Astoundingly Bad Reporting On Ed Snowden: Claims He Said The Exact Opposite Of What He Said
from the now-that's-impressive-journalism dept
Update: The original article I had seen, on the ABC Australia site has now been “updated” with a correction. It turns out that it was actually just carelessly running a piece from the AFP wire. The AFP piece (sometimes edited, sometimes not) can be seen on MSN.com, Yahoo and the AFP directly. However, I think that first sentence below was a bad summary by the ABC site of the bad reporting by AFP, since none of the others include that initial, totally incorrect, sentence.
A few days ago, someone pointed me to this article from the Australian ABC news, which presumes to make statements concerning an interview that Ed Snowden gave to the Brazilian Globo TV:
Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, wanted by US authorities and currently living in Russia, has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents.
“I would love to live in Brazil,” Snowden told Globo TV on Sunday (local time).
[….] He said he had more documents to release, relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil.
That struck me as strange, given earlier statements, including from Snowden himself, that he no longer has any access to any of the documents. As for the application for asylum, last year, Snowden had sent an open letter to Brazil, in which he doesn’t actually ask for asylum, but hints that he’d be interested if there were a way to work out the details.
Thankfully, the full Globo TV episode is available online and was conducted in English. And what you quickly discover is whoever wrote that ABC story, is plainly misrepresenting what was said (thanks to Blair Chintella for pointing out exactly where). Early in the interview, Snowden clearly says that he destroyed all the documents. Later in the interview (around minute 40) he’s even more direct in contradicting the ABC report:
Sonia Bridi (Globo TV): Every now and then, the American press says that you would offer Brazil documents in exchange for asylum. Is that an offer that’s on the table?
Snowden: Absolutely not! I could not be more clear. First off, I don’t have any documents to offer. Secondly, even if I did, I would never trade secret information or cooperate with some government in exchange for asylum. Asylum has to be granted on humanitarian grounds. It has to be granted to protect political rights or the right to safety. This whole topic about negotiating for asylum, I think, is improper. If Brazil wants to offer asylum, if they want to stand for human rights, if they want to protect the rights of whistleblowers, I think that’s a good thing, and I would certainly encourage and support it — whether it’s in my case, or the case of anyone. But I would never engage in any sort of “deal” or quid pro quo exchange.
And somehow, that gets turned into: “Snowden… has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents.” Incredible. As the reporter from the TV interview herself tweeted later, the report is simply factually incorrect. It was Greenwald who still said he had more documents. While the difference may seem minor, it’s very, very big, since Snowden is the one who could use asylum, and his critics would jump on either bogus claim: that he had lied about earlier destruction of documents or that he’d “trade” documents for asylum, as suggested in the report. But neither of those things are true.
And you wonder why people don’t trust the press so much these days.
Filed Under: asylum, brazil, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, globo tv, journalism, sonia bridi
Comments on “Astoundingly Bad Reporting On Ed Snowden: Claims He Said The Exact Opposite Of What He Said”
Trust or Competence
The problem with modern “journalism” is that you can’t tell if it totally untrustworthy or totally incompetent.
The solution is to realize that it doesn’t matter.
Re: Trust or Competence
How about not being trustworthy or competent?
These are not mutually exclusive.
1. Blatantly twist the truth and lie to millions
2. Later argue that was “factually incorrect” to a few thousands
3. ???
4. Profit!
Re: Re:
you ought to know what these Aussi reporters are like! look what the nurse did a while ago. she killed herself all because of some ridiculous prank pulled by a couple of reporters. they were sack, if i remember correctly but to my mind, that wasn’t anywhere near severe enough punishment considering a life was lost over it!
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 5th, 2014 @ 8:17am
What chu talkin bout?
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 5th, 2014 @ 8:17am
They weren’t reporters but morning disc-jockeys in Australia. They pretended to be the Queen in a phone call to a hospital in England, checking up on somebody. I think one of the pregnant Princesses. The nurse fell for it, then offed herself over it when it all came out.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 5th, 2014 @ 8:17am
This : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jacintha_Saldanha
However, there’s little, if any link to this story, as it’s about reporters, not radio presenters/humorists doing a prank (and obtained accurate and sensitive informations).
Re: Re:
And to be fair. The Aussie site is just running the story from a feed from the French news organization AFP. Aussie journalists didn’t write it either.
Which reporter
As the reporter herself tweeted later, the report is simply factually incorrect.
Just to clarify, that’s the Brazilian reporter that conducted the interview. It would seem ABC hasn’t corrected the story.
Re: Which reporter
Actually ABC just ran the feed from AFP. However it does seem rather convenient that no one from AFP seems to want to take credit for the story either. I have a theory about that. I think it was written by the Slenderman.
Re: Re: Which reporter
https://twitter.com/LitThom/status/473575736855760896
Re: Which reporter
Bah. Thought I’d made it clear, but something may have been lost in editing. Fixed… It’s the Globo reporter, not the AFP/ABC one (who isn’t named anywhere)
Asylum
While the difference may seem minor, it’s very, very big, since Snowden is the one who could use asylum, and his critics would jump on either bogus claim: that he had lied about earlier destruction of documents or that he’d “trade” documents for asylum, as suggested in the report. But neither of those things are true.
And ABC only said one of them: “In the interview, Snowden said he would not offer documents to any country in exchange for a safe haven, because asylum should be granted for humanitarian reasons.”
Re: Asylum
Nice catch. She appears to be the Brazilian reporter.
That crack staff at ABC
Memories of old Monty Python routines come flooding in… except instead of philosophers at the University of Wallamaloo, it’s an editorial staff meeting at ABC. “G’day, Bruce…”
…Am I wrong in thinking that this is the Murdoch-owned broadcasting company?
Because if it is, then that is to the surprise of absolutely no-one.
Re: Re:
It is the completely unbiased and Australian Government Owned Broadcasting service. ABC as in Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As quoted from the Wikipedia article
Though after the latest Australian Government budget there has been talk that it is too “fat” and that they may need to cut some programming like “Peppa Pig”.
"Factually Incorrect"
What’s factually incorrect is ABC’s contention that this bimbo is a journalist.
Re: "Factually Incorrect"
Butthurt much?
Mr Masnick, have you tried some of your own techdirt “journos”?
Greenwald said he had more documents, not Snowden.
This is the same tar and feather brush Alexander has been working with trying to convince the public that Snowden is a traitor and spy. His version of the truth had no legs any more than this one does. Fell flat on it’s face right out of the door.
The link to ABC shows as unavailable…
Re: Re:
They yanked it.
Re: Re: Re:
They yanked it.
Looks like they’ve not “updated” the piece by almost totally rewriting it. At least they’ve also admitted to the error up top.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looks like they’ve not “updated” the piece by almost totally rewriting it.
I think you mean “now” rather than “not”. I don’t always point out typos but since that one completely inverts the meaning of the sentence… 😉
Re: Re:
MSN still has it though.
http://news.msn.com/world/snowden-seeks-asylum-in-sunny-brazil
who do you trust?
“And you wonder why people don’t trust the press so much these days.”
I trust Mike Masnick, and that’s what counts!
I lost all trust for the US press 11 years ago, after their disgraceful Iraq war cheerleading. But that’s when I also discovered The Guardian, which is perhaps (both then and now) the most un-propagandized of all English-language commercial news media.
Re: who do you trust?
This is a French News Service story based on butchered retelling of details from an interview done by a credible Brazilian reporter. What part of that has to do with the US press (other than the fact that MSN regurgitated it too without checking the claims on it first)?
This isn't bad reporting, it's propaganda.
Not only that, it comes straight from the White House and/or NSA.
I wager this article will now rapidly re-appear verbatim in a dozen other media sources. I invite you all to track its spread.
Snowden the Assassin
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/06/edward-snowden-cia-spy/#!U2SIH
Re: Snowden the Assassin
Oh god, thanks for showing me this website. They’re not exactly pro-Snowden, but at least they’re hilarious:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/nsa-watching-masturbate-right-now/#!U2VXO
Re: Re: Snowden the Assassin
ROFLOL! At least they are as credible as the AFP.
Re: Re: Snowden the Assassin
You are welcome, and yes, they can be hilarious.
mouthpieces
Twenty-first century mainstream journalism is all about protecting the powerful. It’s probably why they’re having their lunch eaten by independent media outlets online.
To Australian ABC’s credit, looks like they’ve simply deleted their copy of the AFP article. (No correction, of course.)
The copy now on AFP’s site http://www.afp.com/en/node/2458355 and elsewhere http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-seeks-asylum-sunny-brazil-044217236.html omits the earlier phrase “and is in possession of more sensitive documents,” but keeps the other incorrect phrase: “However he said that he had more documents to release relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil.”
Re: Re:
How is that to ABC’s credit? Providing a correction (and putting the correction on the wire services) would be to their credit. Just deleting it without doing that makes ABC look even worse.
Standard issue move to discredit Snowden, courtesy your government through the idiocracy of the “news.”
Australia is a poodle to the US. They’re a member of the Five Eyes coalition and their island is close to China. You can’t expect a poodle to defend itself against China.
The ABC news story was updated as late as 22:31 on 05 June 2014 UTC (6 June 2014 in Australia):
“And you wonder why people don’t trust the press so much these days.”
At least people have finally stopped calling it the Free Press.