Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#11

Post by untog »

ceejayoz wrote: post #8
Angostura wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I buy that bridge, I'd want to you to be a lot more explicit about which parts of government, which parts of the media and on which issues. I haven't seen most of the media notably pro-Trump for example, to which I've no doubt you will say "ah yes, well Trump isn't the true government", or some-such.

Every single bit of government, with different parts of the press. No, Trump's not in bed with NPR... but it's hard to argue he's not closely involved with Fox personalities. Hannity showed up at Trump rallies and often chats to Trump via phone. Every Congress member will have a variety of sympathetic press sources that match their politics. Every department has a press corps that depends pretty heavily on access to…

Right, but IMO that's meaningfully different from "the government and the press are in bed", which implies a wholesale conspiracy.

The fact that individuals within government can find favourable coverage from one of dozens (hundreds?) of independent media outlets, each with its own perspective and bias, isn't really all that surprising or scandalous.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#12

Post by AndrewKemendo »

I discovered that there was, in effect, a marketplace of secrets in Washington, in which White House officials and other current and former bureaucrats, contractors, members of Congress, their staffers, and journalists all traded information.

This is why I left that world.

The US Government and policy makers decide that it is sometimes necessary to do things that put US Govt employees at mortal risk. It is important that there are employees like this that are willing to take those risks and they do so knowingly.

Where this goes off the rails is when those same Policymakers put their ego over the safety of the people they are risking in order to repugnantly gain status or money.

This "marketplace" is a dark pool of real risk that is opaque to those who are trying to execute the orders given. An operator can reasonably evaluate what the risks are going into any intelligence activity, but there has traditionally been an underlying assumption that the people giving the orders aren't going to comprimise the activity. I'm not sure that's an assumption worth holding anymore.

I should note that is a separate point from accountability and transparency with respect to the "should" of these activities. There is an equal need for democratic accountability for these activities, and OPSEC is often in conflict with democratic discoverability. There should be more discussion on the "how" of that, because as it stands such information sharing is not magnanimous or virtuous - it's exploited for personal gain.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#13

Post by zozbot123 »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #3
decasia wrote: post #2

Still an important story. But the title should read (January 2018) or something to indicate that it is not breaking news.

The title intentionally implies it is still ongoing.

The story itself is from 2018, title included. Whether things have changed or not in the meantime is a rather different question.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#14

Post by ceejayoz »

untog wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single bit of government, with different parts of the press. No, Trump's not in bed with NPR... but it's hard to argue he's not closely involved with Fox personalities. Hannity showed up at Trump rallies and often chats to Trump via phone. Every Congress member will have a variety of sympathetic press sources that match their politics. Every department has a press corps that depends pretty heavily on access to…

Right, but IMO that's meaningfully different from "the government and the press are in bed", which implies a wholesale conspiracy. The fact that individuals within government can find favourable coverage from one of dozens (hundreds?) of independent media outlets, each with its own perspective and bias, isn't really all that surprising or scandalous.

Trump asking the NYT to squash a corruption story about one of his Cabinet secretaries would likely fall flat, for sure.

Obama's CIA asking Fox to suppress a story about the impeding attack on Bin Laden would probably have been honored, regardless of Fox's generally negative opinions on Obama.

Stuff with the "national security" label, or stuff that requires fairly specialized access to sources, is where the close relationship between press and subject can cause issues like the article here is highlighting.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#16

Post by kop316 »

rdtsc wrote: post #9

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I…

You forgot about the "It's Just Metadata" argument:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-jus...

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#17

Post by resters »

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture.

It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force.

It's no accident that the paper ran the Judith Miller work selling the Iraq war, or that it was an early participant in the smear campaign against Assange, or that it is a thought leader on the threat posed by China. Sure there are stories about CSAs and the homeless, but ultimately it's a big budget right wing PR operation, intent on preserving the status quo.

For even more obvious evidence, just look at the people whose weddings are covered in the paper's nuptials section -- predominantly children of powerful elites who the paper wishes to flatter with its coverage.

If one were to ask "what kind of coverage might we expect from a paper controlled by a billionaire industrialist?", we might actually predict a right-wing perspective. But due to the Times' history as a progressive paper (most notably the writings of Frederick Law Olmsted which fueled the abolitionist movement), the paper is uncritically viewed by many in the present day as a voice that opposes the right wing, authoritarian social goals held by powerful elites.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#18

Post by quasse »

rdtsc wrote: post #9

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I…

It's disappointing coming from the man who campaigned on the promise "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#19

Post by [deleted] »

resters wrote: post #17

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture. It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force. It's no accident that the paper ran the Ju…

[deleted]

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#20

Post by ngngngng »

rdtsc wrote: post #9

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I…

During the Obama administration it became legal to assassinate US citizens without trial as long as they are presumed "terrorists" and aren't currently on US soil. It was a deeply flawed presidency that deserves much more critique than it has ever received.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

Post reply on HN