Hacker News Reader

Comment by monsterix | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like a very nasty and clever way of publishing: One of 'em calls Snowden a traitor and then another calls him a hero. Two opposing stories, all for the eyeballs.

I'd much prefer media to choose a side/ideology and then stick to it. New Yorker went in bed with snoopers earlier, so I don't see any reason to up-vote this story; even if the second author has written in favor of the people.

Choice of the medium to broadcast is, I believe, a very important factor when it comes to context of writing on state control, public policy etc.

[Edits] I've flagged this story.

View on HN

@monsterix I think you stopped reading too soon. A few paragraphs in the major focus of this article indeed takes Snowden's side and sticks to it, addressing exactly the real issues (not 'steering away' from them as you claim).

This article goes further than others with links to sources of intelligence agencies denying these programs on record (basically "lying" to congress), see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/07/privacy-wy... and http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chi... ), and concludes with a quote by Daniel Ellsburg:

“Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.”

It's one of the better written stories that explain the issues well and clearly supports Edward Snowden. Today I've been sending this story to friends who are seeking to understand the issues.

I do agree that the article itself is among the better written stories about NSA and snoops. The title of the post on HN, however, needs editing (tries to sway attention from NSA/snooping to the messenger).

The majority of of the article discusses the latest information about the NSA, and how we should hold NSA officials responsible for repeatedly lying to congress. Did you even bother to read it?

monsterix is talking about the third sentence in the article, which links to another article on the same website with the opposing view point.

Its title is "Edward Snowden is No Hero," and it contains sentiments like, "He is, rather, a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison," and, "As a result, all of Snowden’s secrets may wind up in the hands of the Chinese government—which has no commitment at all to free speech or the right to political dissent. And that makes Snowden a hero?"

Did you bother to read it?

Except that's a critique of the publication rather than pertaining to the content of the article itself, which I don't think is a fair reason to flag a posted article. Posted articles should be evaluated on their own merits.

To address monstrix point though, I don't agree that each publication should be expected to take one side. It really depends on the type of publication and their chosen structure; some publish for the "left" or the "right", while others are willing to publish articles from authors with differing political views. The New Yorker (which I happen to subscribe to) is the latter type of publication - they publish a variety of authors who argue their own viewpoints, generally a great selection of fiction, poetry, and non-fiction.

One additional thought: I think it's a good thinking tool to read well-written opposing views to get inside the mind of one's rhetorical opponent in order to understand an issue from multiple viewpoints when forming opinions and arguments.

Here's a quote from the article. It touches on the three subjects you mentioned: NSA, snooping, and `Orwellian`.

"""

Another Snowden leak, which Greenwald and the Guardian published over the weekend, was a set of documents concerning another secret N.S.A. tracking program with an Orwellian name: “Boundless Informant.” Apparently designed to keep Snowden’s former bosses abreast of what sorts of data it was collecting around the world, the program unveiled the vast reach of the N.S.A.’s activities. In March, 2013, alone, the Guardian reported, the N.S.A. collected ninety-seven billion pieces of information from computer networks worldwide, and three billion of those pieces came from U.S.-based networks.

"""

The title steers the people who are interested in the story of the man himself.

But I thought the content was steering people to the real issues.

I think this article one of the better ones on the front page here now today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com