Greenwald: "The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story Is Journalism at Its Worst"
firstlook.org
firstlook.org
"Dear pro-govt BBC journalists: even NSA admits it has no idea how many docs Snowden took. Is this too complicated?"
"Could the journalists who a) attacked Sy Hersh for using anon sources but b) accepted this Sunday Times report please identify yourselves?"
"Next in the Sunday Times RT @DieZauberer Next they'll be telling us he has chemical weapons that could reach Britain in 45 minutes."
Anyone else think this is meant to distract from the Office of Personnel Management breach and hacked SF-86 documents?
It will still be in the print edition, which means it needs a retraction.
Since front page space is the scarcest resource on HN, we try not to have more than one major thread about a story unless there's significant new information. In this case there had already been three: one on the original report [1] and two debunking it [2,3]. To prevent many incarnations of the same story from dominating the front page (a common complaint about HN in the past), we sometimes penalize these, though never as much as actual dupes.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9714072
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/03/george-clooney-f...
It is likely that he brought as many laptops as he could because sourcing new ones (should one get compromised) is difficult.
Just goes to show the playbook doesn't really differ between governments, even Russian government propaganda employs the exact same techniques.
I want to like GG, but this sort of reporting turns me off, even if I agree with his substance. I feel like you cede a substantial portion of the journalistic high ground when you rant and call people names like this.
So, we can ask, why is that? Journalism has too few college graduates who majored in the humanities and wrote stacks of term papers? Nope.
So, why? Sure: "Follow the money". The media is ad supported. They are in the ad business. For that they want smelly bait for the ad hook.
Okay, how to get lots of smelly bait, easily? Sure: Have one newspaper write a smelly story, and then do two things:
First, have other newspapers write much the same story with much the same smelly content and, for credibility, maybe quoting the first newspaper.
Second, with such a good thing, so much smelly bait all on just one or two days, of course, sure, keep it going! So, write more such stories. Then with so many stories, maybe the readers will conclude that with so much smoke there has to be at least a little fire in there somewhere. So, all the media just does a gang up, pile on, get on the band wagon, have a case of some implicit collusion, get on the big wave and ride it, and, better to fit in with the gang and, thus, get the security from being one of the gang, don't tell the truth, contradict, or rock the boat and, instead, just to along with the gang -- mob.
So, create lots of smelly bait across lots of newspapers for lots of days.
Now that ad revenue is really adding up. All from a seed of nothing, zip, zilch, zero, nichts, nil, nada. Easy money!
There is a lot in common between the OP and the movie Absence of Malice (1981) written by knowledgeable newspaper guy Kurt Luedtke. To paraphrase from the movie, "If we only published stuff we really knew, then we'd publish monthly" and nearly all of that would less important than Mrs. Murphy's cat Fluffy crying high in an oak tree.
There really is a lot of important information the newspapers could publish, but they won't consider doing that, apparently because it is just not part of their traditions. Or, really, in the grand new standards of intellectual safety, efficacy, and relevance of the ascent of man from mathematics and science, the newspapers are still back in the days of superstition, phlogiston, Chaucer, and the techniques of formula fiction.
E.g., what is the definition of GDP? Okay, now, to be more relevant, how is it actually measured? Are there some critiques of that measurement technique? If we are going to pay any attention at all to GDP, then we at least should discuss how the heck it gets measured.
Yesterday Hillary claimed that some of the best paid 25 hedge fund guys pay a lower tax rate than kindergarten teachers. Okay, address that issue: Give us some solid answers. True or false? If true, then how do they do that? I.e., what parts of the tax law are they using?
I can toss off such questions faster than I can type, and so can nearly anyone interested in government, but such will nearly never be addressed in the mainstream media.
One of the points in common in the OP and the movie is the defense by the newspaper that "We have no evidence that the story is false". Of course, neither did they have any "evidence" the story was true!
It's old stuff, e.g., back at least to the movie Citizen Kane.
That's just what the newsies -- newspapers, news magazines, TV news, news Web sites, etc. -- do. It's a very old story.
Greenwald's point is solid: Can't believe what you read in the newspapers. Indeed, that remark is so common and so readily believed by the public that it is in an old Andy Hardy movie from the 1930s. Did I mention "old"?
Some years ago, I really, really wanted to be a well informed citizen and subscribed to more and more news publications trying to know more. One day I added up I was receiving 22 publications a month. Earlier, I spent a summer with my parents in DC and each day read The Washington Post fairly carefully. Net, I finally concluded I wasn't learning much. Now I subscribe to nothing on paper and very little on the Internet.
I still want to be informed, but the media is junk. Maybe I'd take The New York Times, but I (A) have no dead fish trimmings to wrap, (B) need no packing materials (besides, all that ink creates a mess), (C) have no need for kitty litter, (D) for my fireplace already have plenty of fire starter paper from all the phone books that are left, etc.
So, media? Sure, light entertainment following the rules of formula fiction with good guys, a problem, bad guys, etc. Any connection with actual reality is thin and incidental.
The media would be less harmful if people would just ignore it, and I'm getting good at that.
And doesn't this ignore that a partnership lasting ten years between adults intrinsically has more gravitas than the 'boyfriend' moniker implies?
I don't make my living writing, but I can easily think of a word that better represents that relationship. Someone who professes to be a professional writer, but can't do that either shouldn't be writing, or has an underlying agenda they are trying to fulfill by using what is obviously the wrong word for what is being described.
David Miranda: "I never met anyone like Glenn — he's my husband and I don't know where either of us would be without each other."
Greenwald: "They [the goons who detained Miranda at Heathrow airport] humanized the story, and they gave a platform for my charming and admirable husband to speak out."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/natashavc/david-miranda-is-nobodys-e...
Regardless of whether they are technically, legally married according to a particular definition, they consider themselves to have been married for 10+ years, and actually do seem to have some legal basis for that view.
BTW, I can think of other minority populations that historically have been named by the majority with diminutive words -- language that intuitively sees that population as less legitimate. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is to call people what they want to be called, and default to the respectful choice if we don't know.
(Full disclosure: I am a man married to a man.)