9 ms·

I am one of the few who remember a time when 60 Minutes actually did investigative journalism and not biased propaganda pieces for the likes of the NSA. Now you

I am one of the few who remember a time when 60 Minutes actually did investigative journalism and not biased propaganda pieces for the likes of the NSA. Now you'll be hard-pressed to find any investigation in a 60 Minutes story, let alone the journalism part. Sad.

res0nat0r 13y ago
What should they have done differently? I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough.
- wyclif 13y ago
  How about asking some hard questions instead of tossing softballs? For instance, why wasn't Keith Alexander confronted by the fact that he lied to Congress and the FISA courts? But no, that would have cut into their driveby on Snowden. Did you know that Edward Snowden kicks puppies? &c. I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The lying to Congress issues aren't so black and white as I mentioned in another thread. Here is a writeup about Clapper: > There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret. http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-congress/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-co...
    - mrobot 13y ago
      Well, maybe they should have touched on it, then. I wonder why they didn't!
    - lemming 13y ago
      He could have said "I can't comment on that in a public forum".
      - growupkids 13y ago
        I think that might where the miscommunication comes in with lay people. Commenting at all would confirm the existence of a classified program. That's the rule everyone is taught when you get read in. You're taught to never divulge. So whereas a case could be made that this program was illegal, the fact that it's classified means it's next to impossible to comment at all about it in a public forum. So, you lie As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why haven't they done anything?
        mrobot 13y ago
        Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? Doesn't hiding the details of the program protect it from those who would oppose it? Wouldn't some effort be expended there?
        betterunix 13y ago
        "It's hard to claim anyone was lied to" His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to everyone in the world, since the record is public.
        rhizome 13y ago
        So, you lie And, presumably honorably, take the consequences for hiding an illegal program.
    - TheCondor 13y ago
      How does it change this that he was given the questions ahead of time? He is not a low level employes, he has the ears of people at the highest levels and could have requested a closed hearing. He probably could have asked the president to request one. Was this an orchestrated lie? If there wasn't a policy change to acknowledge the program, it would be closed.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    I would've been happy with any treatment of parallel construction. They seemed to avoid that like it was puppy-killing. Which, it probably is as bad.
- vinhboy 13y ago
  Here is another example. They spent like a good 5 minutes talking about how they hired all these smart kids to work on cryptography, specifically code breaking. Maybe 60 minutes could have simply asked them, "We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication, is that what your code breaking work is for? And why are you doing that?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    >We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication That isn't a loaded question whatsoever. This response is justifying my statement above. The piece needed to have many 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type questions before the majority of the audience here would be happy with the reporting.
    - vinhboy 13y ago
      How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken SSL. For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.
      - growupkids 13y ago
        How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!
        philwelch 13y ago
- logn 13y ago
  I get they had to play softball to get access. However there are ways to still do honest journalism despite this. They could have interviewed anyone outside of the NSA skeptical of their practices and spliced together numerous views. They could have asked hard questions and then shown NSA's refusal to answer them. And this whole piece was very light on facts. I kept expecting a voiceover of the journalist to explain how the NSA's story doesn't match the facts leaked. And there's no historical context of the NSA's dishonesty.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "I get they had to play softball to get access" Maybe they shouldn't bother then. The NSA should not be given a propaganda platform; if they will not answer hard questions, then they should not get a chance to talk at all.
    - cma 13y ago
      Getting an official on the air gets views and sells ads.
- mrobot 13y ago
  > I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough. Or maybe just something that's not 100% positive.
lamontcg 13y ago
this is called "Manufacturing Consent" and its the major purpose that 60 minutes has always served. it is not new.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
Actually, 60 Minutes has quite a checkered past. The first thing that comes to mind is their misrepresentation in the 80s of reports of "unintended acceleration" in Audi 5000s. Their colored journalism almost ruined the company. CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car. ... '60 Minutes,' in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Sorry to reply to myself, but I just want to append a couple of other ethical lapses on their part: - Softballing Obama and Clinton on Benghazi [1], in which the journalist interviewing about a controversial topic asks mindless questions. - Dan Rather's credulity on GWB National Guard forgeries [2] (leading to firings and eventually Rather's retirement) [1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minutes-viewers-blast-swoon-journalist-kroft-lovefest-interview-obam http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minut... [2] http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

res0nat0r 13y ago

What should they have done differently? I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough.

wyclif 13y ago
How about asking some hard questions instead of tossing softballs? For instance, why wasn't Keith Alexander confronted by the fact that he lied to Congress and the FISA courts? But no, that would have cut into their driveby on Snowden. Did you know that Edward Snowden kicks puppies? &c. I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  The lying to Congress issues aren't so black and white as I mentioned in another thread. Here is a writeup about Clapper: > There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret. http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-congress/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-co...
  - mrobot 13y ago
    Well, maybe they should have touched on it, then. I wonder why they didn't!
  - lemming 13y ago
    He could have said "I can't comment on that in a public forum".
    - growupkids 13y ago
      I think that might where the miscommunication comes in with lay people. Commenting at all would confirm the existence of a classified program. That's the rule everyone is taught when you get read in. You're taught to never divulge. So whereas a case could be made that this program was illegal, the fact that it's classified means it's next to impossible to comment at all about it in a public forum. So, you lie As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why haven't they done anything?
      - mrobot 13y ago
        Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? Doesn't hiding the details of the program protect it from those who would oppose it? Wouldn't some effort be expended there?
      - betterunix 13y ago
        "It's hard to claim anyone was lied to" His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to everyone in the world, since the record is public.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        So, you lie And, presumably honorably, take the consequences for hiding an illegal program.
  - TheCondor 13y ago
    How does it change this that he was given the questions ahead of time? He is not a low level employes, he has the ears of people at the highest levels and could have requested a closed hearing. He probably could have asked the president to request one. Was this an orchestrated lie? If there wasn't a policy change to acknowledge the program, it would be closed.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  I would've been happy with any treatment of parallel construction. They seemed to avoid that like it was puppy-killing. Which, it probably is as bad.
vinhboy 13y ago
Here is another example. They spent like a good 5 minutes talking about how they hired all these smart kids to work on cryptography, specifically code breaking. Maybe 60 minutes could have simply asked them, "We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication, is that what your code breaking work is for? And why are you doing that?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  >We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication That isn't a loaded question whatsoever. This response is justifying my statement above. The piece needed to have many 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type questions before the majority of the audience here would be happy with the reporting.
  - vinhboy 13y ago
    How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken SSL. For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.
    - growupkids 13y ago
      How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!
      - philwelch 13y ago
logn 13y ago
I get they had to play softball to get access. However there are ways to still do honest journalism despite this. They could have interviewed anyone outside of the NSA skeptical of their practices and spliced together numerous views. They could have asked hard questions and then shown NSA's refusal to answer them. And this whole piece was very light on facts. I kept expecting a voiceover of the journalist to explain how the NSA's story doesn't match the facts leaked. And there's no historical context of the NSA's dishonesty.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "I get they had to play softball to get access" Maybe they shouldn't bother then. The NSA should not be given a propaganda platform; if they will not answer hard questions, then they should not get a chance to talk at all.
  - cma 13y ago
    Getting an official on the air gets views and sells ads.
mrobot 13y ago
> I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough. Or maybe just something that's not 100% positive.

lamontcg 13y ago

this is called "Manufacturing Consent" and its the major purpose that 60 minutes has always served. it is not new.

CWuestefeld 13y ago

Actually, 60 Minutes has quite a checkered past. The first thing that comes to mind is their misrepresentation in the 80s of reports of "unintended acceleration" in Audi 5000s. Their colored journalism almost ruined the company. CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car. ... '60 Minutes,' in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm

CWuestefeld 13y ago
Sorry to reply to myself, but I just want to append a couple of other ethical lapses on their part: - Softballing Obama and Clinton on Benghazi [1], in which the journalist interviewing about a controversial topic asks mindless questions. - Dan Rather's credulity on GWB National Guard forgeries [2] (leading to firings and eventually Rather's retirement) [1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minutes-viewers-blast-swoon-journalist-kroft-lovefest-interview-obam http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minut... [2] http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]