RSS
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.
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)
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
I'm interested in the phrase: 'its nominal "competitor," '
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 ]
Re: I'm interested in the phrase: 'its nominal "competitor," '
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In politics stupidity is not a sin. It is an opportunity!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Paywall
Maybe the NYT will have a liberal policy with regard to these articles.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Tip of the iceberg
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the NYT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
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 ]
Possible Snowden Move
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 ]
The NYT is about the GCHQ files
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, GCHQ’s 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 ]
- 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 ]
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 ]
Re:
That's the problem- no one can say how long we have.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment