3 ms·
> The story in the Sunday Times suggests that they went with (a). Is that an agreement with the The Intercept's claim that the Sunday Times will publish, witho
by Intermernet 11y ago
> The story in the Sunday Times suggests that they went with (a).
Is that an agreement with the The Intercept's claim that the Sunday Times will publish, without fact checking, anything the UK gov asks them to? [1]
Surely the logical, standard sequence for a story such as this would be:
1. GCHQ et al. make a statement.
2. Journalists review that statement, and give due diligence to determining the statement's accuracy.
3. Publish an unbiased article with their findings.
It seems that step 2 is missing completely, and therefore step 3 (already an idealistic goal) can never happen.
> let's set Snowden's trustworthiness aside for a moment and look at how else his archive may have ended up in the hands of the Russians or Chinese.
There is no evidence that the unencrypted Snowden archive is in the hands of the Russian or Chinese governments. Claiming otherwise is pure speculation.
[1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-report-snowden-files-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-r...