Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the Fourth-Estate-Eviction dept.

einar writes:

Irish Times has an article quoting Guardian deputy editor, Paul Johnson, that the Guardian was threatened to be closed by the British government. According to Johnson, the Snowden leak was the most difficult story the Guardian has ever done.

As a reminder, the newspaper was walking a tightrope keeping the balance between giving in where necessary and defending the freedom of press in a country where this right is rather weak. During the Snowden leaks, even PCs were destroyed in the presence of GCHQ agents. All in the name of national security.

From the article:

Mr Johnson said the whole attitude in the UK was that national security trumped press freedom and that the newspaper should not publish a word. This was in contrast to the US, where the Snowden revelations had led to a debate about how far intelligence agencies should go to protect the state.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @06:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @06:26PM (#22156)
    If this had been a Latin American dictatorship (Venezuela, for example), the articles WOULDN'T have run, and those who tried would have been disappeared. But they did run. So yes, while not perfect, they certainly are "better" in terms of press freedom.
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:45PM

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:45PM (#22254) Journal

    That's OK, the governments of the west are hard at work to correct that. They beg our indulgence, they haven't had as much practice, but they'll have that corrected in no time.

  • (Score: 1) by Nr_9 on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:58PM

    by Nr_9 (2947) on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:58PM (#22258)

    "Dictatorship" seems to have changed meaning since the last time I checked the dictionary.

    And this view of Latin America is severely outdated.

    "Insightful" indeed...

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Nr_9 on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:07PM

      by Nr_9 (2947) on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:07PM (#22262)

      Sorry for the earlier post, I didn't notice that the Latin American dictatorship part was a reference to the earlier post.

      Still, calling every country that is on the US Government shitlist "dictatorships" even when they are clearly not (Venezuela, Russia, Iran), while ignoring the valuable allies/hereditary theocracies in the Middle East seems a tad bit problematic to me.

      They might be authoritarian, they might be dysfunctional, they might be weak democracies. But they are not dictatorships.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 28 2014, @01:29PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday March 28 2014, @01:29PM (#22499)

      And this view of Latin America is severely outdated.

      I never said I was referring to present-day countries; I was intentionally referring to the infamous Latin American dictatorships from decades ago.

      • (Score: 1) by Nr_9 on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:59PM

        by Nr_9 (2947) on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:59PM (#22880)

        I was referring to the AC comment replying to you.

        Your comment is perfectly clear and makes a valuable point.