Hacker News Reader

Comment by spenvo | Hacker News Reader

Try searching CNN for "Snowden Interview" and there is NO mention of it. Same with MSNBC's search - nothing about this interview in the results.

Also, scroll down to user "Nostromo's" counter (claiming the media did cover the story) w/links and then my reply.

This kind of blatant dereliction of duty in US journalism (IMHO) presages the governments' plans for controlling the (M)essage on websites. One can only assume they have a turnkey solution to suppress submissions and comments on HN, Reddit, etc.

Support projects that attempt to combat censorship at the technological level. This is coming from someone who is working on my own* anti-censorship project. (I care more about the mission than the glory.) retroshare.sourceforge.net promises a great deal and looks OK from a mile-high view (except for mythical documentation). *check profile if interested

View on HN

Before you go witch hunting go read this. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...

This should really be the top comment.

For anyone that thinks there is actually a problem here, what could the motivation or mechanism behind this "blackout" possibly be? Significant parts of the US media have been reporting pretty well on Snowden for a long time now.

The media discussion so far has centered around personal issues. Is Snowden a traitor, did he give secrets away to China/Russia, should he be assassinated, how is his girlfriend feeling, what did his father say, does he have a new job, etc. This interview puts the focus back where it should be: have intelligence agencies broken the law, have they taken justice into their own hands, have they been deceiving the executive branch, what balance should be struck between security and privacy, and so on. It also puts a human face on this man, who has never been given a chance to explain his motives.

No, this simply isn't true. Watch the front page of any daily newspaper - a large percentage of the articles are about new revelations or stories on the politics of a reform bill, and I have not seen a single one (in the last 4 months or so, when my memory is fresh) talking about Snowden personally.

ACCESS..

Journalists depend upon access to government officials to report news on government actions..

No Access to those officials virtually decimates both the Media firm income and the journalists income

This is just so much nonsense. What can they do, deny your press-pass?

so what

If the whitehouse denies access like that - cutting off some of their own ability to disseminate propaganda - the journalist can simply write on the subject anyway.

Even better, while other journalists are busy copying down the usual stuff, the "cut off" journalist can run the "government interfering with the Free Press" story. Loudly.

Denying "access" merely changes what the story will be about.

You are wrong. It's not the press pass it is access to the "unnamed high ranking official" that "leaks" you stories that sell your paper. Not only do you not have breaking stories you don't even have sourced stories. Imagine if WaPo had to write things like "the NYT is reporting...". That's a death knell.

And what do you complain about? That the government is not leaking you information anymore? That anonymous sources aren't taking your calls?

There are at least two types of "unnamed high ranking" leakers.

One is deliberately leaking the story line that the administration wants published, but for whatever reason doesn't want to be directly quoted on.

The other is the conscientious leaker, who wants to get the truth out but fears for job/safety if he went "on the record."

The former can be directed to "leak" only to favored media outlets. The latter cannot.

And the majority of stories deal with the former.

Those "anonymous sources" are included. Such sources will be glad to have important things reported on. Any that would cut you off for reporting the truth or deviating from their "story" are not a source of reliable information anyway.

What will be reported on? In a case like this, the run with the information they have.... from Snowden. If the government decides it doesn't want to tell it's side of the story (officially or unofficially through "sources"), then they let the accusations stand without a challenge.

Oh, and you may remember a time when journalists got their own information ("investigation"), instead of relying on PR offices.

I am constantly amazed how the government (and many big businesses) get away with this obvious bluff. There is simply no way they would withdraw from the public debate.

If the interview casts Snowden in a positive light then the government would probably be unhappy to have it highlighted in the media.

The government uses implicit threats of retaliation as deterrence.

Source / Proof?

For which part? That a sophisticated, powerful entity is opposed to circumstances that will disadvantage them or that they will act to prevent other parties from causing those circumstances from occurring?

You never said that. Please don't redirect.

You made an assertion. Back it up.

Again, which assertion?

That the government doesn't like Snowden being cast in a favorable light or that it uses mechanisms to deter people from doing so?

A good place to start for the latter is chapter 1.3 of "Manufacturing Consent"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190262164/Manufacturing-consent

And here is quote from Pilger describing a specific admission of media manipulation by a major government:

[A former British official] described how the Foreign Office manipulated a willing media. "We would control access to the foreign secretary as a form of reward to journalists. If they were critical, we would not give them the goodies of trips around the world. We would feed them factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we'd freeze them out."

Yeah, read it. Brief mentions, parts taken out of the context?

That's supposed to NOT be a blackout?

This is one of the most discussed persons in America, a "national hero" to some, a "threat" to others, and they don't care to show the full interview itself?

They sure know how to milk other topics 24/7, with repeat showing, panels discussing them, etc...

Probably because these are mainstream news station and most people still don't know who Snowden is. And here's the kicker: they don't care who Snowden is or what he has to say. They just don't. It's a big deal for us, but it's an issue that has yet to surpass the unemployment rate and the declining economy as the chief concern for most Americans.

Call it lackluster coverage like someone else in the comments. Calling it a blackout is hyperbolic and wrong.

"Lackluster coverage" is just another word for blackout.

It's not like what's important makes the news -- or that media are free to play whatever they like.

Actually media blackout isn't another word for lackluster coverage.

The result is the same -- information not getting to the people. It doesn't have to be a total lack of any news coverage for it to be a blackout.

If the intent is suppresing some news story (because lackluster coverage can also have other causes), then reduced coverage is a pretty effective way of creating a media blackout short of issuing direct censorship orders and preventing everybody from publishing anything at all.

The strategy is to control what the public discussion issues are --ie. what everybody on mass media is talking about--, not to stump every inner page single-column article or 30-second mention.

I was surprised to hear there was a blackout. The reddit commentary shows that it was picked up, albeit with lackluster coverage.

One important thing is still missing, though: Where is a link to the video that has a chance of persisting for some time? After all, this is a document of a certain historical significance, so it should be accessible.

Maybe I'm to meta-cynical, but the reason for that link not existing might just as well have something to do with a copyright-fuckup instead of an intelligence agency conspiracy.

> zeeed 3 hours ago | link

> the full interview is here: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en

Very good quality and on archive.org.

Thanks for the link, here's the original HN submission for it (no comments yet) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7131029

Thank you and thanks also to the good people at archive.org.

The whole situation makes more sense now, given those links. I also just remembered that the original video of the interview was region-locked for Germany (where I live) on youtube, so residents of non-Germany recieved a "blocked in your country" message. Smells like somebody badly misjudged and sold territorially limited broadcast rights for the interview.

" 403 Forbidden Request forbidden by administrative rules. "

Found the comment by truncating the URL back to the main thread, though. Not sure why the direct URL to /cf1801o is being denied.

[back on topic]

Yah, the video, while not the usual "lets all copy/paste the AP or Reuters story as many places as possible", there HAVE been a bit of coverage.

If we're taking about suppressed stories, I'm still amazed at the utter lack of coverage of Binney/Drake's [1] amazing open letter to the president[2] that was published on Jan 7. Part of me wants to blame it on short attention spans and the usual celebrity worship; it only involves the OTHER whistleblowers, pre-Snowden, so I guess nobody cares.

I was able to find a very minor mention on Huffington Post in the week after it was published, and a few video interviews by Reason of Binney trying to promote the letter, and... that's it. (not counting the handful of "personal blog"-style articles that covered the story, of course)

    1: signatures also include Loomis, Wiebe, McGovern, Ellsberg, ... 
    2: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/

errr - how much of that linked open letter is true. It states that NSA insiders had evidence that 9/11 attackers were monitored by NSA, calling AlQueda safe houses from the US to Yemen and shared nothing about it. and this was buried / covered up.

that's a hell of an accusation

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/three-nsa-whistleblowers-...

The EFF has been supporting these former NSA agents' whistleblowing efforts for a while now. Also, Ellsberg - author of the Pentagon Papers - has signed it in support.

While it's not a character reference, it is worth observing that the rather dramatic efforts the NSA has gone though to threaten and prosecute these whistleblowers. You may be interested in watching this talk from 29c3 where Drake and Binney told their stories in their own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDM3MqHln8U

And yes, it's a hell of an accusation.

It's also the one that finally made this NSA mess make sense, with their description of THINTHREAD being dropped because it was too inexpensive. It's all about moving money to their contractor friends.

I hadn't heard of this letter before the parent comment's mention of it, but the names mentioned are NSA whistleblowers who might have had the knowledge and access to substantiate whatever claims they make.

Given this, the title is super link-baity. Could a moderator update the title to "30 minute Snowden interview in Germany"? I still would have clicked through.

Thanks for providing this.

MSNBC were interviewing a US politician (congress woman) about the Snowden leaks and about NSA reform.

They interrupted that interview for some important breaking news.

Justin Bieber had been arrested for drag racing his car.

http://youtu.be/GH68bSJXGE8

MSNBC has had some good Snowden coverage over the longer weekend shows which are higher quality.

Their hourly shows each day are getting to be more and more garbage.

Chris Hayes had a fantastic long-form weekend show on MSNBC. Then they moved him to the hour format on a daily basis and his show went to garbage too as they have him pushing whatever the hype of the day is. And Rachel Maddow now has maybe one good show a month and the rest are just petty garbage ("oh look someone said a word wrong or misspelled something - let's talk about that for ten minutes")

What's crazy is most of their anchors are really smart and knowledgeable when you see them work freeform like in an interview. But start scripting them and giving them "must reads" and they all turn into blathering corporate idiots.

Yes, when Chris Hayes hosted "Up" it was a must watch each weekend for me. I watched about two episodes of his nightly show and couldn't stand it. Maybe we should try watching the new guy who took it over?

I guess it isn't about the competency of the host/crew but rather the fact that pushing out a show every night means that you must degrade the quality of your analysis, guests, and general information that you are reporting on.

What makes it more despicable: MSNBC is aggressively marketed in the image of progressive reform television.

To be clear - the US politician wasn't talking about the interview -- but rather the independent review committee's assessment of the meta data collection program.

The Congresswoman is Jane Harman. Ironically, she was wiretapped by the NSA in the early 2000's for allegedly trading lobbying favors with an agent of Israel, and she pissed and moaned about the NSA "violating her privacy." The Bush DOJ abruptly cancelled the investigation and the event got memory-holed by the media, and now she's a vigorous defender of NSA spying.

MSNBC is following the money, just like everyone else in US media. A 30-minute Bieber special on CNN had their best 25-54 ratings for the day: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/friday-cable-ratings-justin-biebe...

Also, it's worth noting how much more popular FOX News is.

Blatantly false. A 5 second search turned up the following:

CNN covered the story here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/.

ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/german-tv-snowden...

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snowden-nsa-conducts-industrial-...

Fox News (AP): http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/26/german-tv-snowden-sa....

And see this link (German) for the explanation as to why this interview was not available in most non-German countries (including the UK) due to copyright licensing demands by the German interviewer: http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-un....

Clips would be fair use and it's hard to imagine that the cost is prohibitive for major US outlets.

That said I don't the interview in its entirety conforms with the style of content shown on US networks.

Well since you decided the cost is not possibly prohibitive a media outlet should definitely cover it...

That's not what I said. I said cost is not likely the reason it is not covered.

the full interview is here: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en

Any reason why it's not in YouTube? Copyright takedowns don't usually work that fast, if ever.

Also any reason why it wasn't bought and uploaded to other major american media outlets?

If it was an "acceptable" political story, it would be all over, not merely on archive.org.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x38jkFlPeg

Not available in my country (Spain)

I get not available in your country (Canada).

No available in my country.

Youtube can detect copied videos automatically.

Also I had a video that was copied several times and wasn't automatically detected (that's only for high level partners). When I reported the copies for copyright they would generally be taken down in about a half hour.

I worked in the media for umpteen years in the past. Anyone who thinks the US press colluded with the government to black out anything is flat out crazy.

The media and the government collude to conceal important truths from the public, in the same sense that Coke and Pepsi collude to reduce consumption of tap water; which is to say, not at all, yet extremely effectively.

Sure you did. Keep on telling that to yourself buddy. Meanwhile we'll stick to reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

That worked out well for them didn't it? Ever hear of Watergate? And, in this day and age, when media scours the 'net for stories to tell, you honestly think not one news organization anywhere picked up on the video? Everyone ignored it? (As already shown, this story about a coverup is false.)

And you think I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about?

They don't have to be in cahoots to black it out. The truth is far simpler: the advertisers and the majority of the staff don't like pro-snowden stories.

That's quite a stretch to say that the advertisers and majority of the staff at every news station in the country don't like pro-Snowden stories.

The truth is far simpler: the German interviewer wants more money for foreign rights to the interview than U.S. stations are willing to pay.

As shown in the comments here, this "blackout" is false and has been reported.

btw, what is your source for "the majority of the staff don't like pro-snowden stories."?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com