SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the anyone-who-expects-to-give-up-freedom-for-security-will-get-neither dept.
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept writes A Response to Michael Kinsley
Kinsley has actually done the book a great favor by providing a vivid example of so many of its central claims. For instance, I describe in the book the process whereby the government and its media defenders reflexively demonize the personality of anyone who brings unwanted disclosure so as to distract from and discredit the substance revelations; Kinsley dutifully tells Times readers that I "come across as so unpleasant" and that I'm a "self-righteous sourpuss" (yes, he actually wrote that). I also describe in the book how jingoistic media courtiers attack anyone who voices any fundamental critiques of American political culture; Kinsley spends much of his review deriding the notion that there could possibly be anything anti-democratic or oppressive about the United States of America.
But by far the most remarkable part of the review is that Kinsley--in the very newspaper that published Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers and then fought to the Supreme Court for the right to do so (and, though the review doesn't mention it, also published some Snowden documents)--expressly argues that journalists should only publish that which the government permits them to, and that failure to obey these instructions should be a crime.
I can't say I want my government to have its fingers in what is and what is not reported.
See also: Cory Doctorow's review of Greenwald's book at BoingBoing
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Thursday May 29 2014, @05:28AM
Indeed. In fact, the difficulties that Mr. Greenwand in getting his initial story about Edward Snowden's leaks as documented in the book (yes, I've read it) are one of the many factors that drove him to try a different approach to doing journalism and abandoning The Guardian entirely, one that is not controlled by the Rupert Murdochs and other corporate pricks who own the news media.
As an example, the New York Times could have blown the whistle on a lot of this shit the NSA does in 2004 before the election, possibly destroying the re-election prospects of George W. Bush, but instead waited until after the election to reveal that Bush had illegally ordered it. He could have and ought to have been impeached for it, but losing the election would have been enough.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:30AM
Nice theory, except the shit the NSA was doing prior to 2004 is laughable compared to what they were doing in 2013.
They have gotten progressively more intrusive under democratic administration, not less so.
After a full term and a half, the problem isn't Bush's fault anymore.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2014, @05:53PM
Policy does build momentum. If Bush lost the election in 2004 because of pervasive spying, there would be a lot less pervasive spying today. And frankly, I believe the GP was blaming the New York Times for not reporting on illegal activities our Government was doing that the NYT knew about. And in particular, the decision not to report may have been a political decision by a power broker and not a decision based what a free press is supposed to provide to the citizens it represents.
It was the actions of the people that were in office at the time (2004) that matter, not the party they represent. It would also be foolish to infer that because Bush was President at the time, that no one else, then or after 2004, would deserve any blame for supporting or continuing the behaviour. Bush certainly deserves blame for his actions at the time, as he does for the following four years, as does the NYT and other journalists that failed us, as does Congress, as does Obama for continuing the trajectory for six years (and for the next two), I'm sure there's plenty more that could be on the list including all of us USians for letting it happen.
While blame toward people current and past would be nice, I would be happy if we could just stop the Government from spying on all of its citizens now.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:47PM
Nice theory, except the shit the NSA was doing prior to 2004 is laughable compared to what they were doing in 2013.
They have gotten progressively more intrusive under democratic administration, not less so.
After a full term and a half, the problem isn't Bush's fault anymore.
I don't think the GP's post was intended to be partisan but to point out that it is easiest to stop a rock from rolling at the top of the hill, not half-way down.
However, I will point out that PRISM launched in 2007 and Obama was inaugurated in 2009.
Reference 1 [wikipedia.org]
Reference 2 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:58PM
We are not discussing rocks. Please pick an appropriate analogy.
Who ever is sitting in the white house has:
1) Official Stationary
2) Official Pens
3) The ability to issue an executive order.
The fact that a Democrat is in the white house is not the main point here, how ever much you seem want this to be about republican vs democrat.
The main point is that this president replaced the prior administration, AND promised (twice) to put a stop to this type of government abuse (along with many similar abuses), and was elected based on that promise!
In the absence of a "Stand Down" executive order, it is THIS president's problem.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday May 29 2014, @03:50PM
Government has power over media. But power brokers have power over media and government.