UK's Suppression Of Freedom Of The Press Drives Guardian To Partner With NYT On Snowden Reporting

from the will-they-threaten-the-nyt-too? dept

With the Guardian forced on orders directly from the Prime Minister's office to physically destroy some hard drives with the Ed Snowden documents on them, the Guardian made it clear that the reporting on the leaks would continue, but out of its NY offices, rather than the London ones (and, of course, via Glenn Greenwald in Brazil and Laura Poitras in Germany). However, another bit of fallout from all of this is that the Guardian has teamed up with its nominal "competitor," the NY Times to share some (not all) of the documents and to work together on the reporting of what's in them.

Amusingly, this comes just after a NYT editor argued (somewhat ridiculously) that the NYT has done more to advance the story than any other publication after the very first stories from The Guardian and the Washington Post. That statement is laughable. While the NYT has done some very good reporting on all of this, the Washington Post and the Guardian have continued to "break" a variety of big stories from the documents. The NYT has certainly added to the coverage, and added very important details to some of those stories, but it's been way, way, way behind. It will be interesting to see what happens now. Of course, one of the reasons why Snowden says he didn't go to the NYT originally, was due to stories of how they held onto some other stories, such as the original story about warrantless wiretapping, which it held for many months at the request of the feds.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    Well good for the NY Times then because they have a lot of old stuff to live down still.

    New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller New York Times Judith Miller

    Say what? Oh yeah: New York Times Judith Miller

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      kehvan (profile), Aug 25th, 2013 @ 2:08pm

      Re:

      Oh, geez... leftists and their Judith Miller idiocy.

      The fact is, Judith Miller is a symptom of a problem with NYT, which is it's always been a tool for someone... But then again, that's not something specific to NYT. The WaPo, LAT and others have been tools for one political group or another.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BentFranklin (profile), Aug 25th, 2013 @ 8:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Fair enough, I'm getting tired of flogging that one anyway.

        But it's not idiocy. NY Times Judith Miller actively helped sell to the American public the worst thing they were ever sold, in my lifetime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          kehvan (profile), Aug 26th, 2013 @ 11:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's widely accepted that Syria is using chemical weapons on Syrian rebels.

          Where did those weapons come from?

          Some suggest they came by way of Egypt in the 1970's, but what was used in 2013 couldn't have originated in the 1970's, because chemical weapons don't have that long of a shelf life.

          So, just where did those weapons come from?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 4:30pm

    I'm interested in the phrase: 'its nominal "competitor," '

    "Nominal" of course means "in name only", and I suppose that your quote marks point up irony because they don't actually compete. So I'd like you to expand on those two qualifiers for what should be straightforward.

    And fanboys: I'm not off-topic, this is at best about how newspapers are covering the Snowden story; it's a mere story about stories.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 4:56pm

    HM Government has no authority over NTY. The New York Times is a US newspaper, and is, therefore, only subject to US laws. The US governement can certainly do that, but the British do not have any jurisdiction over it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2013 @ 1:49am

      Re:

      You should be aware that UK and US cooperate extensively on these issues. Since US has also been claiming the documents as "stolen property" and "state secrets" with potential to damage the country, they can do similar things in USA to squeeze the documents out of the country. It is purely symbolic since they can never cover all countries, but UK being able to claim that they have cleaned out their closet and US, Brazil, Germany und so weiter carries some geopolitical bargaining power.

      In politics stupidity is not a sin. It is an opportunity!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 5:19pm

    Paywall

    Why would they choose a paywalled site? I am fairly certain that other, nonpaywalled sites would love to assist. They might even stand up to government bullying, even if they are 'questionable' on the governments soon to be codified 'who's a reporter' scale.

    Maybe the NYT will have a liberal policy with regard to these articles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 5:42pm

    Tip of the iceberg

    So when is the big reveal coming? Several people have referred to prior revelations as being "just the tip of the iceberg", so where are the documents to back it up? Let's hear it before the NY Times gets a visit from the "cleaners"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 6:01pm

    Why the NYT?

    Because they can fight it out with the government on prior restraint, should the government ever dare to do it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

    "New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment."

    Yes, it's been done before, and believe me, the government learned a very hard lesson: don't ever push the First Amendment button on the Supreme Court.

    They nailed it down tight with this landmark decision.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 6:14pm

    Possible Snowden Move

    It occurs to me that while Snowdens position is let the world know, it is the Guardians position to do a bit of (let's say) due diligence and make some money in the process.

    Should this avenue of drip, drip, drip leakage begin to crumble, there is a more distributed method available. Torrents! He does his own weeding of documents. Create a zip file, or rar if you will, and create a torrent. Let 10 friends or colleagues know about it. Have them let 10 like minded people know about it. Then when a hundred or so copies are 'out there' publish the file name via the many many avenues available. Demand will be intense.

    Should it come to this, I hope he vets the stuff carefully. No field agents revealed. So far a sources and methods, I think the US govmint let that cat out of the bag already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 7:53pm

    The NYT is about the GCHQ files

    Reading the linked story, the Guardian apparently handed copies of their GCHQ files to the NYT. This is presumably because they fear the UK government will prohibit publication of resulting news stories in the UK. To me, it sounds like a bit of legalistic arbitrage -- they get a US paper to write about the UK, while the UK-based paper writes about the US, and thus they attempt to reduce the chances they run into the Official Secrets Act or similar court orders against publication.

    The story in the Independent is weird, but among other things, it claims that "Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQs wiki was generally classified Top Secret or above." These could be (some of?) the documents copied to the NYT.

    Considering these documents, setting aside the obvious (wtf a wiki), one HUGE question might be how the hell someone working in Snowden's position was a able to download (what sounds like) a whole damn database that the UK classifies as "Top Secret or above." That's some amazingly crap security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2013 @ 8:00pm

    Revelations to come:

    - NSA paid MSoft the billion to buy Skype

    - TrueCrypt has either been cracked, or is an NSA created program in the first place

    - And perhaps a FPV movie from Bill and Monica?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2013 @ 10:47am

    I really have to question the judgment here, more so than the motivation. 1st Amendment rights are not the guarantee they once were. Feinstein is trying to redefine journalism.

    Our constitution is under attack - first comes gov't abuses, then a little pushback from citizens, then pushback from gov't, then trends toward self-censorship, leading to what? The Patriot Act effectively, is a stage one or stage two removal of the fourth, maybe the fifth amendments and others, more to come. How long do we have with a 1st Amendment guarantee?

    Totalitarianism does not suffer the Bill of Rights' authority for long.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This