 13y ago
  It is not reasonable to think that corporate journalists advance their careers, using money and social benefits as proxies for career advancement, by speaking truth to power any more than it would be for other careers. In nearly all cases you advance your career by being conformist and supporting powerful people. There isn't any reason for corporate journalism to be different.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You mean except for every journalist who has raised the ire of a Presidential administration in the US by going public with some detail or another of overreaching surveillance, malfeasance within the administration, abuse of prisoners, waste in defense spending (added bonus here of pissing off multibillion dollar corporations with deep ties to media outlets), foreign relations blunders, or leaks of one form or another? Why is this story off limits but those stories not?
Zigurd 13y ago
If there are still substantial disparities between what Snowden alleges and what major tech firms admit to, would you bet against news outlets getting "D-notices" they are not allowed to discuss?

by pvnick 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused. It would be one thing to argue that some specific venue, like the NYT, is captured somehow (that would be an extraordinary claim but let's stipulate it). But to say that every major media outlet is somehow blinded to its own incentives on a story like this? That's flatly implausible.

foobarqux 13y ago
You could say the same thing about the suppressed NYT NSA story a few years back. Incentives are more complicated than short term profits of the firm. Being in the good graces of powerful government actors is certainly a strong incentive in terms of personal benefits and long term profits. Given the above, and not making any judgment as to the veracity of the claim, there isn't enough evidence for mainstream media to publish. Compare with allegation of the Syrian government's use of Sarin for which there is equally little evidence but media outlets are quick to publish because it is inline with government interests.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Is there a single major media outlet --- The New York Times, The Washington Post (which is already out in front of this story), The Wall Street Journal (a Murdoch paper), The Washington Times (a strongly partisan anti-Obama paper), Bloomberg News, heck, Le Monde --- a single one that appears to be taking this story seriously? Why not? Is your argument that every reputable major media outlet in the world is somehow cowed by the administration?
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    There is systemic influence by the US government on US institutions. To be clear I am only speaking to media influence and bias, not the veracity of the claim in question. Again look at the sarin example or consider how readily this would have been reported if it were about an enemy of the United States. Your point about international media outlets is taken and it is the best evidence of how less-biased outlets feel about the story. I can't find the story on Russia Today or Al-Jazeera for example.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I have a pretty high opinion of Al Jazeera, which has not run a story about how the NSA might have spied on pre-candidate Barack Obama, and a very very low opinion of Russia Today, which is likely to have at some point in the past run a story about how Obama is actually a space alien.
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        My point had nothing to do with the credibility of either of those outlets only that they both routinely publish stories critical of the United States and since they didn't publish this story then they must not have faith in it. In short, I agree with you that lack of reporting from foreign outlets is indicative that they think there isn't enough evidence to report it. Just to be clear we are talking about different things: You are talking about whether the claims are true, or more sensibly, whether they are supported by credible evidence. I am making a more narrow point about the fact that media institutions are strongly influenced^ by government and corporate interests. That is true independent of whether Tice's claims are. ^ Obviously foreign institutions are far less influenced by other foreign governments and are therefore more reliable when reporting on those foreign governments, though not always (e.g. Iraq WMD claims).
specialist 13y ago
I don't believe (2) at all. Journalists are careerist and media outlets are bottom-line focused. Name three. Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, the crew at Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales). Who else? It's a pretty short list. I can't think of any remaining "mainstream" (corporate) journalists. They've all gotten the Dan Rather treatment. Some bloggers have managed to swim upstream, eg Paul Krugman and Matthew Yglesias. But most muckraking work (eg Fire Dog Lake) is not corporate funded. Thom Hartmann is kinda unique. And lefties like Rachel Maddow are commentators, not doing original reporting.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Wasn't this entire thing started by "corporate funded" journalists at the Guardian and Washington Post?
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    Don't interrupt rant. It serves no purpose and makes them cranky.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    Note that the Washington Post went to the government to cooperate with them. It is not clear if WaPo would have published the same story if there wasn't a competitor (the Guardian) who had access to the same material. Snowden may have shared material with the Guardian purposefully either before or after he found out the WaPo was working the government in order to ensure this. Note also that Greenwald has special circumstances which reduce his influence from corporate and US interests. First he works for a subsidiary of a UK corporation and does not report on UK issues. I also don't think he reports on corporate issues that would affect Guardian advertising. Finally, he lives in Brazil which may reduce US influence on him. All that said no one is saying that corporate journalists never break stories that are critical to government or corporations, only that they are under strong influence not to and the effect is that few such stories are produced.
    - tptacek 13y ago
foobarqux 13y ago
It is not reasonable to think that corporate journalists advance their careers, using money and social benefits as proxies for career advancement, by speaking truth to power any more than it would be for other careers. In nearly all cases you advance your career by being conformist and supporting powerful people. There isn't any reason for corporate journalism to be different.
- tptacek 13y ago
  You mean except for every journalist who has raised the ire of a Presidential administration in the US by going public with some detail or another of overreaching surveillance, malfeasance within the administration, abuse of prisoners, waste in defense spending (added bonus here of pissing off multibillion dollar corporations with deep ties to media outlets), foreign relations blunders, or leaks of one form or another? Why is this story off limits but those stories not?

Zigurd 13y ago

If there are still substantial disparities between what Snowden alleges and what major tech firms admit to, would you bet against news outlets getting "D-notices" they are not allowed to discuss?