Reporter Who Wrote Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him

[marmar]

Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits That He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him


So we've already written about the massive problems with the Sunday Times' big report claiming that the Russians and Chinese had "cracked" the encryption on the Snowden files (or possibly just been handed those files by Snowden) and that he had "blood on his hands" even though no one has come to any harm. It also argued that David Miranda was detained after he got documents from Snowden in Moscow, despite the fact that he was neither in Moscow, nor had met Snowden (a claim the article quietly deleted). That same report also claimed that UK intelligence agency MI6 had to remove "agents" from Moscow because of this leak, despite the fact that they're not called "agents" and there's no evidence of any actual risk. So far, the only official response from News Corp. the publisher of The Sunday Times (through a variety of subsidiaries) was to try to censor the criticism of the story with a DMCA takedown request.

Either way, one of the journalists who wrote the story, Tom Harper, gave an interview to CNN which is quite incredible to watch. Harper just keeps repeating that he doesn't know what's actually true, and that he was just saying what the government told him -- more or less admitting that his role here was not as a reporter, but as a propagandist or a stenographer. ............(more)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150615/11565531344/reporter-who-wrote-sunday-times-snowden-propaganda-admits-that-hes-just-writing-what-uk-govt-told-him.shtml

[AuntPatsy]

1. .

[Aerows]

11. That bullshit article

was debunked by everyone with a grain of sense because it wasn't plausible and was rightfully called out as a deflection from the very real and massive security breach of the OPM that was reported on Friday evening.

EVERYBODY that applied for security clearance is involved. I had someone with the nerve to tell me they weren't concerned and that they had applied for security clearance twice. I stated that I had, and if they aren't they are a lunatic.

That's what this is about - finding a scapegoat for their own lax protocols and monumental incompetence. "It's SNOWDEN's fault we are such fucking idiots" might appeal to some, but everybody else saw right through it.

[Wilms]

2. Author of That Horrible Snowden Article Has Even Worse CNN Interview

Gawker has the interview with Harper

Unreal.

http://gawker.com/author-of-that-horrible-snowden-article-has-even-worse-1711406342

[Aerows]

27. That interview was unreal

Absolutely unreal.

[JDPriestly]

31. Anybody, and I mean anybody, could have just made up that story.

Stinks of poorly researched conspiracy theory. It does not make sense. And the "reporter"?

[CanonRay]

77. He's not a reporter, he's a scribe

He gets paid to write down what people tell him to say.

[G_j]

62. MUST WATCH /\

[MADem]

3. I really don't want "reporters" to

tell me what they THINK people are saying. Reporters should be "stenographers" -- for all sides of the story.

Otherwise, they are pundits, commentators, etc. When any "reporter" is a cheerleader for one side or another, their impartiality is lost. Unfortunately, there's too much of that going on. It's hard as hell to find anything written in a newspaper that is just the story, the facts, and nothing but.

We're at the point in our history where we have to take everything with a grain of salt, no matter who writes it, and we have to do our homework on the writers, as well. "Oh, THAT one? He's a (fill in political/corporate affiliation). Of course he'd feel THAT WAY about (subject matter)."

[marmar]

4. But in this case, he didn't seek out the other side of the story ......

..... He reprinted fact-free claims from the British government without checking any of them out. That's not a reporter. That's a human dictation machine. Reporters are supposed to report both sides, but examine the veracity of what both sides are saying.

[MADem]

9. I agree--he should have gotten an "opposing view" quote. There's more here, certainly.

I have a feeling this was a first salvo on the part of the UK government, I don't think they emptied the magazine by a long shot.

The Reuters piece that followed the initial report built on the TIMES story and also talked about the timing issue.


Now, as a consequence, we're probably going to see more out of government officials--maybe someone will go on record as the go-to spokesperson-- and there's going to be a bit of a back-and-forth started. That's not a bad thing, IMO, so long as the reporters telling us what each side is saying can refrain from editorializing.


I don't think the best players in the rollout of this (neverending) story are going to be either TIMES or INTERCEPT. Granted, GUARDIAN has a dog in this fight (they helped get the ball rolling and won a Pulitzer for their trouble) but I think they have an interest (mainly, their reputation and the award they got for not just reporting, but judicious editing) in sticking to the straight and narrow in terms of what is truth, and what is total SWAG.

[truebluegreen]

36. No--he shouldn't have gotten an "opposing view" quote

and then printed "both sides" if that is what you are implying. The "some people say" and "other people say" is as bad as being a stenographer (case in point: global warming scientists v deniers). When you give equal weight to both sides and one side is simply wrong or worse, LYING, you have done the public a disservice. That's not journalism, it's bullshit.

I don't want reporters to editorialize, I want them to report the facts, and the facts need to be more than "X said this, and Y said that." Otherwise all you have is Chuck Toad.

[MADem]

46. Where did I say anything about giving equal weight? If a reporter goes to one source

and gets a sack of iron, and goes to another and gets a sack of feathers, it's completely appropriate to note that both sacks don't have the same weight. That is a fact, a fact that is a consequence of hearing both sacks of whatever, and not an opinion.

I don't want reporters to editorialize either. I don't want them to shade, to confuse personality pieces with news, to fluff and flutter. That's my point. As for Chum, er, Chuck Toad, you only get one side from him...the side that his bosses tell him to take. That problem goes all the way back to Mr. "sold his integrity for a beach house on the Vineyard" Russert. His kid, of "Nancy Pelosi is OLD" fame, is drinking from the same dirty cup.

[truebluegreen]

48. I apologize.

I over-reacted to the call for an quote from the other side, when what is really needed is actual investigative journalism,

[MADem]

55. We're fine--I like a nice chat! No worries. nt

[cui bono]

8. No, they are supposed to ferret out the truth. Facts are facts in that world.

Or they're supposed to be. Stenography is a big part of what got us into the Iraq War.

It's not about sides, it's about facts, where ever they may land. It doesn't do any good to write a s/he said, s/he said article. That would be like all the stupid political shows where two people state opposing viewpoints, well most of the time one of them is wrong. So in fact, that makes it an 'editorial' just not with the opinion of the reporter.

Did you ever see the John Oliver piece about climate change deniers? Where he said if they actually had the right amount of people on a 'news' show representing the percentage of their corresponding viewpoint there would have to be 99 people on saying it does exist and 1 person saying it doesn't. And that's the problem with just letting both sides spout their views without fact checking.

Fact checking is the main part of a reporter's job.

Found the video I was talking about:

[Luminous Animal]

14. Most excellent post!

[cui bono]

43. Why thank you.

[MADem]

16. They aren't supposed to give us their OPINIONS on what "the truth" is.

That's worse than stenography, because those kinds of reports often depend on a cult of personality. "Ooooh, I just LOOOOOVE (fill in name, anything from KEEEEITH to GLEENNNN to RUUUUSH to BILLL-OH--every side does it)--they always get it right!"


I don't care if I get my news from Schmucky McNoPersonality, so long as Schmucky doesn't try to tell me what to think or feel and reports what happened accurately.

There's more to come on this story, of that I have no doubt. Where the road leads, who knows...?

[cui bono]

19. I never said that. I said they are supposed to get the facts.

If they act like stenographers for two different sides as you said, that's what you are going to get, opinions.

[MADem]

24. I didn't say you said that. Can't I have an opinion on the process?

In some cases, when there are fights like this, and it's impossible to do any real "investigating" save getting quotes from either side and juxtaposing them, that's about all one can do. Keep a running tally of He said/She said/They said until something shakes out.

If there's any opining happening, I'd rather see the 'opinionators' clearly identified and I'd rather the reporter limit his or hers to stuff approaching "water is wet" POVs. If something is a "DUH" it's fine to finish the piece with it, but any time there's a hint of "lean" it damages credibility. When reporters start putting their hopes and dreams and opinions and leans into stories, we end up with Dan Rather messes. He was a good guy, heart in the right place, long record, stellar career, but he allowed his wishes to overtake his good sense.

The sad irony is that his "facts" were right--but his "evidence" wasn't. He got rope-a-doped. It was a long, slow roll, too.

[cui bono]

25. Of course you can, but you were responding directly to my post.

Usually that means whatever you are disagreeing with was said by the poster you are replying to.

I agree with the Dan Rather fiasco. They should have figured out that was bad evidence. That's why I said reporters should ferret out the facts.

I don't agree they are supposed to be stenographers for both sides at any point in time. Then what if someone keeps saying there is no climate change and because two people are getting quoted people think it might be true? We all know there is climate change and that it's a problem.

[MADem]

53. People like to fight here on DU. I'd rather talk about what is happening in the world.

I just don't get the adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe it's a generational thing, and I'm one of the 'left behind' reprobates. I don't get "mad" at people with whom I differ. Life's too short.

A reporter can take what they've written down from both sides and draw conclusions--not opinions--but conclusions based on the facts--not opinions--they have on hand. That will limit the glamor of their stories, but I think that's probably a best way to maintain integrity. Will news outlets take my view on board? Hell no--SEX SELLS! So does fighting, controversy, drama, etc.

Again, if someone quotes a "no climate change" nitwit, there's nothing wrong with adding that "... in a poll of X number of scientists, only two percent agreed with him, and both were emeritus professors in advanced stages of dementia" --so long as it's a fact.

[cui bono]

68. Yes, people do.

That's not what I'm doing though.

[MADem]

69. I know.

[cui bono]

71. Cool.

[JDPriestly]

32. The original article made no sense.

I think Snowden was made the scapegoat of bureaucrats and government contractors who goofed and did not want to admit it.

[MADem]

56. I think it was a piece of bloody, fatty meat tied to a line and thrown off the back of the boat.

Not sure what they're trying to catch...but I don't think that was just an excuse to distract from the recent Chinese hack. US and UK have a special relationship, but they're not going to fall on their sword like that over a hack that ostensibly only involved US servers and info.

There's more going on here, no idea what, but they are fishing for something, I suspect. Maybe another person is holding Snowden's material as well, and he or she gave it away, or sold it....?

[Aerows]

60. I disagree that they wouldn't fall on their swords

for a hack like that - Five eyes are so completely intertwined with one another and information sharing, that it is a natural inclination to protect each other (because heaven only knows what the hackers learned about us!) in that situation.

You had GCHQ collecting information on Americans and the NSA collecting information on British citizens and they were exchanging that information. When you are that interlinked, when one gets in a mess, you tend to circle the wagons.

Then there is this:

“Last week, David Anderson’s thoughtful report called for urgent reform of snooping laws. That would not have been possible without Snowden’s revelations. Days later, an ‘unnamed Home Office source’ is accusing him of having blood on his hands. The timing of this exclusive story from the securocrats seems extremely convenient.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/russia-and-china-broke-into-snowden-files-to-identify-british-and-us-spies

You have both groups under pressure to halt or significantly curb their activities. It's not really a surprise that they are trotting out the Snowden "sins" to counter that.

[MADem]

64. I don't think the reform is all that much of a surprise, and I thought the timing had more to do

with the election cycle than anything else--no one wants to roll out "reform" with an election coming up--now that they're past that hurdle, here comes the sun...but who knows? Anything's possible. Could well be a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, too.

I think the "Snowden sins" are not going to have much of a counteracting effect, at any rate. I think we're into "Yes, BUT..." territory, as in "YES, what he did was wrong, BUT there's too much overreach on the part of government spy agencies..." I think most people, regardless of their views on Snowden, agree that he revealed overreach. The issue many take with him is how he did it. I still think he knew that his SF86 was going to blow up in his face, so he got while the getting was good.

[Aerows]

65. Uh, speaking of SF86's blowing up in people's faces ...

Who thought it was a good idea to keep that all neat and tidy in one place ready to be gleaned? The hackers had access to it for over a YEAR before anyone noticed it had been hacked!

I'm sorry, that is epic incompetence. It took them a YEAR to NOTICE.

That is what disturbs me the most. Have a problem, okay, but don't notice for a freaking YEAR that you are driving around on a flat tire when you work in automotive repairs!?

Seriously?

[MADem]

66. I agree with that, too. The oversight stunk on ice. There's a lot of entrenched idiocy.

The bureaucracy is very inefficient. The security screening process is a joke--especially for contractors.

[Aerows]

70. I started a post on it

Here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026843990

but here's a tidbit:

That is assuming petty crime is the goal of this immense and sophisticated hacking operation. There is currently little evidence of such motivations, which is interesting, because the pilfered data would have been worth millions on the black market if sold quickly. Identity theft is a time-sensitive operation. It is important to act before the victims realize their Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, passwords, etc. have been compromised, and take remedial action.

Remember, the data breach actually happened near the end of last year — it was discovered, apparently by accident, in April, and not disclosed to the millions of victims until now. In previous identity-theft hacking operations, such as the big scores pulled off by Russian gangs over the past few years, the stolen data was sold on black-market websites while it was still fresh. That is one of the ways security investigators learned the extent of the crimes – they monitor shadowy criminal data markets carefully. The gang that pulled off the biggest data heist in history does not seem interested in making a few bucks by selling off their wares, or by using the data themselves for financial crime.

That's fucked up, MADem.

[MADem]

72. I wondered if this was part of the larger problem, as well...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Friday it has been forced to suspend the issuance of U.S. passports and visas at its overseas diplomatic missions due to a glitch that has hit one of its computer databases.

In a statement posted to its travel.state.gov website, the department said a hardware failure in its Consular Consolidated Database glitch has left overseas embassies and consulates unable to print visas, regular passports and other travel documents. This means that people who submitted online applications for passports and visas on or after June 9 will likely experience delays in processing, it said.

The failure does not affect domestic passport issuance because it only stopped the database from receiving biometric information sent from overseas posts, the department said.

"We cannot bypass the legal requirements necessary to screen visa applicants before we issue visas for travel," it said. "As a result, there is a backlog of visas waiting to be processed. We are working as quickly as possible to resolve the issue and to clear the backlog."

"Security measures prevent consular officers from printing a passport, report of birth abroad or visa until the case completes the required national security checks," it said.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/State-Dept-suspends-overseas-passport-visa-6324949.php


Stand by for accelerated biometric accommodations, if the breach is far reaching.

[Aerows]

73. Kind of looks necessary

at this point. What other way is there around it?

[MADem]

74. They could reissue SSANs. It would be a big job, but not insurmountable.

Thing is, the world is going towards biometrics now, so it makes more sense to head in that direction. It'll be a while before they work all the bugs out of that, too. And hackers will find a way to even get around that, with enough time.

[JDPriestly]

78. They are covering something up or someone else in the complex web of private contractors

and government employees sold it or gave it to someone.

Or -- I read that the Chinese had a lot of manpower dedicated to computer hacking, and I am pretty certain that the Russians do to, so they may simply have hacked our codes.

After all, when Edward Snowden first revealed his information, I was assured by many DUers that the Russians and the Chinese were doing the same things we were doing -- hacking and retrieving as intelligence gathering. Wouldn't surprise me. I tend to believe that they did not need Snowden's or anyone else's help with this.

[MADem]

79. The Chinese and Russians do it differently than we do--they put their hackers in uniform.

They have a massive building full of guys who do nothing but hack, hack, hack around the clock. They make it very worth their while, while at the same time enforcing discipline. We've got a bunch of free spirited creative types countering them, they've got dogged types and relentless numbers...and I'm sure that plenty of those uniforms have a creative bent, too--they just know that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

I wouldn't be surprised that their focus is more 'urgent' than ours, either. We probably need to change that paradigm. That won't go over well here, but abdicating isn't going to make them go away and say "Oh well, those Americans are off the clock, we can go home, too."

I'd rather see nations fighting it out on the internet than fighting it out on the battlefield. As for us civilians, we're gonna be collateral damage if we don't learn to watch our shit on the information superhighway, and realize that we can't wander down the middle of the road and not get hit by a semi. It's a new world out there, and a lot of people haven't adjusted to it. The number of fools brought down by phishing scams--and phishing scams on GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS, no less--is obscene and absurd. That should just NEVER happen. If they fired people when that stuff happened, odds are, it would stop real quick. We simply don't enforce any kind of security discipline when it comes to OPSEC online, and we should get serious. Of course, nothing happened when Bush WH staff used YAHOO and RNC servers, and there weren't any prohibitions against doing the very same at other cabinet agencies. Why? Because the idiots we have running government computers SUCK. A lot of them are old men who barely understand dos, but who got their jobs by bullshitting people who couldn't find the ON/OFF button, and have moved up the ranks. We need better, smarter, more innovative people, and better security too--it's a tough mix to accommodate, because creative types chafe at security measures....

[JDPriestly]

80. There is just some information that should not be placed on any computer system.

Old fashioned files in rooms that are carefully supervised at the doors are much safer in some instances. Personnel files are in that category. As are tax files. And defense information.

You could have an internal computer system that would not connect to the web in any way. But as you point out, that would take creativity, and today the creative internet developers can make mega-bucks in start-ups and probably could not be well enough compensated to set up a safe system for out government. So much for patriotism.

Money trumps country over and over. That's true at the top and at the bottom and it is very sad.

[MADem]

86. If they KNOW that people are gonna play games and screw around, they should bite the bullet and

make two systems. Keep one "clean" and one dirty, and never the twain shall meet. As for tax info, they need to find a way to make the pipe feed in one-way. No one's gonna give up their Turbotax, so there's a problem there with personal information, but they shouldn't be able to find a way into the IRS through them, or any other similar protocol. There needs to be radical changes made--biometrics is the one obvious one. Fingerprint, iris, voice recognition, plus pins and passwords...make it hard as hell.

Of course, this "problem" represents huge opportunitie$ for the right people--those who make their money in the computer security game. Let's hope they don't "race to the bottom" in terms of the price point for the repairs and innovations they need.

I'd rather see them try to skunkwork the issue, maybe do some in-house work, get creative as hell with the help of a few geniuses, do some radical trying and failing, gin up a few sample protocols and run them in real time at low risk and unimportant facilities, maybe get a red team working to try and hack 'em...and ONLY hire US citizens. No visa kids. Pay them well enough, but not too well--and give them a HUGE bonus if they join the reserves--then allow them to do their weekend warrior and acdu for training at the same job--it will create a better atmosphere if it's a blended environment if the uniforms know that the civilians understand their issues.

We've got to get the best and the brightest to fix this, and I don't think we're doing that. We get flashy types with obvious skills, certainly, but I think we're behind the game in that we don't have enough relentless plodders to complement the flashy ones. Too many hares, not enough tortoises....and truth to tell, if you let a tortoise hang around hares long enough, they pick up speed, too--but they still retain that attention to detail that is really needed in that line of work.

[JDPriestly]

88. I totally agree. There is no excuse for the sloppiness involved in this scandal no matter

who did the hacking.

[JDPriestly]

101. Here we go. This is what happened to the personnel information in the US:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128014401

Congress simply has not appropriated the money required to replace computers and the whole system. That's my suspicion.

[MADem]

35. Fact checking is fine, too. But it's more of a challenge when you agree to quote a source

without attribution, and getting a name, a person, to go on record is apparently what the reporter couldn't get.

FWIW--I like fact checking, I also like it when a reporter can point to an assertion like the climate change one and say "Only one percent of scientists agree with this."

But this story is a little different. There's no "opinion" in what this unattributed source is claiming. This source is saying that the Chinese and the Russians have hacked SNOWDEN's stuff, and they had to get it from one of three--maybe four--obvious sources. Supposedly, Snowden said he gave the stuff to others, too, but I don't remember the full flavor of that end--I think there was an "If anything happens to me...the whole kit-n-kaboodle gets out there." Who knows, maybe he gave copies to Assange, and Assange sold the stuff or "made a deal" (wouldn't be the first time).

I get the sense that this story is chum in the water. It wasn't thrown out there for people to say "Oh, OK, fine, then. thanks so much for clearing that up--we're done!" It was thrown out there to roil the waters, and it has done that.

I think there's a long game at work here. I keep bringing up Dan Rather. He got caught in one. We'll see...!

[truebluegreen]

38. Journalism 101: if you have only one unattributed source, Don't Go To Print with it.

[MADem]

49. That hasn't been the standard for years. I don't think it would be a bad idea to go back to it,

but the 24 hour news cycle and the "aspens" culture seems to think otherwise.

[cui bono]

41. Just because a source says something doesn't make it the truth.

Again, that's a big part of how we got into the Iraq War.

[MADem]

51. That is true. Judith Miller, etc.

[mrdmk]

84. No shit, end of discussion of who, what, when, where, why and for added value HOW!!!

The facts are in. (Period)

Now we need to do something about it (Key word: NEED)


Now back to the NEWS

<snip>
Actually, that’s not hard to believe at all. Researchers say the Headline News format looks as if it were designed to make it harder for viewers to understand the main content of the news programs. “Viewers are comfortable with crowding,” says Paul Traudt of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, “if the elements are all related to the same topic.” But Headline News has “multiple, incongruent elements” like weather conditions, a stock ticker, sports scores and headlines unrelated to the main topic. Says Traudt, “The result can be information overload.”

That’s not merely theory. A new study at Kansas State University has found that the visual elements of the Headline News format take an enormous amount of effort to process. “The results are clearer than anything I’ve ever done before,” says K-State journalism professor Tom Grimes. Further research will test the obvious implication: that viewers who watch a heavily cluttered news program aren’t likely to understand or remember much of what they see or hear.

But that may not matter to Headline News and its cable cousins. Their top priority, it seems, is not to educate and inform but to draw eyeballs. And what they’re doing may work. “Anything that moves is most powerful,” Traudt says. “It grabs attention and overpowers everything else.”

In fact, the whole point may be to keep viewers wondering what they just missed so they’ll stay tuned rather than clicking away. “We try to be edgy,” Ryan says, “so people will go, ‘Huh? What’s that?'”

http://www.newslab.org/2002/09/10/the-tv-ticker-parade/

[cui bono]

89. Made me think of this:

[mrdmk]

103. Yep, there is some bullshit happening somewhere!

Surprising is it not

[Luminous Animal]

12. Actually. They should be investigators. What people are saying are not necessarily facts.

This guy clearly stated that he reports from the government's point of view.

I'm still laughing.

[MADem]

17. I've no problem with investigative reporting, either.

I don't care for the sort of narratives that paint charaterizations of individuals in either heroic or despotic light, as though they are one dimensional cartoons--and that seems to be standard fare of late.

Investigation is fine....telling people "You should feel this way, because so and so is a poopyhead who looks like he was a meanie in grammar school" is not on with me.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Oh give it up. You were on the poopy-head band wagon until the reporter revealed himself

an inept derp.

[MADem]

37. Not at all. As I've said, I think this is a long game.

The TIMES is playing a role--they moved the pawn forward two spaces, and the game is on. Much more to follow, I suspect.

[Aerows]

21. No offense, MADem

But you've said yourself that you served (maybe retired from?) the Navy and you still believe the bullshit the government says? I understand loyalty, but at least try to be halfheartedly skeptical. If you served that long and still believe everything the government says, you wouldn't have sense enough to flush a toilet, much less form a coherent sentence on a message board.

[MADem]

29. I definitely served and retired!

I know full well that the government bullshits plenty, and classifies (for convenience...Clinton stopped a lot of that, but Bush put it back on) more, but I also know (from a close-in view) that there are times when they tell the surprising truth. I don't "default" to "LIES!!!! DAMNED LIES!!!" because if I did, I'd be happy at one of those Woo/Paulbot type places.

Gotta let it play out. I think we're in early days on this story.

Politicians lie, too (hello, Speaker Hastert, who was the perfect guy to oversee the House Impeachment process because his hands were so clean...???). No political party or group affiliation is immune--everyone from Democratic representatives with peenie pics on twitter to a NAACP president telling heritage falsehoods in Washington, to diaper wearing Senators in LA to mendacious wingnut governors in WI. "Heroes" lie, too--that American Sniper guy was apparently a fabulist of the first order. John Edwards absolutely wasn't the baby-daddy, until he was.

My point, I guess, is to not be swayed by cult of personality. But "so and so" reported it isn't enough. There's time to watch this play out, and in time, I suspect we'll hear a LOT more on this business.

At this point, sunlight IS the best disinfectant because it's all out there, anyway, apparently. I do think Snowden shouldn't pack his bags, though--is he coming up on another residency renewal...? He'd better get his paperwork in.

[Aerows]

33. It's rather farfetched

to say that everyone that is against government surveillance and the government lying to us is being taking in by a cult of personality.

Glad you admitted that you are aware that our government bullshits us. I thought I'd recognized many intelligent comments from you, so it is a relief to know that you have a healthy sense of skepticism despite being on the "government surveillance doesn't go too far and if it does, shut up" train with this particular issue.

Sunlight IS the best disinfectant, and I think what we are seeing is a sunrise that has barely made it up from the horizon.

[MADem]

39. I am not saying that either.

You have to acknowledge, though, that there are some people who take shit as gospel because (fill in name of favored reporter/pundit/commentator) says it.

It happens across the political spectrum.

EVERYONE bullshits, Aerows. EVERYONE. Even reporters, pundits, commentators. Brian Williams, the GOP's 'go-to' guy (according to Frank Luntz, another bullshitter) is on vacation for bullshitting.

A jaundiced eye is a valued asset...

[Aerows]

42. Addendum

" shit as gospel because (fill in name of favored reporter/pundit/commentator *President*) says it"

[MADem]

47. Fair point...and you can add "candidate" to that as well! nt

[Aerows]

57. You certainly can

That is also a fair point, my friend.

[Jesus Malverde]

30. To pretend that reporters are objective, impartial and without an agenda is at best naive...nt

[MADem]

45. I don't say they are. I say the ones that are worthy of any respect should strive for that ideal. nt

[Rex]

66. Yeah that is the problem with garbage pundits, that is exactly what they do.

We are thirsty for investigative journalism.

[FlatBaroque]

75. That is one of the most

laughable statements I have read here. Kudos.

Reporters should be stenographers. F'ing brilliant. Just like Judi Miller being a stenographer to Dick Cheney. Then Dick Cheney referencing the article Jusi wrote to make the case for war.

We're going to take the party back from you.

[MADem]

87. Well, your mind is made up and have a nice day. See you in Nov of next year--if you're still here.

You may bail well before then--time will tell.

Read the whole thread, contextually, before you snark. You just might learn something. I won't hold my breath.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Seriously?

So, for example, when reporting on climate change utter vapid readily fact checked bullshit should be reported alongside actual evidence based statements as if each were equally valid and of equal weight and the reader should just fend for herself?

Well you should be quite happy with the bullshit corporate media as is.

[MADem]

85. Read the thread. I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite.

Pay close attention to the post about the bag of iron and the bag of feathers. Or don't, it really doesn't matter to me.

Anytime anyone starts a post by telling me what I think, and finishes with "Well you should be quite happy...." already has their biases firmly in place, and discussion is pointless.

Not going to engage in a wrestling contest with someone who enjoys that sort of game.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. I responded to what you wrote. If you managed to backtrack and revise that nonsense so what?

Here is what you wrote:

I really don't want "reporters" to tell me what they THINK people are saying. Reporters should be "stenographers" -- for all sides of the story.

That is some stunning nonsense. I didn't have to interpret or tell you what you think. You wrote that in plain english.

[MADem]

94. Don't you dare read the full conversation...

You might learn something.

And what's with the use of the word "stunning?" Think your signal popped up on the radar, there, pal.


SMH.


Man, By Their Words We Shall Know Them....indeed.

[Babel_17]

92. Provable falsehoods are not a side, imo

When a reporter's due diligence indicates that the government just lied, then that reporter needs to report that. It looks a lot like this reporter was chosen by the government because they thought no due diligence would be involved. So, imo, that's not taking note of the position of a side, that's repeating propaganda and giving it the veneer of respectability by way of ones supposed journalistic ethic.

This is actually a big deal; well, it would be a big deal here in the USA. (I think in the UK they allow for tawdry journalists playing their part) Journalists are part of The Fourth Estate. And that involves some privileges that aren't all set in stone. Editors and publishers are supposed to know this, and usually seem to, and come down hard on this kind of crap as it endangers the integrity of the free press.

We can't give a pass to this kind of thing. Way too much rides on the role of the press.

[MADem]

95. Please read the full conversation, which took place a day before you decided to chime in.

UK actuallly has stricter rules than USA about what one can publish in the paper. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25libel.html

[Babel_17]

96. Please don't make assumptions (and I'm not wild about the "chime in" dig)

I've read about how serious libel can be in the UK. I was trying to point out how certain tabloids allow freer reign than US papers are supposed to. Sad to see good papers sink so low. Anyway, this isn't about libel, it doesn't apply anyway, this is about standards.

And, thank you very much, I read enough of the exchange in question, and there's this.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/14/tom-harper-nsa-files-snowden-howell-intv-nr.cnn/video/playlists/intl-latest-world-videos/

Reread my post and then spell out what you take issue with. Since we're telling each other what to do.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. I knew someone would be here to stick up for shitty reporting and sloppy propaganda.

Personally, my views are pretty much opposite. How's your Tuesday been?

[MADem]

99. Really? Tuesday?

Not terribly clever. Obvious, though.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. No idea what you're talking about, but my question was strictly a courtesy--no hidden meaning.

It's a way to end an almost-brusque post on a more cordial note. I'll agree it's not clever, but I have to disagree about the obviousness of the question, since I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[merrily]

5. Correct. Someone who simply hands readers what the government handed him or her is

not a reporter or any kind of journalist.

[Aerows]

18. They are a mouthpiece

It's been an open secret that CIA has had journalists and other media personalities on the payroll since the OSS was reformed (and rebranded) as the CIA in later years.

It has never stopped.

That's why when a news story smells too rosy about the government, but too much like bullshit on facts and plausibility, it's option #2, and you need to doubt everything that "reporter" or "journalist" "reports".

[merrily]

23. And now, we have a law that says our government can propagandize us. Considering networks were

already airing videotapes produced by government as "news" segments without telling us government had produced them, one wonders why this law was conceived?

We can't trust voting machines, we can't trust news media. We're kidding ourselves.

[Alittleliberal]

50. It's no secret "Media" all around the world

has been propaganda for quite a long time.

[NewSystemNeeded]

6. Stenographers.

No different than the local rag's police reporter.

[Aerows]

7. LMAO!

Everybody capable of critical thinking called bullshit on this and knew it was an attempt to deflect from the OPM hack.

I eagerly await the usual suspects to poke their head in this thread and "NSAsplain" how everyone needs a tin foil hat for doubting anything a government agency says, Snowden is the root of all evil and the facts are *SHUT UP!*

[frylock]

10. This is good for a larf..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026831804

[Luminous Animal]

13. First thing that came to mind when I saw that interview.

Laughing still.

[Aerows]

44. If you look at who rec'd it

It's a veritable who's who on ignore lists

[Aerows]

15. I know

As is the person that told me that he wasn't concerned about the OPM breach and he'd applied for security clearance twice using SF-86, then asked if I had ever applied. I replied, "Once, and if you aren't concerned, you didn't fill out the same form I did."

I got exactly what I expected - not a damn word after that. Maybe that person was afraid I might ask what was on said form (because if you can fill that fucker out once, let alone twice, you will remember everything on it).

[840high]

34. LMAO

[truebluegreen]

40. I knew exactly! what post that was without even looking.

I think I'll bookmark that particular "Oops" moment.

[m-lekktor]

61. so did I! nt

[Doctor_J]

54. That's pretty damn funny

Du's snowden stalker takes a vanity thread victory lap, all of the Greenwald haters clap. You'd think they would suffer some embarrassment.

[Zorra]

102. Classic! The "epitome of the genre".

[Warren Stupidity]

82. See up thread, "reporters should be stenographers".

It is like the brain shuts off. MUST OPPOSE. TYPE WORDS NOW.

[daredtowork]

22. Now where is everyone who started screeching SNOWDEN TRAITOR(TM)!!! all over again?

Excuse me while I recline in my barcalounger with a full bowl of popcorn and point and laugh for a while. What gullible schmucks.

[Aerows]

26. Not gullible schmucks

They think (or more likely, hope) *everybody else* is a gullible schmuck.

I think the "defenders" have outsmarted themselves on this one. We all knew who they were, but frankly, this whole thing was damned stupid. You have a cyclone of incompetence with the OPM Hack, and then you have a tsunami of poorly executed attempts to buttress a transparently false narrative.

I'd be embarrassed not only by my agency, but by the dumbass that thought this was a winning idea. Clearly, they need better marketers, because what they are doing now is working against them at this point, not working for them.

[Jesus Malverde]

58. Let me join you

[sabrina 1]

28. That was pretty obvious. Another mindless tool posing as a 'reporter'.

[Man from Pickens]

52. He did his job

he will be paid and get paid again in the future to do more like it

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. "I vas just following orders."

[Jesus Malverde]

63. The Sunday Times sends DMCA notice to critics of Snowden hacking story

This morning, lawyers at Times Newspapers took a step to limit Greenwald's criticism, sending a notice telling The Intercept that Greenwald's story, which included a low-res image of the Times' front page, violates their copyright. The Intercept quickly published the takedown notice, and on Twitter Greenwald made clear that his publication won't be deleting his copy of the Times' "humiliating headline."

The relevant portions of the copyright letter, from the legal department of Times Newspapers, reads:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/sunday-times-sends-dmca-notice-to-critics-of-snowden-hacking-story/

[Baitball Blogger]

76. Sick and lazy reporting.

Taking people at their word is the most unprofessional way of doing business.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Shouldn't we all trust our government? See GWB and IWR for solution to quiz.

And, many more examples of "trusting" the government and the result of doing so.

[Blue_Tires]

90. Oh, so now DU has gone back to hating anon gov't sources again??

But when Seymour Hersh publishes 5,000-word imaginary yarns using nothing BUT anon gov't sources, he's a hero?? Greenwald has also used them regularly when they've suited his purpose...So help me out here...

You do realize none of this puts Snowden in the clear, right?

[Babel_17]

91. Stenography was his minor, and he aced it (nt)

[KoKo]

97. Recommend...saw an interview with him...sheesh.....

He seemed chosen to play a fool. And, he was. Glenn Greenwald and others have trashed the whole report and those who followed the whole Snowden story knew the "Sunday Times" article was Tabloid Lies and that other more "reputable news sources" repeated it was really disgusting.