4 ms·

We kind of have to. Journalism is under siege(1). The rise of the unashamed surveillance state makes it much worse. There's been a sort of "journalism is dead,

We kind of have to. Journalism is under siege(1). The rise of the unashamed surveillance state makes it much worse. There's been a sort of "journalism is dead, who cares" kind of attitude floating around. It isn't. I do. We need to think about what we're about to lose. (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detai...

sliverstorm 13y ago
Perfect... bring up the NSA every thirty seconds, until everyone is utterly sick of hearing it and automatically ignores anything related to the NSA... we can't thank you enough noonespecial, you are doing God's work.
- obituary_latte 13y ago
  What a shit attitude. Try taking into consideration that people feel helpless. People are desperate to try and change things. People may be acting - not in concert mind you - to affect some change. Try to respect that these people you lament are at least fucking trying. If all else fails, stfu.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    If all else fails, stfu. Who was it who has the shit attitude?
    - obituary_latte 13y ago
      Touche. It appears I have a shit attitude towards stifling expression on such an important issue.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Though I should not be surprised, you misrepresent me. There's nothing wrong with covering the issue. It's just not helpful at best, and actively harmful at worst, to try to inject the issue into every possible place. We are intelligent adults; we are more than capable of thinking about more than just one issue. It isn't like there are many people left who haven't heard about it, and even if there were, the front page of HN has consistently contained several articles covering the NSA specifically for a number of weeks now.
        obituary_latte 13y ago
        As I'm not surprised you condescend me by insulting my ability to interpret your post, I guess. My point is: why inhibit it no matter the context? Perhaps this is a new user who isn't privy to the daily dealings of hn? Maybe they aren't aware that their effort might be better spent on a less-informed forum? Why immediately dismiss and discourage their input?
        mixmastamyk 13y ago
        People want to talk about, you'll have to deal.
  - shitlord 13y ago
    "helpless", seriously? The guy had his privacy invaded and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that he was negatively affected by it. People drowning in debt or dying of disease feel helpless. This guy is just another person with an axe to grind. Imagine if someone tried to turn every thread about tax law into a debate about abortion. That is what has been happening lately. There's a time and a place for everything.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Helpless? I can't vote and have only a fraction of the rights that you do (assuming you're a US citizen) but I feel far from helpless about my standing relative to the government. Discussing the issue is healthy, obsessing about it so that nobody else is allowed to hold a conversation on a different subject without paying lip service to the NSA issue is not.
    - obituary_latte 13y ago
      I see quite a bit of discussion in this thread that is wholly unrelated to the topic we are discussing. My beef is and was with the tone of the post. No need to proclaim that God's work is being done; no need to be a dick.
- flatline 13y ago
  It's not the NSA doing this intimidation, though they may well be facilitating it. I do agree that journalism is under siege in the US, however. I feel like the Obama administration would really like to put a stop to even the possibility of another major leak by stopping it before it starts. I thought this was a much bigger deal than Greenwald's SO being detained: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-re...
- noonespecial 13y ago
  I didn't mention the NSA specifically, just the surveillance state. My example was actually a British journalist, being intimidated by the detainment of his Brazilian SO, in London, traveling from Berlin, to Rio de Janeiro, abusing Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act. Its a lot deeper than "the NSA". Something's bad wrong. And yeah, I'm going to preach about it until it gets fixed or I end up a crazy man on the corner wearing a sandwich board. (I believe that's what usually happens to those doing "God's work"). The end is near, bro.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 13y ago
Lets be honest, the press for the most part vacated the fourth estate in 2008 and still far too many of them like their new home. We need to not only protect those who report the news, whether they are traditional news people or new style, bloggers, from the government but at the same time we may need to find ways to prevent political parties from co-opting the media. Far too many are way to cozy with political groups and fail to realize when they voluntarily give up their freedoms.
- jbooth 13y ago
  In 2008? Guess you weren't around in 2003?

sliverstorm 13y ago

Perfect... bring up the NSA every thirty seconds, until everyone is utterly sick of hearing it and automatically ignores anything related to the NSA... we can't thank you enough noonespecial, you are doing God's work.

obituary_latte 13y ago
What a shit attitude. Try taking into consideration that people feel helpless. People are desperate to try and change things. People may be acting - not in concert mind you - to affect some change. Try to respect that these people you lament are at least fucking trying. If all else fails, stfu.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  If all else fails, stfu. Who was it who has the shit attitude?
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    Touche. It appears I have a shit attitude towards stifling expression on such an important issue.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Though I should not be surprised, you misrepresent me. There's nothing wrong with covering the issue. It's just not helpful at best, and actively harmful at worst, to try to inject the issue into every possible place. We are intelligent adults; we are more than capable of thinking about more than just one issue. It isn't like there are many people left who haven't heard about it, and even if there were, the front page of HN has consistently contained several articles covering the NSA specifically for a number of weeks now.
      - obituary_latte 13y ago
        As I'm not surprised you condescend me by insulting my ability to interpret your post, I guess. My point is: why inhibit it no matter the context? Perhaps this is a new user who isn't privy to the daily dealings of hn? Maybe they aren't aware that their effort might be better spent on a less-informed forum? Why immediately dismiss and discourage their input?
      - mixmastamyk 13y ago
        People want to talk about, you'll have to deal.
- shitlord 13y ago
  "helpless", seriously? The guy had his privacy invaded and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that he was negatively affected by it. People drowning in debt or dying of disease feel helpless. This guy is just another person with an axe to grind. Imagine if someone tried to turn every thread about tax law into a debate about abortion. That is what has been happening lately. There's a time and a place for everything.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Helpless? I can't vote and have only a fraction of the rights that you do (assuming you're a US citizen) but I feel far from helpless about my standing relative to the government. Discussing the issue is healthy, obsessing about it so that nobody else is allowed to hold a conversation on a different subject without paying lip service to the NSA issue is not.
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    I see quite a bit of discussion in this thread that is wholly unrelated to the topic we are discussing. My beef is and was with the tone of the post. No need to proclaim that God's work is being done; no need to be a dick.
flatline 13y ago
It's not the NSA doing this intimidation, though they may well be facilitating it. I do agree that journalism is under siege in the US, however. I feel like the Obama administration would really like to put a stop to even the possibility of another major leak by stopping it before it starts. I thought this was a much bigger deal than Greenwald's SO being detained: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-re...
noonespecial 13y ago
I didn't mention the NSA specifically, just the surveillance state. My example was actually a British journalist, being intimidated by the detainment of his Brazilian SO, in London, traveling from Berlin, to Rio de Janeiro, abusing Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act. Its a lot deeper than "the NSA". Something's bad wrong. And yeah, I'm going to preach about it until it gets fixed or I end up a crazy man on the corner wearing a sandwich board. (I believe that's what usually happens to those doing "God's work"). The end is near, bro.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 13y ago

Lets be honest, the press for the most part vacated the fourth estate in 2008 and still far too many of them like their new home. We need to not only protect those who report the news, whether they are traditional news people or new style, bloggers, from the government but at the same time we may need to find ways to prevent political parties from co-opting the media. Far too many are way to cozy with political groups and fail to realize when they voluntarily give up their freedoms.

jbooth 13y ago
In 2008? Guess you weren't around in 2003?