5 ms·
Few people were aware that a sale was in the works for the paper, whose reporters have broken such stories as the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandals and di
by miles 13y ago
Few people were aware that a sale was in the works for the paper, whose reporters have broken such stories as the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandals and disclosures about the National Security Administration’s surveillance program in May.
Claiming credit for the NSA story seems disingenuous at best, especially given their antagonism towards Snowden:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/how-washington-post-lost-prism-exclusive/66048/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/how-washingt...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130702/11474423694/washington-post-stop-us-before-we-do-any-more-real-journalism-like-that-cute-little-guardian-paper.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130702/11474423694/washin...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/washington-post-walter-pincus-correction http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/washing...
EDIT: While acknowledging the WaPo's significant contributions in the early 70s, it seems like they lost their way somewhere along the line:
Washington Post Kills Account of Its Failures in Iraq Reporting and Runs a Defense Instead
http://gawker.com/5992158/washington-post-kills-account-of-its-failures-in-iraq-reporting-and-runs-a-defense-instead http://gawker.com/5992158/washington-post-kills-account-of-i...
- untog 13y agoCan we have just one thread in HN that doesn't mention Snowden?
- walid 13y agoBradley Manning!
- anologwintermut 13y agoI'd settle for a top comment that doesn't mention Snowden.
- milsorgen 13y agoYes, it's best we forget the whole affair and move on.
- anologwintermut 13y agoIt's actually probably best, from the point of view of dealing with the NSA wiretapping, that we forget about Snowden and focus on what the NSA is still doing. So the comment was both off topic and toxic towards what it wanted to advance.
- saraid216 13y agoSnowden: only thing in the world that matters.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 13y agoThere you go! I just used the "up" and "down" arrows, and lo, it came to pass.
- taopao 13y agoCan't have a 2013 HN discussion thread without "Snowden" or "Google Reader". It's a machine-verifiable stamp of authenticity.
- samstave 13y agoI am only upvoting you because I find your comment actually funny! (Please do not get rid of any Snowden comments/posts on HN until the Police State is dismantled, hopefully by mid-next week.
- willurd 13y agoPlease redirect your shock toward the US government. And by the way, at the time of writing 27 of the top 30 articles don't mention Snowden in the comments, so...
- philwelch 13y agoI miss when people would submit articles about Erlang to flood out the politics.
- pearjuice 13y agoJust like we cannot have Bootstrap threads without mentioning Foundation.
- obstacle1 13y agoIt's a relevant point. Feel free to bury your head in the sand.
- StavrosK 13y agoIsn't this sort of Godwinning the thread? He didn't mention Snowden just for the sake of it, he was making a valid point.
- mpyne 13y agoWell if Snowden had given WaPo something other than a "publish in 48 hours" ultimatum there may have been less 'antagonism'. I'll say that the Washington Post Express I've been reading on the Metro was certainly not antagonistic to Snowden.
- brown9-2 13y agoIt's worthwhile to point out that the people who write editorials and opinion columns for the paper are often firewalled somewhat from the actual journalists, so you can't really reduce it to a single belief that the entire organization has. Especially a paper like the Washington Post which has a ridiculous number of opinion writers on staff.
- sampsonjs 13y agoI think the WaPo should start a section that's full of Hustler style porn. When people complain about porn in their Washington Post, they can just say "That's a separate department!". TLDR: if you disgrace your sub-organization, you disgrace the entire organization.
- pbreit 13y agoWhy would something that's plainly true be "disingenuous at best". The WP broke the story.
- room271 13y agoThe Guardian broke most of the leaks.
- jellicle 13y agoNope. Snowden gave the Post some of his info (the infamous slides), they refused to publish it, he gave it to the Guardian, who did publish it, and the Washington Post followed with their story one day later. Glenn Greenwald broke the story in the Guardian.
- brown9-2 13y agoPrism was not a day later. From the very article linked to above: Although the Guardian and the Post published nearly simultaneously on the PRISM story, it looks like the Post may have beaten the Guardian, only just, in getting the story live. I believe what you are referring to is the initial Verizon FISA story that started the whole thing.
- pc86 13y agoDidn't Snowden talk to The Guardian?
- threeseed 13y agoSorry but did you even bother to read the links you posted ? Because the behaviour of Washington Post is completely legitimate and common sense. Of course they aren't just got to post the PRISM presentation verbatim without redaction. From reading this I can understand the antagonism towards Snowden. He deserves it.
- rpgmaker 13y agoThey deserve credit, they DID publish one of the first stories about it. The editorials page has been really shitty about the whole subject but in their defense it was already a cesspool before Snowden's NSA leaks.