8 ms·

An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

179 points by corin_ 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago
Personally looking forward to the creation of an Un-British Activities Committee.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  "You have been found guilty of not liking tea."
danso 13y ago
I like Carl, maybe because I also prefer Dustin Hoffman over Robert Redford (who played Woodward)...but this letter, and also how he's decided to teach journalism at a public instead of prestigious private college, makes me think he's a real standup guy as well as one of our most famous investigative reporters. http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-bernstein-joins-stony-brook-university/ http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-bernstei... > “I didn’t want to go to an Ivy League college or university — too many of them are stuck in a rarified approach to learning. I also wanted to be among a student body that had more young people who were not there by virtue of legacy or earning power of their parents. Also, Bob Woodward has not been as gracious during the whole Snowden affair, basically annoyed that Snowden didn't go to him, as opposed to his apparently inferior WaPo colleagues, such as Barton Gellman, who's a Pulitzer-winning journalist (twice) himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-bob-woodward_n_4317547.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-bob-...
- larrys 13y ago
  Oh please. As if everyone going to an IVY League (or similar) school is there because of legacy or earning power of their parents? "that had more young people who were not there by virtue of legacy or earning power of their parents" I think that's a huge leap. Not only that but the IVY League schools have a large number of students that are there on scholarship and are given a great opportunity. Harvard (as only one example) gives free tuition to certain students: http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free-tuition-to-low-income-families/ http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free... He can and should teach wherever he wants of course. But to cloak it in some kind of higher purpose or respectability as if he is better than the person who decides they do want to teach at a particular prestigious school I just don't agree with that.
  - jckt 13y ago
    He said more people in Ivies are there because of legacy/earning power of parents, relative to the average school (which I think is a rather uncontroversial point). He didn't say everyone, which is what you're saying.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    You've given as little data to your claim as he did to his. Maybe he said that just to seem noble, or maybe he actually looked into the numbers and is speaking the truth. Without looking those numbers up yourself your comment is just guesswork.
booyaa00 13y ago
I know this will be unpopular here, but personally, I would like to see the Guardian prosecuted for its reckless reporting of stolen information in the same way that phone hacking was dealt with. You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. If your government is doing something bad, then it should be dealt with legally, and via the established checks and balances. Newspapers shouldn't be above the law.
- grey-area 13y ago
  The guardian didn't steal documents. The fourth estate is part of the established checks and balances you mention, in fact it's the most important and independent part.
- fleitz 13y ago
  They haven't stolen anything the government still has the information which is public domain. Citizens have the right to know what the laws of their country are, if the government believes it has the right to snoop your phones calls then it must submit a request to change the law to parliament.
- angersock 13y ago
  You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. Erm, why? What's your reasoning here beyond "but the laaaaaaw"? Do you even have any moral reasoning backing that?
  - booyaa00 13y ago
    So you'd be fine with someone stealing data the government holds on your, say your medical records, and publishing them on the front page would you? Maybe your last few tax returns. May as well publish those as well! How about state secrets on any weak parts of military defences? Yes I have moral reasoning. It's stolen information.
    - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
foobarqux 13y ago
Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would have been loath to sign off on reporting on as much as he did.
- javajosh 13y ago
  But it's this letter that has a small chance of convincing my 65 year-old aunt that Snowden did the right thing, not emphasizing the sacrifice of two individuals. She's a Democrat, and otherwise a good person (I'd even say she's a remarkably good person) and she truly thinks Snowden is a traitor. In her mind the fact of behind-the-scenes surveillance projects are secrets are like nuclear launch codes or troop movements - e.g. legitimate "trade secrets" that the government needs, in this case to prevent another 9/11 from happening. Of course she's horribly wrong, because like most people she's pretty bad at estimating risk. In this case, she's grossly over-estimating the risk from terrorism, and grossly under-estimating the risk we assume when our government gives itself surveillance super-powers over us (and in secret, no less!). Anyway, this article might open up her eyes to the latter mistake, that she is grossly under-estimating the risk of government granting itself such power, not to mention the risk of a government exerting unprecedented influence over the press. This letter connects this to something she knows about, and feels strongly about: Watergate. So maybe she'll listen, and rethink her position, and for that reason, it's a great article that I'll be emailing to her momentarily.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    If he wanted to praise Snowden for doing the right thing he should have written an open letter to him and not Rusbridger.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      Bernstein is a journalist writing to a jourlanist (Rusbridger) about journalism. That's his place, and why he is worth paying attention to in this instance. It is the place of intelligence contractors to speak up and defend Snowden's actions in his role as a defense contractor.
ch215 13y ago
For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself. First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view. Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret services. Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?" asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal. As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's about it in terms of any debate. The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being reincarnated as an olive.
- mercurial 13y ago
  Interesting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels, and call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law. Same people, different location.
  - ch215 13y ago
    Agreed. The calamity of politics never ceases to beggar belief. As concerned as I am about the surveillance revelations, I'm positively perplexed by how a 29-year-old contractor for a foreign government was allowed access to British secrets like the names of covert agents. If anyone has breached national security--it's not The Guardian who have been _relatively_ responsible--it's those who allowed such a blindingly dangerous situation to arise. So many questions, so few answers, so much for the “mother of parliaments”.
  - 13y ago
csandreasen 13y ago
Certainly terrorists are already aware that they are under extensive surveillance, and did not need Mr Snowden or the Guardian to tell them that. I see this argument used frequently, and I don't understand it all. I've been under the impression that most people did not know about the scale and capabilities of the NSA. This stuff was not public information. If the average person didn't know about it, why would the people being actively targeted know about it? Does the Guardian have evidence that "the terrorists" know about the sources and methods used by the NSA that are being disclosed now? Rather than hauling in journalists for questioning and trying to intimidate them, the Commons would do well to encourage and join that debate ... I can't speak for the UK, since I haven't followed the reaction over GCHQ as much, but the heads of the US intelligence community have been called in front of Congress quite a few times since the leaks started to be questioned regarding these programs. Several of their appearances were public, which is rare for intelligence committee hearings. This debate is happening. That said, if the press is holding onto a trove of information that the government claims could do serious harm to national security, what exactly is wrong with calling them forward to answer questions about how they intend to use it and how they intend to ensure that what they disclose will not affect national security? I would think that answers to those questions would certainly fall in the public interest.
- danenania 13y ago
  Your mistake is giving any shred of credibility to the statements these agencies release. Nearly every public statement they've made on the leaks has turned out to be a lie or misdirection. For example, the primary motive of the surveillance programs clearly has not been to target terrorists, but political and economic espionage. They're spying on everyone in the world. Anyone who prefers a free society to fascism is going to be to concerned about that, not the prevarications that officials come up with to try to get themselves off the hook. If you really think journalists are the people that need to be questioned in light of all this, I don't know what to say. You've probably already guzzled way too much of the authoritarian kool-aid.
  - csandreasen 13y ago
    I put "the terrorists" in quotes because they were Mr. Bernstein's words, not mine. The NSA is tasked with gathering foreign intelligence - in other words, espionage. That's their entire purpose, and has been their purpose since their inception. They should be gathering information on foreign military plans and capabilities, the intentions of foreign heads of state, foreign intelligence service actions carried out against the US, etc. And, of course, the plans of foreign terrorists. I don't like the overuse of the terrorist justification, but I can see why it's used so often. None of the other things I mentioned are of any immediate importance in the day-to-day life of the average American. Everyone remembers 9/11, though. I think it's a bit insulting to the American public to just wrap everything up by saying "we're doing this to protect you from terrorists", and it opens up the administration to a lot additional criticism by citing low incidence of foreign terrorist attacks against Americans. Very little of what the media has reported to us has been about who the NSA is targeting or what information they're gathering, though - most of it has been centered on how they're collecting the information. Disclosures of sources and methods doesn't just have the potential to hurt counter-terrorist efforts, they have the potential to affect a much larger scope of national interests. It's dishonest on both the government and media's side to say that this is just a debate about terrorism. Holding public hearings does harm to no one. No one is being arrested; no one is being charged with a crime. They are answering questions. Both sides are presenting information to lawmakers as well as the public. If this is your definition of fascism, then we must using different dictionaries. The government doesn't hold a monopoly on lies and misdirection, either. There's no reason that you shouldn't be just as skeptical of the reporting of any news agency as you should from a government press release. Given the number of errors, misdirections and retractions that we've seen over the past few months, one really should be closely examining the reporting and asking how much is truth and how much is either misinterpretation or just hype to draw advertising dollars. A few example that I can recall that you wouldn't have seen on the HN front page: - Misinterpretation of the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slides that led to the series of "NSA is collecting millions of a communications inside (insert country here)": http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interpretation-of-boundlessinformant-nsa http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interp... - Innacuracies in the early PRISM reporting: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-is... - Innaccuracies in the early XKeyscore reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 - Stewart Baker, quoted extensively in the "NSA spies on porn" article, claims the authors omitted key parts of his quotes because it would make them look hypocritical: http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ - A long list of early mistakes in NSA reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c So no, I don't give journalists a free pass. The reporters who are looking at these documents have never touched these systems, and they're getting all of their information from a single source. They're not experts and I expect them to make mistakes. The also have newspapers to sell, and some of those articles are looser on the headlines than others. When they release a document, I expect to see members of the intelligence community come before Congress and get grilled over it, so that the public can get a better understanding of what they're seeing in the papers. In the same manner, when the press has information that could affect national interests, I expect them to answer questions in a public hearing about how they're handling that information, especially when they play such a huge role in guiding our understanding of the debate. I prefer to apply a good deal of skepticism and critical thinking to anything I read on the internet. I like my Kool-Aid that way. How does yours taste?

179 points by corin_ 13y ago

mercurial 13y ago

Personally looking forward to the creation of an Un-British Activities Committee.

ceejayoz 13y ago
"You have been found guilty of not liking tea."

danso 13y ago

I like Carl, maybe because I also prefer Dustin Hoffman over Robert Redford (who played Woodward)...but this letter, and also how he's decided to teach journalism at a public instead of prestigious private college, makes me think he's a real standup guy as well as one of our most famous investigative reporters. http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-bernstein-joins-stony-brook-university/ http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-bernstei... > “I didn’t want to go to an Ivy League college or university — too many of them are stuck in a rarified approach to learning. I also wanted to be among a student body that had more young people who were not there by virtue of legacy or earning power of their parents. Also, Bob Woodward has not been as gracious during the whole Snowden affair, basically annoyed that Snowden didn't go to him, as opposed to his apparently inferior WaPo colleagues, such as Barton Gellman, who's a Pulitzer-winning journalist (twice) himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-bob-woodward_n_4317547.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-bob-...

larrys 13y ago
Oh please. As if everyone going to an IVY League (or similar) school is there because of legacy or earning power of their parents? "that had more young people who were not there by virtue of legacy or earning power of their parents" I think that's a huge leap. Not only that but the IVY League schools have a large number of students that are there on scholarship and are given a great opportunity. Harvard (as only one example) gives free tuition to certain students: http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free-tuition-to-low-income-families/ http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free... He can and should teach wherever he wants of course. But to cloak it in some kind of higher purpose or respectability as if he is better than the person who decides they do want to teach at a particular prestigious school I just don't agree with that.
- jckt 13y ago
  He said more people in Ivies are there because of legacy/earning power of parents, relative to the average school (which I think is a rather uncontroversial point). He didn't say everyone, which is what you're saying.
- corin_ 13y ago
  You've given as little data to your claim as he did to his. Maybe he said that just to seem noble, or maybe he actually looked into the numbers and is speaking the truth. Without looking those numbers up yourself your comment is just guesswork.

booyaa00 13y ago

I know this will be unpopular here, but personally, I would like to see the Guardian prosecuted for its reckless reporting of stolen information in the same way that phone hacking was dealt with. You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. If your government is doing something bad, then it should be dealt with legally, and via the established checks and balances. Newspapers shouldn't be above the law.

grey-area 13y ago
The guardian didn't steal documents. The fourth estate is part of the established checks and balances you mention, in fact it's the most important and independent part.
fleitz 13y ago
They haven't stolen anything the government still has the information which is public domain. Citizens have the right to know what the laws of their country are, if the government believes it has the right to snoop your phones calls then it must submit a request to change the law to parliament.
angersock 13y ago
You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. Erm, why? What's your reasoning here beyond "but the laaaaaaw"? Do you even have any moral reasoning backing that?
- booyaa00 13y ago
  So you'd be fine with someone stealing data the government holds on your, say your medical records, and publishing them on the front page would you? Maybe your last few tax returns. May as well publish those as well! How about state secrets on any weak parts of military defences? Yes I have moral reasoning. It's stolen information.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

foobarqux 13y ago

Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would have been loath to sign off on reporting on as much as he did.

javajosh 13y ago
But it's this letter that has a small chance of convincing my 65 year-old aunt that Snowden did the right thing, not emphasizing the sacrifice of two individuals. She's a Democrat, and otherwise a good person (I'd even say she's a remarkably good person) and she truly thinks Snowden is a traitor. In her mind the fact of behind-the-scenes surveillance projects are secrets are like nuclear launch codes or troop movements - e.g. legitimate "trade secrets" that the government needs, in this case to prevent another 9/11 from happening. Of course she's horribly wrong, because like most people she's pretty bad at estimating risk. In this case, she's grossly over-estimating the risk from terrorism, and grossly under-estimating the risk we assume when our government gives itself surveillance super-powers over us (and in secret, no less!). Anyway, this article might open up her eyes to the latter mistake, that she is grossly under-estimating the risk of government granting itself such power, not to mention the risk of a government exerting unprecedented influence over the press. This letter connects this to something she knows about, and feels strongly about: Watergate. So maybe she'll listen, and rethink her position, and for that reason, it's a great article that I'll be emailing to her momentarily.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  If he wanted to praise Snowden for doing the right thing he should have written an open letter to him and not Rusbridger.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    Bernstein is a journalist writing to a jourlanist (Rusbridger) about journalism. That's his place, and why he is worth paying attention to in this instance. It is the place of intelligence contractors to speak up and defend Snowden's actions in his role as a defense contractor.

ch215 13y ago

For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself. First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view. Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret services. Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?" asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal. As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's about it in terms of any debate. The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being reincarnated as an olive.

mercurial 13y ago
Interesting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels, and call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law. Same people, different location.
- ch215 13y ago
  Agreed. The calamity of politics never ceases to beggar belief. As concerned as I am about the surveillance revelations, I'm positively perplexed by how a 29-year-old contractor for a foreign government was allowed access to British secrets like the names of covert agents. If anyone has breached national security--it's not The Guardian who have been _relatively_ responsible--it's those who allowed such a blindingly dangerous situation to arise. So many questions, so few answers, so much for the “mother of parliaments”.
- 13y ago

csandreasen 13y ago

Certainly terrorists are already aware that they are under extensive surveillance, and did not need Mr Snowden or the Guardian to tell them that. I see this argument used frequently, and I don't understand it all. I've been under the impression that most people did not know about the scale and capabilities of the NSA. This stuff was not public information. If the average person didn't know about it, why would the people being actively targeted know about it? Does the Guardian have evidence that "the terrorists" know about the sources and methods used by the NSA that are being disclosed now? Rather than hauling in journalists for questioning and trying to intimidate them, the Commons would do well to encourage and join that debate ... I can't speak for the UK, since I haven't followed the reaction over GCHQ as much, but the heads of the US intelligence community have been called in front of Congress quite a few times since the leaks started to be questioned regarding these programs. Several of their appearances were public, which is rare for intelligence committee hearings. This debate is happening. That said, if the press is holding onto a trove of information that the government claims could do serious harm to national security, what exactly is wrong with calling them forward to answer questions about how they intend to use it and how they intend to ensure that what they disclose will not affect national security? I would think that answers to those questions would certainly fall in the public interest.

danenania 13y ago
Your mistake is giving any shred of credibility to the statements these agencies release. Nearly every public statement they've made on the leaks has turned out to be a lie or misdirection. For example, the primary motive of the surveillance programs clearly has not been to target terrorists, but political and economic espionage. They're spying on everyone in the world. Anyone who prefers a free society to fascism is going to be to concerned about that, not the prevarications that officials come up with to try to get themselves off the hook. If you really think journalists are the people that need to be questioned in light of all this, I don't know what to say. You've probably already guzzled way too much of the authoritarian kool-aid.
- csandreasen 13y ago
  I put "the terrorists" in quotes because they were Mr. Bernstein's words, not mine. The NSA is tasked with gathering foreign intelligence - in other words, espionage. That's their entire purpose, and has been their purpose since their inception. They should be gathering information on foreign military plans and capabilities, the intentions of foreign heads of state, foreign intelligence service actions carried out against the US, etc. And, of course, the plans of foreign terrorists. I don't like the overuse of the terrorist justification, but I can see why it's used so often. None of the other things I mentioned are of any immediate importance in the day-to-day life of the average American. Everyone remembers 9/11, though. I think it's a bit insulting to the American public to just wrap everything up by saying "we're doing this to protect you from terrorists", and it opens up the administration to a lot additional criticism by citing low incidence of foreign terrorist attacks against Americans. Very little of what the media has reported to us has been about who the NSA is targeting or what information they're gathering, though - most of it has been centered on how they're collecting the information. Disclosures of sources and methods doesn't just have the potential to hurt counter-terrorist efforts, they have the potential to affect a much larger scope of national interests. It's dishonest on both the government and media's side to say that this is just a debate about terrorism. Holding public hearings does harm to no one. No one is being arrested; no one is being charged with a crime. They are answering questions. Both sides are presenting information to lawmakers as well as the public. If this is your definition of fascism, then we must using different dictionaries. The government doesn't hold a monopoly on lies and misdirection, either. There's no reason that you shouldn't be just as skeptical of the reporting of any news agency as you should from a government press release. Given the number of errors, misdirections and retractions that we've seen over the past few months, one really should be closely examining the reporting and asking how much is truth and how much is either misinterpretation or just hype to draw advertising dollars. A few example that I can recall that you wouldn't have seen on the HN front page: - Misinterpretation of the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slides that led to the series of "NSA is collecting millions of a communications inside (insert country here)": http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interpretation-of-boundlessinformant-nsa http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interp... - Innacuracies in the early PRISM reporting: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-is... - Innaccuracies in the early XKeyscore reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 - Stewart Baker, quoted extensively in the "NSA spies on porn" article, claims the authors omitted key parts of his quotes because it would make them look hypocritical: http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ - A long list of early mistakes in NSA reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c So no, I don't give journalists a free pass. The reporters who are looking at these documents have never touched these systems, and they're getting all of their information from a single source. They're not experts and I expect them to make mistakes. The also have newspapers to sell, and some of those articles are looser on the headlines than others. When they release a document, I expect to see members of the intelligence community come before Congress and get grilled over it, so that the public can get a better understanding of what they're seeing in the papers. In the same manner, when the press has information that could affect national interests, I expect them to answer questions in a public hearing about how they're handling that information, especially when they play such a huge role in guiding our understanding of the debate. I prefer to apply a good deal of skepticism and critical thinking to anything I read on the internet. I like my Kool-Aid that way. How does yours taste?