3 ms·

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 compe

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
If the US media is inhibited from running stories about sensational overreaches by NSA, how did James Risen and Eric Lichtblau manage to get the SOLARWIND story published?
- foobarqux 13y ago
  They are not inhibited, they are positively and negatively incentivized. To say that the government and high-level government officials are a powerful influence is hardly contentious. If you talk shit about your boss (even if it is true and done politely) it will probably negatively affect you. If you support your boss you will probably reap rewards. The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm not sure this is really responsive to my point: I gave a specific example of a bombshell story the NYT ran that was arguably more harmful to "national security" than any revelation about spying on Barack Obama.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      In that case you are going to have to make your point explicit. My understanding is that you are trying to say that the media outlets are not influenced by the government because there exist significant critical stories of the government. But as I said "The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does."
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I guess I'm just asking why today's story, about NSA spying on Obama, which is viscerally more interesting than the Risen story but less impactful to national security, would be "frozen out" of the mainstream media where Risen's story clearly wasn't.
- legutierr 13y ago
  The NYT had the SOLARWIND story in 2004, and were going to publish it right before the 04 election (October) but sat on it under pressure from the administration. It was over a year before they decided to publish. The story is told by Eric Lichtblau here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric_lichtblau_on_exposing http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric... Key quote: > AMY GOODMAN: Is it right, Eric, you were still — the Times wasn’t going to run this story until to your colleague Jim at the New York Times was going to publish his book, and that put the Times in a tremendously awkward position? It’s going to come out anyway, and their reporters are not the ones who are going to reveal it. > ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, that’s true, for the most part. I don't know if this is the right example to support your argument.
- notsofast 13y ago
  The incident of the story about STELLARWIND (what is SOLARWIND?) being held back from publication by the NYT for one year at the urging of the Bush administration[1] is the evidence of the US media being inhibited from running stories about the security follies. The question is not why they were able to publish, it's why did they have to wait one year to do so? They could (and should have?) published immediately. That one year delay is what Snowden referred to when he was asked why he didn't go the NYT. That's why he gave the leaked docs to a heavily biased blogger turned journalist instead of a "legitimate" news outlet. 1. I believe the words of the Bush people to the NYT were that if they published they would "have blood on [their] hands".

tptacek 13y ago

If the US media is inhibited from running stories about sensational overreaches by NSA, how did James Risen and Eric Lichtblau manage to get the SOLARWIND story published?

foobarqux 13y ago
They are not inhibited, they are positively and negatively incentivized. To say that the government and high-level government officials are a powerful influence is hardly contentious. If you talk shit about your boss (even if it is true and done politely) it will probably negatively affect you. If you support your boss you will probably reap rewards. The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I'm not sure this is really responsive to my point: I gave a specific example of a bombshell story the NYT ran that was arguably more harmful to "national security" than any revelation about spying on Barack Obama.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    In that case you are going to have to make your point explicit. My understanding is that you are trying to say that the media outlets are not influenced by the government because there exist significant critical stories of the government. But as I said "The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does."
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I guess I'm just asking why today's story, about NSA spying on Obama, which is viscerally more interesting than the Risen story but less impactful to national security, would be "frozen out" of the mainstream media where Risen's story clearly wasn't.
legutierr 13y ago
The NYT had the SOLARWIND story in 2004, and were going to publish it right before the 04 election (October) but sat on it under pressure from the administration. It was over a year before they decided to publish. The story is told by Eric Lichtblau here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric_lichtblau_on_exposing http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric... Key quote: > AMY GOODMAN: Is it right, Eric, you were still — the Times wasn’t going to run this story until to your colleague Jim at the New York Times was going to publish his book, and that put the Times in a tremendously awkward position? It’s going to come out anyway, and their reporters are not the ones who are going to reveal it. > ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, that’s true, for the most part. I don't know if this is the right example to support your argument.
notsofast 13y ago
The incident of the story about STELLARWIND (what is SOLARWIND?) being held back from publication by the NYT for one year at the urging of the Bush administration[1] is the evidence of the US media being inhibited from running stories about the security follies. The question is not why they were able to publish, it's why did they have to wait one year to do so? They could (and should have?) published immediately. That one year delay is what Snowden referred to when he was asked why he didn't go the NYT. That's why he gave the leaked docs to a heavily biased blogger turned journalist instead of a "legitimate" news outlet. 1. I believe the words of the Bush people to the NYT were that if they published they would "have blood on [their] hands".