4 ms·

The Washington Post sat on the Collateral Murder video. [1,2] The New York Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping scandal at the request of the White House. [

The Washington Post sat on the Collateral Murder video. [1,2] The New York Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping scandal at the request of the White House. [3] CBS sat on the Abu Ghraib torture scandal at the request of the Pentagon. [4] What is the Washington Post not telling us? [1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15617022129 [2] http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat.php http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wapo_denies_allegation_it_sat.... [3] http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that-got-spiked/ http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/the-scoop-that-got... [4] http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS-Lets-the-Pentagon-Taint-Its-News-Process.aspx http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100787/CBS-Let...

marze 13y ago
What's your point? They are telling us a lot of things that Edward Snowden said recently that are interesting. Why whine?
- visakanv 13y ago
  I don't see it as "whining" as much as a reminder of the "what we see is all there is" bias. We may never know what's being hidden from us, but it's worth remembering that we can be near-certain of the existence of unknown-unknowns. The point is that all of this may be the tip of the iceberg. It's intellectually interesting to think about, with potentially grave consequences for day-to-day life.
  - marze 13y ago
    "near-certain of the existence of unknown-unknowns. The point is that all of this may be the tip of the iceberg." True enough, but I think everyone already knows that. The content of the recent Snowden interview, not so much.
lvs 13y ago
Your point is generally valid, if a bit tinfoiled, but their hand was particularly forced this time by Snowden. If you'll recall the recent history, Snowden was spooked by his interaction with Gellman -- particularly regarding publishing timeline -- and went to Greenwald instead [1]. There's some debate about the exact sequence of events, but regardless, Greenwald put the story out first, and the Post had no choice but to follow suit. NYT was left red-faced and could only -- shamelessly -- ask Snowden why he didn't choose them [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-glenn-greenwald-barton-gellman-92505.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-lea... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-tra...
- lukifer 13y ago
  A reminder: pre-Snowden, suspicions of dragnet spying on Americans would also have been described as "a bit tinfoiled".
SkynetSystems 13y ago
The Washington Post is a fucking joke. And then they wonder why people are abandoning print media in droves and turning to the internet for news.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I reckon it might be more that internet news is much cheaper. More people than ever before are reading articles from the mainstream print media, it is just that they are doing it on their websites rather than buying the print edition.
- superuser2 13y ago
  It's dozens of orders of magnitude less of a fucking joke than Twitter and the blogosphere as far as journalistic quality. Quality control is hard and when a newsroom full of full-time professionals fails, it's not as if *.blogspot.com was really going to do better.
foobarqux 13y ago
I think Snowden inadvertently demonstrated the only effective way to get media to publish leaks: Send them to multiple outlets in different countries. Doing so provides publishers with both impetus and cover.
- robterrell 13y ago
  I bet it wasn't inadvertent at all. I'm sure he saw it the same way you do.
  - derefr 13y ago
    I think the GP meant that the demonstration was inadvertent. As in, Snowden intended to use the strategy himself, but he didn't intend to teach the strategy through his actions.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  Didn't Wikileaks do the same? I think there was a good precedent before Snowden blew the doors off the NSA.

marze 13y ago

What's your point? They are telling us a lot of things that Edward Snowden said recently that are interesting. Why whine?

visakanv 13y ago
I don't see it as "whining" as much as a reminder of the "what we see is all there is" bias. We may never know what's being hidden from us, but it's worth remembering that we can be near-certain of the existence of unknown-unknowns. The point is that all of this may be the tip of the iceberg. It's intellectually interesting to think about, with potentially grave consequences for day-to-day life.
- marze 13y ago
  "near-certain of the existence of unknown-unknowns. The point is that all of this may be the tip of the iceberg." True enough, but I think everyone already knows that. The content of the recent Snowden interview, not so much.

lvs 13y ago

Your point is generally valid, if a bit tinfoiled, but their hand was particularly forced this time by Snowden. If you'll recall the recent history, Snowden was spooked by his interaction with Gellman -- particularly regarding publishing timeline -- and went to Greenwald instead [1]. There's some debate about the exact sequence of events, but regardless, Greenwald put the story out first, and the Post had no choice but to follow suit. NYT was left red-faced and could only -- shamelessly -- ask Snowden why he didn't choose them [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-glenn-greenwald-barton-gellman-92505.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-lea... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-tra...

lukifer 13y ago
A reminder: pre-Snowden, suspicions of dragnet spying on Americans would also have been described as "a bit tinfoiled".

SkynetSystems 13y ago

The Washington Post is a fucking joke. And then they wonder why people are abandoning print media in droves and turning to the internet for news.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I reckon it might be more that internet news is much cheaper. More people than ever before are reading articles from the mainstream print media, it is just that they are doing it on their websites rather than buying the print edition.
superuser2 13y ago
It's dozens of orders of magnitude less of a fucking joke than Twitter and the blogosphere as far as journalistic quality. Quality control is hard and when a newsroom full of full-time professionals fails, it's not as if *.blogspot.com was really going to do better.

foobarqux 13y ago

I think Snowden inadvertently demonstrated the only effective way to get media to publish leaks: Send them to multiple outlets in different countries. Doing so provides publishers with both impetus and cover.

robterrell 13y ago
I bet it wasn't inadvertent at all. I'm sure he saw it the same way you do.
- derefr 13y ago
  I think the GP meant that the demonstration was inadvertent. As in, Snowden intended to use the strategy himself, but he didn't intend to teach the strategy through his actions.
scott_karana 13y ago
Didn't Wikileaks do the same? I think there was a good precedent before Snowden blew the doors off the NSA.