4 ms·

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 dea

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.
akairobotto 13y ago
This criticism is not very coherent. Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite', and far from risking nothing, would surly have been mindful of previous British editors, like the BBC's Grek Dyke, who lost their job after challenging the government. The Guardian (and its predecessor The Manchester Guardian) has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism, and being in opposition of power (Orwell sometimes praised it - "The Manchester Guardian is the only [newspaper] that leaves me with an increased respect for its honesty." -- from Homage to Catalonia), so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is very much in keeping with the history of the paper, which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc. There are two false dichotomies: that only those who take risks deserve praise ("Bernstein's praise is misplaced..., and not to those who sacrificed a great deal."), and that competition alone motivates the publication of news ("if the material was released in a different way"). Clearly, in the first case praise is due to those, risk or no risk, who help to inform the public - primary evidence doesn't organise itself. The second point is demonstrably false: the Snowden material was released to a number of papers internationally, which have cooperated in releasing stories. If monopolising the information was Rusbridger's goal the publication would have been handled differently.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  > Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite' He's both a journalist and part of elite society (see his salary, events he attends, social circles/connections etc.) He risked nothing: His defence, as I stated in my comment, is the existence of other publishers whom he uses as actors who forced his hand and made the Guardian's publishing harmless in terms of disclosure. > The Guardian has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism That's what every newspaper claims but it isn't true. See "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky. > so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is a straightforward application of common sense that is supported by critical media analysis and nearly tautological: Powerful organizations are powerful. The government has a great deal of influence on the Guardian and those who work there. Opposing the government in a serious way typically results in hardship while supporting them yields benefits. You still have to maintain the appearance of seriously challenging power so that people buy your paper but you can go far without actually having to do much of it. The only reason they got away with it this time is they can claim that they were "forced" by the fact that other newspapers also published and that their publishing wouldn't have been a factor in whether the material was disclosed. > which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc. Same situation with multiple publishers. Even in that case they redacted names of elite, public individuals, claiming it was to protect themselves from libel allegations. > There are two false dichotomies... I never made either claim. Surely Bernstein should praise Snowden and Greenwald to the extent he has praised Rusbridger and before he praises Rusbridger? And competition is not the only factor but when competition for a particularly story exists it both forces a publisher's hand and protects them: They look foolish if they don't publish because somebody else will and they can claim their publication made no difference because someone else is going to publish anyway. In fact this might be one of the few reliable ways to pressure publishers to actually publish sensitive material: Leakers should give material to several news organizations in different countries and tell them so without disclosing the names of those organizations.
papaf 13y ago
The praise may be misplaced but it was well timed because an editor is being pressured by the Government. Also, your comment focuses on a bit of soap opera (who should be praised) at a time when the story is "Government threatens journalism". You do know that is a propaganda technique? The establishment has people paid to do that - you don't have to do their work for free.

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.

akairobotto 13y ago

This criticism is not very coherent. Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite', and far from risking nothing, would surly have been mindful of previous British editors, like the BBC's Grek Dyke, who lost their job after challenging the government. The Guardian (and its predecessor The Manchester Guardian) has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism, and being in opposition of power (Orwell sometimes praised it - "The Manchester Guardian is the only [newspaper] that leaves me with an increased respect for its honesty." -- from Homage to Catalonia), so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is very much in keeping with the history of the paper, which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc. There are two false dichotomies: that only those who take risks deserve praise ("Bernstein's praise is misplaced..., and not to those who sacrificed a great deal."), and that competition alone motivates the publication of news ("if the material was released in a different way"). Clearly, in the first case praise is due to those, risk or no risk, who help to inform the public - primary evidence doesn't organise itself. The second point is demonstrably false: the Snowden material was released to a number of papers internationally, which have cooperated in releasing stories. If monopolising the information was Rusbridger's goal the publication would have been handled differently.

foobarqux 13y ago
> Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite' He's both a journalist and part of elite society (see his salary, events he attends, social circles/connections etc.) He risked nothing: His defence, as I stated in my comment, is the existence of other publishers whom he uses as actors who forced his hand and made the Guardian's publishing harmless in terms of disclosure. > The Guardian has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism That's what every newspaper claims but it isn't true. See "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky. > so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is a straightforward application of common sense that is supported by critical media analysis and nearly tautological: Powerful organizations are powerful. The government has a great deal of influence on the Guardian and those who work there. Opposing the government in a serious way typically results in hardship while supporting them yields benefits. You still have to maintain the appearance of seriously challenging power so that people buy your paper but you can go far without actually having to do much of it. The only reason they got away with it this time is they can claim that they were "forced" by the fact that other newspapers also published and that their publishing wouldn't have been a factor in whether the material was disclosed. > which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc. Same situation with multiple publishers. Even in that case they redacted names of elite, public individuals, claiming it was to protect themselves from libel allegations. > There are two false dichotomies... I never made either claim. Surely Bernstein should praise Snowden and Greenwald to the extent he has praised Rusbridger and before he praises Rusbridger? And competition is not the only factor but when competition for a particularly story exists it both forces a publisher's hand and protects them: They look foolish if they don't publish because somebody else will and they can claim their publication made no difference because someone else is going to publish anyway. In fact this might be one of the few reliable ways to pressure publishers to actually publish sensitive material: Leakers should give material to several news organizations in different countries and tell them so without disclosing the names of those organizations.

papaf 13y ago

The praise may be misplaced but it was well timed because an editor is being pressured by the Government. Also, your comment focuses on a bit of soap opera (who should be praised) at a time when the story is "Government threatens journalism". You do know that is a propaganda technique? The establishment has people paid to do that - you don't have to do their work for free.