Personally looking forward to the creation of an Un-British Activities Committee.
"You have been found guilty of not liking tea."
An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
booyaa00: I think it's also funny that some people are under the delusion that sites like this and reddit, are actually controlled by the 'voters', and that everyone has the same power. They're not. They're controlled by editors who will place items where they want to. For me, the worst part of hacker news is the silent banning if you are critical of any YC funded startup. Censorship is ugly, but it happens routinely…
No. It's totally different. This is not about censorship. Newspapers can say what the hell they want. Unless they obtained that information via illegal means - which The Guardian did. They are absolutely the same as the phone hacking papers.
They are absolutely the same as the phone hacking papers.
No, they are not.
Here's why:
Voicemail hacking - journalists directly hired and instructed investigators to hack voicemail of celebrities and murder victims in order to print salacious stories and earn money, they also paid off police and other public servants to obtain information. They did this to sell newspapers (and for that reason alone) - no other defence could be given for their actions.
Snowden's disclosures - journalists received a story and documents to back it up from Snowden, they did not solicit and pay for the information, and published only those stories which they felt were in the public interest. They informed the public of a major scandal, and potentially illegal actions on the part of the authorities (actions which the spies tried to have legalised retrospectively).
That's the job of the fourth estate - holding the government accountable, keeping them honest, and informing the public. That's why we have a public interest defence (at least in the UK), or a 1st amendment (in the US).
Now you might argue that Snowden broke the law, I'd absolutely agree he did, but some laws are bad laws, and sometimes to fight an unjust system you must break the law - examples from history are legion of people fighting unjust laws who in retrospect are seen as heroes - I suspect Snowden will be amongst them, but arguing over the legality of his actions is a distraction from the to me more important questions of a free press and how we can restrain a government which aspires to know everything about every one of us.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any consequences. I'd draw the line: You can steal documents and publish them, if they reveal that the government has acted against the laws, or unconstitutionally. Basically if you're breaking the law to reveal that someone else has broken the law in order of magnitude worse way, then it's ok.
I'd agree. But in this case, the claim from GCHQ etc is that they have acted fully within the law. The guardian just loves anti-government stories, bashing anyone in power. Look at the "expenses scandal". The Guardian was all over it! Publishing pointless details of how an MP claimed £5 for a taxi to a restaurant. The inquiry into the "expenses scandal" cost more to the tax payer than the entire amount of expenses gi…
The expenses-scandal stories came from the Telegraph.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#44For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself. First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view. Ne…
Interesting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels, and call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law. Same people, different location.
Agreed. The calamity of politics never ceases to beggar belief. As concerned as I am about the surveillance revelations, I'm positively perplexed by how a 29-year-old contractor for a foreign government was allowed access to British secrets like the names of covert agents. If anyone has breached national security--it's not The Guardian who have been _relatively_ responsible--it's those who allowed such a blindingly dangerous situation to arise. So many questions, so few answers, so much for the “mother of parliaments”.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#45For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself. First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view. Ne…
Interesting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels, and call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law. Same people, different location.
Being a bit cynical, I'm sure there's some gravy-train-follow-the-money-ism here. With the NSA getting the many billions of military-industrial-complex money that are suddenly threatened by these public disclosures, I suspect much of what we are seeing could be attributed to a circle-your-wagons mentality surround the treasure chests...
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#46Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would h…
This criticism is not very coherent. Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite', and far from risking nothing, would surly have been mindful of previous British editors, like the BBC's Grek Dyke, who lost their job after challenging the government.
The Guardian (and its predecessor The Manchester Guardian) has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism, and being in opposition of power (Orwell sometimes praised it - "The Manchester Guardian is the only [newspaper] that leaves me with an increased respect for its honesty." -- from Homage to Catalonia), so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks. It is very much in keeping with the history of the paper, which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc.
There are two false dichotomies: that only those who take risks deserve praise ("Bernstein's praise is misplaced..., and not to those who sacrificed a great deal."), and that competition alone motivates the publication of news ("if the material was released in a different way").
Clearly, in the first case praise is due to those, risk or no risk, who help to inform the public - primary evidence doesn't organise itself. The second point is demonstrably false: the Snowden material was released to a number of papers internationally, which have cooperated in releasing stories. If monopolising the information was Rusbridger's goal the publication would have been handled differently.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#47Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would h…
But it's this letter that has a small chance of convincing my 65 year-old aunt that Snowden did the right thing, not emphasizing the sacrifice of two individuals. She's a Democrat, and otherwise a good person (I'd even say she's a remarkably good person) and she truly thinks Snowden is a traitor. In her mind the fact of behind-the-scenes surveillance projects are secrets are like nuclear launch codes or troop movemen…
If he wanted to praise Snowden for doing the right thing he should have written an open letter to him and not Rusbridger.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#48Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a great deal. The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for publication, Rudsbridger would h…
This criticism is not very coherent. Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite', and far from risking nothing, would surly have been mindful of previous British editors, like the BBC's Grek Dyke, who lost their job after challenging the government. The Guardian (and its predecessor The Manchester Guardian) has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism, and being in opposition of power…
> Rusbridger is a journalist, not part of the 'political elite'
He's both a journalist and part of elite society (see his salary, events he attends, social circles/connections etc.) He risked nothing: His defence, as I stated in my comment, is the existence of other publishers whom he uses as actors who forced his hand and made the Guardian's publishing harmless in terms of disclosure.
> The Guardian has a renowned history of liberal investigative journalism
That's what every newspaper claims but it isn't true. See "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky.
> so I struggle to understand where you gain the insight to claim Rusbridger 'would have been loath to sign off' the Snowden leaks.
It is a straightforward application of common sense that is supported by critical media analysis and nearly tautological: Powerful organizations are powerful. The government has a great deal of influence on the Guardian and those who work there. Opposing the government in a serious way typically results in hardship while supporting them yields benefits. You still have to maintain the appearance of seriously challenging power so that people buy your paper but you can go far without actually having to do much of it.
The only reason they got away with it this time is they can claim that they were "forced" by the fact that other newspapers also published and that their publishing wouldn't have been a factor in whether the material was disclosed.
> which also partnered with Wikileaks around the time of 'Collateral Murder' etc.
Same situation with multiple publishers. Even in that case they redacted names of elite, public individuals, claiming it was to protect themselves from libel allegations.
> There are two false dichotomies...
I never made either claim. Surely Bernstein should praise Snowden and Greenwald to the extent he has praised Rusbridger and before he praises Rusbridger? And competition is not the only factor but when competition for a particularly story exists it both forces a publisher's hand and protects them: They look foolish if they don't publish because somebody else will and they can claim their publication made no difference because someone else is going to publish anyway. In fact this might be one of the few reliable ways to pressure publishers to actually publish sensitive material: Leakers should give material to several news organizations in different countries and tell them so without disclosing the names of those organizations.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I'm going to ignore your presumption that information can somehow be "stolen" in any meaningful sense, but you really ought to explore that notion further.) For your first two examples (my medical records and tax records), that is personal information which is limited utility to others. By contrast, the state "secrets" here directly impact the day-to-day lives of thousands if not millions. Your third example is exac…
Well, agree to disagree. It would be a far worse place to live where newspapers are allowed to break laws "in the interest of public interest".
Well trolled...time to move on.
Re: An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you supposed to deal legally with your government doing something bad, when it is illegal for you to know about the bad things? Just think about your proposition for even ten seconds.
Just think about your proposition for ten seconds. You're suggesting that the entire government is corrupt, and covering up 'something bad'? There are endless systems of checks, balances, and disclosure within our government. Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theories, endless theoretical debates about what the government "could" do with data it has. It's moot.
Whistleblowers like Snowden are apparently a necessary check within our government, when one of them finds such widespread blatantly unconstitutional activity occurring. (I upvoted you for your point though.)