11 ms·

"Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden’s leaks ..." That statement is a perfect example of the real problem with

by jobu 13y ago

"Even as Washington grapples with the diplomatic and political fallout of Mr. Snowden’s leaks ..." That statement is a perfect example of the real problem with the US government and many journalists. They don't see the actual spying as the cause of all the backlash - it's all Snowden's fault for telling the world.

roc 13y ago
Political journalism in the US has been meta for so long, I don't think they even know the difference anymore.
- ProAm 13y ago
  Politics and Journalism have always been a little 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'. They both need each other to exist, and yet feign like they can't stand each other at the same time.
  - illumen 13y ago
    Or with Murdoch it's BIG, not little. For example, after all Murdoch newspapers in Australia (which is most newspapers) went for one political party. That party won the election, and afterwards Murdoch got almost a billion $ tax cut from the government that was elected. Similar tactics are used all over the world, and he switches sides too.
- psbp 13y ago
  It's been like this for a long time. A controversy will feed itself, the actual issues won't as easily be stuck in perpetuity. Even history is taught like this.
  - silentOpen 13y ago
    History is a narrative. Teaching is a narrative. Media is a narrative. Examining the root causes rather than the narrative fabric is rational. Most governmental actors are either intentionally or ignorantly not rational in this respect.
tylerkahn 13y ago
I'd prefer journalists themselves not take a position on the spying or what Snowden did. The statement contains no judgement either way. Sounds like you're the target market for Glenn Greenwald's new news organization. https://firstlook.org/ https://firstlook.org/
- bediger4000 13y ago
  "Taking no position" often leads to annoying "he said/she said" lazy journalism. You know, where no matter how obvious the truth is, they find some photogenic dimwit to oppose the issue. Lazy journalists can then claim they took no position, and presented both sides of the issue in question. This is essentially the same as the Creationist's stated desire to "teach the controversy". Rubbish. Show the evidence and say what it adds up to.
  - TillE 13y ago
    "Controversial" really is the favorite weasel word of that brand of journalism. Sometimes there's an actual debate, but more often than not, one side or the other is just factually wrong.
  - deveac 13y ago
    Exactly. Too many news organizations eschew investigative reporting and instead lazily settle for "presenting both sides." And what if there are more than two sides? Well two is enough. It'll do. To even decide to report on an issue in the first place is to take a stand on its value. News organizations are doing the public a disservice in stopping there.
- dreamfactory2 13y ago
  No such thing as a neutral position. Journalism editorialises by definition.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Exactly. If I were making a "neutral" or "position-less" documentary on the planet Earth, it would be impossible for me to actually do. I could ignore flat earthers, but then I would arguably be taking a position in the matter of "what is the geometry of the earth.". But if I gave them equal screen-time, or really any screen-time, then I would be unfairly giving them far more screen-time than they were deserving of making me biased in favor of them. The entire notion of journalism without any sort of position, biases, or editorialize is absurd. Nothing but a completely raw and unfiltered datastream of everything that I receive could possibly qualify, except that of course would not longer be journalism of any sort.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Why don't we got one step deeper and blame media for publishing and making a big deal of Snowden revelations or even a step further and blame people for believing media. When put that way it is quite clear that Snowden is not anymore at fault than media or people.
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  Yes, I agree. Maybe the FISA law should forbid the press from even reporting on these things. That would be consistent with their rationalization for muzzling the tech companies who give up our data. After all, the bad guys now know where not to store their data. Heck let's just have the government take over internet and shut down all private websites. Total information control. That'll stop terrorism!
- josu 13y ago
  It's actually the US Government's fault for making it mandatory for people to learn to read. There, full circle.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Fucking liberals and their fancy "education policies". You know who likes education? China. Fucking communists.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    There is already a "war on" education, reading is fine so is arithmetic, independent and creative thought is real criminal. What we need is a solid foundation of the basics, w/o any of that pesky high level stuff.
  - logicchains 13y ago
    "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." - Mark Twain
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  It's really The Guardian's fault for completely botching the PRISM reporting. They thought DITU (a department of the FBI) was a server and from that misunderstanding came to the ridiculous conclusion that the tech companies gave the NSA a backdoor into their systems.
patcheudor 13y ago
Going a bit higher up the stack from where you are at it's a perfect example of the real problem being the US Patriot Act which required the NSA to spy in ways that were not in alignment with their prior charter. In terms of spying itself, everyone is fooling themselves if they think other countries aren't engaged in the exact same activities. Snowden's leaks simply brought what's been going on for a long time by a large number of governments into the public light.
- l0stb0y 13y ago
  Exactly. I'm not convinced that the German government is all that invested in the privacy of its corporations or citizens. The world needs more Snowdens!
  - saraid216 13y ago
    "What would Snowden do?"
dredmorbius 13y ago
The concepts aren't mutually exclusive. The spying is the underlying problem. The fallout is indisputably the result of Snowden's heroic disclosures -- and yes, I'm a full-on fan of what Snowden did, as well as why and how.

by jobu 13y ago

roc 13y ago

Political journalism in the US has been meta for so long, I don't think they even know the difference anymore.

ProAm 13y ago
Politics and Journalism have always been a little 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'. They both need each other to exist, and yet feign like they can't stand each other at the same time.
- illumen 13y ago
  Or with Murdoch it's BIG, not little. For example, after all Murdoch newspapers in Australia (which is most newspapers) went for one political party. That party won the election, and afterwards Murdoch got almost a billion $ tax cut from the government that was elected. Similar tactics are used all over the world, and he switches sides too.
psbp 13y ago
It's been like this for a long time. A controversy will feed itself, the actual issues won't as easily be stuck in perpetuity. Even history is taught like this.
- silentOpen 13y ago
  History is a narrative. Teaching is a narrative. Media is a narrative. Examining the root causes rather than the narrative fabric is rational. Most governmental actors are either intentionally or ignorantly not rational in this respect.

tylerkahn 13y ago

I'd prefer journalists themselves not take a position on the spying or what Snowden did. The statement contains no judgement either way. Sounds like you're the target market for Glenn Greenwald's new news organization. https://firstlook.org/ https://firstlook.org/

bediger4000 13y ago
"Taking no position" often leads to annoying "he said/she said" lazy journalism. You know, where no matter how obvious the truth is, they find some photogenic dimwit to oppose the issue. Lazy journalists can then claim they took no position, and presented both sides of the issue in question. This is essentially the same as the Creationist's stated desire to "teach the controversy". Rubbish. Show the evidence and say what it adds up to.
- TillE 13y ago
  "Controversial" really is the favorite weasel word of that brand of journalism. Sometimes there's an actual debate, but more often than not, one side or the other is just factually wrong.
- deveac 13y ago
  Exactly. Too many news organizations eschew investigative reporting and instead lazily settle for "presenting both sides." And what if there are more than two sides? Well two is enough. It'll do. To even decide to report on an issue in the first place is to take a stand on its value. News organizations are doing the public a disservice in stopping there.
dreamfactory2 13y ago
No such thing as a neutral position. Journalism editorialises by definition.
- Crito 13y ago
  Exactly. If I were making a "neutral" or "position-less" documentary on the planet Earth, it would be impossible for me to actually do. I could ignore flat earthers, but then I would arguably be taking a position in the matter of "what is the geometry of the earth.". But if I gave them equal screen-time, or really any screen-time, then I would be unfairly giving them far more screen-time than they were deserving of making me biased in favor of them. The entire notion of journalism without any sort of position, biases, or editorialize is absurd. Nothing but a completely raw and unfiltered datastream of everything that I receive could possibly qualify, except that of course would not longer be journalism of any sort.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

Why don't we got one step deeper and blame media for publishing and making a big deal of Snowden revelations or even a step further and blame people for believing media. When put that way it is quite clear that Snowden is not anymore at fault than media or people.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago
Yes, I agree. Maybe the FISA law should forbid the press from even reporting on these things. That would be consistent with their rationalization for muzzling the tech companies who give up our data. After all, the bad guys now know where not to store their data. Heck let's just have the government take over internet and shut down all private websites. Total information control. That'll stop terrorism!
josu 13y ago
It's actually the US Government's fault for making it mandatory for people to learn to read. There, full circle.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Fucking liberals and their fancy "education policies". You know who likes education? China. Fucking communists.
- sitkack 13y ago
  There is already a "war on" education, reading is fine so is arithmetic, independent and creative thought is real criminal. What we need is a solid foundation of the basics, w/o any of that pesky high level stuff.
- logicchains 13y ago
  "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." - Mark Twain
lern_too_spel 13y ago
It's really The Guardian's fault for completely botching the PRISM reporting. They thought DITU (a department of the FBI) was a server and from that misunderstanding came to the ridiculous conclusion that the tech companies gave the NSA a backdoor into their systems.

patcheudor 13y ago

Going a bit higher up the stack from where you are at it's a perfect example of the real problem being the US Patriot Act which required the NSA to spy in ways that were not in alignment with their prior charter. In terms of spying itself, everyone is fooling themselves if they think other countries aren't engaged in the exact same activities. Snowden's leaks simply brought what's been going on for a long time by a large number of governments into the public light.

l0stb0y 13y ago
Exactly. I'm not convinced that the German government is all that invested in the privacy of its corporations or citizens. The world needs more Snowdens!
- saraid216 13y ago
  "What would Snowden do?"

dredmorbius 13y ago

The concepts aren't mutually exclusive. The spying is the underlying problem. The fallout is indisputably the result of Snowden's heroic disclosures -- and yes, I'm a full-on fan of what Snowden did, as well as why and how.