Edward Snowden's leaks are misguided | Hacker News Reader

Edward Snowden's leaks are misguided

theguardian.com

5 pointsjoshfraser12 comments

Let me tell a little something about those who "at all times acted lawfully". Most of Massachusetts was once inhabited by the Wampanoag tribe. But European settlers passed a law requiring the payment of property tax. When the Indians, low and behold, had no money to pay the property tax, they were no longer allowed to live on their land, and thus were forced out, onto ever smaller bits of unwanted territory. Such are the things done by those who "at all times acted lawfully".

I'm shocked to see this on The Guardian considering the support that Glenn Greenwald has gotten from the paper, including their editor, Alan Rusbridger, who said he would rather destroy the copied files than hand them back to the NSA and GCHQ. Is this an effort to look fair and balanced? Something more sinister?

I don't see what's so shocking, unless you expect the Guardian to censor their reporters' opinions. They're not a political organization, they don't have to toe a party line.

> They're not a political organization

Is that strictly true? I mean, in the US newspapers are supposed to be "fair" and "objective" and "nonpartisan", probably because we only had 1 paper per city since the 60s, but I have this impression that in the UK, papers were a bit different. I thought there was some extra connotations that went along with reading The Guardian or The Times or The Mail. Sort of like newspapers in the USA in the 20s and 30s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theguardian.com says:

"...owned by the Scott Trust, a charitable foundation which aims to ensure the newspaper's editorial independence in perpetuity"

Independent, not with a view from nowhere. [to use Jay Rosen's[0] phrase]

[0] http://archive.pressthink.org/2003/09/18/jennings.html

Does the "charitable foundation" part explain why The Guardian doesn't have a paywall?

I don't know about that, but they would probably have to be silly to turn down an op-ed by someone with David Omand's resume, whatever their politics.

Well this doesn't look like a piece by a guardian reporter. Instead it is a guest post by the former head of the GCHQ. I feel like when they present a guest piece by a new individual with a very obvious conflict of interest, then they should say so in big bold letters at the top of the article. Most people simply gloss over the postscript in light italics giving a brief bio of the author.

TBH, I thought it was a really shit piece of writing. Not knowing who the author was I read it thinking "If the HN community upvoted this then there must be some merit to its contents.". However when I got the end and was disappointed, I read the byline because I was curious since the writing was so bad and the arguments so unconvincing.

FYI: the author of the linked article is the former director of GCHQ, the British communications intelligence and surveillance organization, not a bleeding reporter.

You're right. I hadn't even checked that before I posted the comment.

This op-ed is interesting, and is an example of The Guardian opening its pages to thoughtful dissents from its own editorial position. I think this essay makes some good points.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com