With that in mind, it is worth noting that the two authors of this piece are NOT professional journalists, although what they report could and should easily have been put together by actual staffers.
With that in mind, it is worth noting that the two authors of this piece are NOT professional journalists, although what they report could and should easily have been put together by actual staffers.
NYT front page on June 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 -- five out of the past 7 days. Plus a front page mention on June 23. I know you don't mean your comment literally, but I think there's been a lot of coverage. There's some criticism that the stories of late tend to focus more on Snowden, but his part of the story is the only thing that's had material developments in the past week.
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.p... (et al)
Does the lack of new information from the US government mean that there are no new "material developments" in the story? Considering the damaging revelations in these leaks (misleading congressional testimony? private contractors with access to dragnet surveillance systems?), it is not plausible to claim there is no investigative journalism to do. That it has taken two outsiders to write a piece sensibly critical of the administration and unconstitutionality of data-vacuuming is utterly damning.
1. As of right now, the story is linked to on the front page in the Opinion box since this is an opinion piece and not a news piece. If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy.
2. The story of the NSA surveillance was front page on the NY Times when it broke and for about a week or two after.
3. The Mainstream media has been reporting on this consistently, both on the Snowden drama and the actual substance of his leaks.
It's sad to see both longer-time and newer users running around with this chicken little reddit-level bullshit. The mods seem to be complicit in it so oh well. The upside is that I waste less time here.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com
The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are sympathetic in tone and focus to the administration. Is anyone really going to characterize them as hard-hitting investigative reporting on the substance of the allegations?
There is no lack of investigative reporting that could be done on this story (most obvious question: did Congress intend to authorize warrantless dragnet surveillance), some of which is happening elsewhere, making it hardly a paranoid leap to point out that NYT coverage has been muted and uncritical at best.
* did Congress intend to authorize warrantless surveillance when it passed the legislation being used by the NSA to justify its current policies and wrap them in a cloak of legality?
* which of the leaked materials w/r/t NSA surveillance can and should be considered highly-classified? What is the national security justification for keeping these materials out of public view?
* if Snowden was in a position of administrative privilege that gave him access to highly-sensitive materials without reasonable oversight, why was he employed by a private-sector company? What are the implications of this for FOIA requests, administrative costs, government transparency and checks against potential abuse? (seriously... what on earth is B.A. doing in this story?)
* do the stories released by the NSA to justify warrantless surveillance really justify the actions taken in the light of the law? i.e. is stopping a cab driver from sending 8k to Somalia really the sort of urgent and time-sensitive national security concern that should preclude the government from spending a day or two to get a targeted warrant?
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what a reasonable person would conclude on these questions, it seems self-evident that these questions are much more important than most of what the NYT has treated as front-page news on the subject matter.
C'mon man.
There is no doubt in my mind which team the NY Times is batting for.
[1]http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-n...
All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism.
> chicken little reddit-level bullshit
It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on.
Perhaps cutting people some slack until 24/7 surveillance becomes the New Normal might be in order?
There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.
There are very few mainstream sources that have a shred of credibility left. I see little qualitative difference between Fox and CNN, for instance. They only differ in style and delivery but their main entrees are still lies and rubberstamped government press releases.
I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month.
All fact, no opinion?
There is in fact a very distinct difference between opinion articles and 'proper' news articles. You see, journalism is not a claim to objective truth, but a procedure aimed at achieving a minimum level of validity where it comes to events. When you read a news article, you should (to some extent) be able to trust its contents on the merits of the journalistic method. Whereas with an opinion piece, it's not bound by this procedure. Note - nobody is arguing 'absolute objectivity' here. It's a matter of trust in a procedure. Of course, it's fine to distrust the journalistic method, to not see it as absolute truth, but to deny or entirely dismiss the distinction is annoyingly daft.
Also, afaik, this story is still everywhere. If you want it to remain that way, start working for change - newspapers report on events, not 'the truth'. Make events happen, and it stays in the cycle.
You're welcome to your opinion.