131–140 of 240 posts
Occam's Razor - Which is more likely? 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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should really be the top comment. For anyone that thinks there is actually a problem here, what could the motivation or mechanism behind this "blackout" possibly be? Significant parts of the US media have been reporting pretty well on Snowden for a long time now.
ACCESS.. 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
so what
If the whitehouse denies access like that - cutting off some of their own ability to disseminate propaganda - the journalist can simply write on the subject anyway.
Even better, while other journalists are busy copying down the usual stuff, the "cut off" journalist can run the "government interfering with the Free Press" story. Loudly.
Denying "access" merely changes what the story will be about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you go witch hunting go read this. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...
Yeah, read it. Brief mentions, parts taken out of the context? That's supposed to NOT be a blackout? This is one of the most discussed persons in America, a "national hero" to some, a "threat" to others, and they don't care to show the full interview itself? They sure know how to milk other topics 24/7, with repeat showing, panels discussing them, etc...
Try searching CNN for "Snowden Interview" and there is NO mention of it. Same with MSNBC's search - nothing about this interview in the results. Also, scroll down to user "Nostromo's" counter (claiming the media did cover the story) w/links and then my reply. This kind of blatant dereliction of duty in US journalism (IMHO) presages the governments' plans for controlling the (M)essage on websites. One can only assume…
MSNBC were interviewing a US politician (congress woman) about the Snowden leaks and about NSA reform. They interrupted that interview for some important breaking news. Justin Bieber had been arrested for drag racing his car. http://youtu.be/GH68bSJXGE8
Also, it's worth noting how much more popular FOX News is.
Occam's Razor - Which is more likely? 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).
[1]http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you go witch hunting go read this. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...
Yeah, read it. Brief mentions, parts taken out of the context? That's supposed to NOT be a blackout? This is one of the most discussed persons in America, a "national hero" to some, a "threat" to others, and they don't care to show the full interview itself? They sure know how to milk other topics 24/7, with repeat showing, panels discussing them, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media reporting, on "backwater channels" (ie. Not in the 24/7 news cycle like Beiber's latest hooker or Cyrus' latest thing twerked upon) as far as the majority of the public is concerned, is now moving the goalposts? "Yes probable citizen of an affected country, you may or may not have a right to support Snowden views on the public being informed, but it is too much to for you to complain when we don't use the power…
I'm sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted the headline: "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 fr…
To address [1], in the Snowden interview, he explicitly states that he would rather leave it up to journalistic indiscretion to see what information about the topic is to be shared (I don't share that sentiment, so it makes me wonder too…, but I'm not a factor at all since I do not hold such information, so it doesn't matter here). Whether the information, of which about 1% has been released (and has thus far has made some public statements by various officials, which preceded the press reporting on the various topics in this subject, voided after reporting [Snowden singles out Obama and Clapper]), is shared with the public in a timely manor is another question it itself.
>Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more.
I do not think that any news source has a definitive hold on truth, so I think they all must be scrutinized, not just those that happen to espouse information upsetting to the status quo and their entrenched interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you go witch hunting go read this. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...
" 403 Forbidden Request forbidden by administrative rules. " 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 ut…
that's a hell of an accusation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked in the media for umpteen years in the past. Anyone who thinks the US press colluded with the government to black out anything is flat out crazy.
They don't have to be in cahoots to black it out. The truth is far simpler: the advertisers and the majority of the staff don't like pro-snowden stories.
The truth is far simpler: the German interviewer wants more money for foreign rights to the interview than U.S. stations are willing to pay.