US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

Journalists depend upon access to government officials to report news on government actions..

No Access to those officials virtually decimates both the Media firm income and the journalists income

Found the comment by truncating the URL back to the main thread, though. Not sure why the direct URL to /cf1801o is being denied.

[back on topic]

Yah, the video, while not the usual "lets all copy/paste the AP or Reuters story as many places as possible", there HAVE been a bit of coverage.

If we're taking about suppressed stories, I'm still amazed at the utter lack of coverage of Binney/Drake's [1] amazing open letter to the president[2] that was published on Jan 7. Part of me wants to blame it on short attention spans and the usual celebrity worship; it only involves the OTHER whistleblowers, pre-Snowden, so I guess nobody cares.

I was able to find a very minor mention on Huffington Post in the week after it was published, and a few video interviews by Reason of Binney trying to promote the letter, and... that's it. (not counting the handful of "personal blog"-style articles that covered the story, of course)

    1: signatures also include Loomis, Wiebe, McGovern, Ellsberg, ... 
    2: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/

"US Media blacks out snowden interview"

as

"Only US _televised_ news sources either did not report with enough depth on the interview, did not report on it entirely, or gave a delayed report; the content of which is not terribly new or substantiated with evidence [1]"

One of these headlines is a short, snappier version that is considered click bait. All this coming from a source that promotes, among other things, the alleged (and widely debunked) link between autism/vaccines.

Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more.

Look, I support Snowden but this isn't journalism. This is hyperbole. Going to such extremes to "fight the system", to be the counter-weight to whatever scheming superpower there is, corrupts. So yes, I stand behind my original accusation that this is "moving the goal-posts". The headline claims US media blocked out the interview, but I find it rather easy to find US reports on this bit of news online. So, to re-examine the accusation, it's not true. US Media did _not_ black out the interview. So what now?

[1] He makes claims that the US spy agencies have been spying on corporations, but he does not elaborate on it. This is unusual for Snowden as he usually provides ample evidence to support his assertions. Don't you think that this would be a bigger deal if he had supplied the evidence to go along with that interview?

- not showing this prominently enough

- not providing the original version without a lot of prodding

As for the rest of the comment: I don't know. The content's created. Why not set it free? I expect that for me/for locals, but I fail to see why you'd want to use geolocation to exclude others. Ever. The only cost at this point is bandwidth and by offering the content with a liberal license you could expect decent mirrors.

1) The US government has persuaded major media outlets CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, etc. to bury the interview.

2) The German media company that did the inteview is asking foreign news outlets for more money than they're willing to pay for the interview (and is protecting its copyright by having internet copies taken down).