Comment by carboncopy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by carboncopy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You must be joking.

The Pentagon Papers were broken by the New York Times. The "Deep Throat" espionage controversy with President Nixon's administration was broken by the Washington Post. American filmmaker Linda Poitras introduced the person responsible for the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history (Snowden) to an American journalist Glenn Greenwald, who previously wrote opinion pieces for various American newspapers, including the Cato Institute. At the time, Greenwald was writing for UK newspaper The Guardian, which at the time and still does maintain a significant office in the U.S. [1]

Further pieces based off of the NSA leaks were written by journalists at the Washington Post. Only after a few months did Der Spiegel write any articles. Oh, and the source of Der Spiegel's leaked documents? American software developer and activist Jacob Appelbaum. Hell, he even wrote their most prominent NSA articles. [2]

American journalism is the most robust source of sunlight for U.S. government secrets.

I get it, one can find all sorts of individual cases of American news outlets letting the public down. But in aggregate, no other country's news organization comes close.

[1] (March 2013) http://www.theguardian.com/info/about-guardian-us/contact

[2] (July 2013) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-whi...

>American filmmaker Linda Poitras introduced the person responsible for the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history (Snowden) to an American journalist Glenn Greenwald, who previously wrote opinion pieces for various American newspapers, including the Cato Institute.

Now both Poitras and Greenwald are afraid to go back to US, though. I wonder why would they avoid the most journalist-friendly country on Earth?

No they are not afraid. They both went back again.

>No they are not afraid.

They both live outside of US now and have mentioned their reasons countless times. Laura Poitras explained why she's staying in Germany and how she does not take any materials with her during her trips to US, for example, at the last CCC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmKqdMDastM

That is all valid and well known. I just stated that they were not afraid to return home recently - or they wouldn't have been back for a visit.

They might not have feared for their lives, but they obviously are afraid to have any information on them when crossing the borders and they are simply afraid to do their job as a journalists in US.

"Crossing the borders" being the operative phrase there. You have fewer rights at border crossings than living your life within the confines of the border, unfortunately. This says nothing about the quality of US media (whatever the state of said quality is).

>You have fewer rights at border crossings than living your life within the confines of the border, unfortunately.

Now you'll say that location of Guantanamo Bay prison outside of US jurisdiction is an 'unfortunate accident' as well. Both seem quite purposeful decisions to me.

And yes, the fact that two probably most important journalists of modern times have both chosen to go into exile just to do their job, even though both love their country, - I think this actually says quite a bit about the freedom of press in the said country.

> chosen to go into exile just to do their job

Others have already mentioned that they don't carry their work into the US, but they, themselves, still travel to the US. This is hardly the "exile" that you want it to be (to prove your point).

He said unfortunately, you said unfortunate accident.

Glenn and Laura travel to the United States frequently for speeches, and interviews. Appelbaum does get wrongfully harassed when he enters the U.S.

Poitras's and Greenwald's behavior support a conclusion that they are not afraid to go back to the U.S.

Your statement still fails to refute any of my assertions.

The difference in the 70s, newspapers were independently owned, competitive companies that made not loads of money.

Today is different, papers are struggling, ownership has dramatically consolidated, and reporters are very vulnerable to influence, as their access to future stories and future employment (ie. On the staff of a politician or agency) can be cut off by officials.

It's really obvious at the state level. In the 80s, 30+ reporters covered the NY state Capitol. Now, maybe a half dozen full timers.

How on earth does your assertion about the NY state capitol's journalistic coverage relate to a statement about press coverage at the national level?

How can you assert reporters are vulnerable to influence, when you're replying to a post citing a group of reporters who did the opposite?

The US press lately was a propaganda instrument for the war machine. See the NYTimes.

Then this: 'As of February 12, 2014, the United States is ranked 46th in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index.'

It's not at all my impression of the NY Times, and I read it often. Certainly they print some things supporting the 'war machine' and sometimes print unofficial government statements without challenging them enough (in the same article), but I would bet they also print plenty of articles that challenge the 'war machine', I would bet as much or more than any other major publication.

The articles they printed by Judith Miller before the Iraq War are unforgivable, however.

This New York Times? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/corresp...

That's very interesting, thank you.

Looking at the original emails,[1] it seems legitimate to me. The CIA seemed to want to know if something classified was being leaked. I expect and hope any publication would make careful, informed decisions about releasing information that potentially could harm people.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/104180865/Advance-Maureen-Dowd-Pie...

> American filmmaker Linda Poitras

Laura Poitras

Thanks, sorry about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com