NSA whistleblower Russ Tice goes on record with new revelations

In short, I agree with you that lack of reporting from foreign outlets is indicative that they think there isn't enough evidence to report it.

Just to be clear we are talking about different things: You are talking about whether the claims are true, or more sensibly, whether they are supported by credible evidence. I am making a more narrow point about the fact that media institutions are strongly influenced^ by government and corporate interests. That is true independent of whether Tice's claims are.

^ Obviously foreign institutions are far less influenced by other foreign governments and are therefore more reliable when reporting on those foreign governments, though not always (e.g. Iraq WMD claims).

If you talk shit about your boss (even if it is true and done politely) it will probably negatively affect you. If you support your boss you will probably reap rewards. The result is a system where people are influenced not to criticise their boss not a system where no one ever does.

The story is told by Eric Lichtblau here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/exclusivebushs_law_eric...

Key quote:

> AMY GOODMAN: Is it right, Eric, you were still — the Times wasn’t going to run this story until to your colleague Jim at the New York Times was going to publish his book, and that put the Times in a tremendously awkward position? It’s going to come out anyway, and their reporters are not the ones who are going to reveal it.

> ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, that’s true, for the most part.

I don't know if this is the right example to support your argument.

The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Christian Science Monitor, a few others, are in no way comparable to properties owned by media conglomerates. You know this.

If not "corporate", how would you refer to likes of News Corp, Clear Channel, Time Warner, Disney, etc? "Purveyors of propaganda for the power elite?" "Anti-democratic radical right wing noise echo chambers?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_media

"Corporate media" is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. It is sometimes used as a term of derision to indicate a media system which does not serve the public interest in place of the mainstream media or "MSM," which tends to be used by both the political left and the right as a derisive term.

However your credibility will inevitably influence how people respond to the question and the answer. For example, if hypothetically somebody has shown a pattern of saying "there's no story here", using whatever rhetorical technique works best in a given situation to support your views, and then frequently being shown wrong when it turns out there genuinely is a story here even though some of the initial details were incorrect or had insufficent evidence ... well, in that case, others would very reasonably take past history into account when they see the same pattern coming up.

I have no idea whether there or not there will be major media coverage about the story. The lack of coverage so far implies to me that (a) there isn't yet sufficient supporting evidence or documentation for this and (b) there are enough real disclosures that people are being careful about airing insufficiently supported claims and (c) it hasn't gotten to "Obama birth certificate" levels of significant attention even though there's not sufficient supporting evidence.

That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past.

And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deal...