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

US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

benswann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 240 posts

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#191

Post by foobarqux »

ams6110 wrote: post #186
foobarqux wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. It's not the press pass it is access to the "unnamed high ranking official" that "leaks" you stories that sell your paper. Not only do you not have breaking stories you don't even have sourced stories. Imagine if WaPo had to write things like "the NYT is reporting...". That's a death knell. And what do you complain about? That the government is not leaking you information anymore? That anonymous source…

There are at least two types of "unnamed high ranking" leakers. One is deliberately leaking the story line that the administration wants published, but for whatever reason doesn't want to be directly quoted on. The other is the conscientious leaker, who wants to get the truth out but fears for job/safety if he went "on the record." The former can be directed to "leak" only to favored media outlets. The latter cannot.

And the majority of stories deal with the former.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#192

Post by tptacek »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #182
knice wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your definition of Godwin's Law matches its stated definition. However, I want your definition to get forked into its own law because it is an incredibly astute observation.

I think he's calling it Godwin's razor , if I read correctly?

Yes, which, if that's not a thing, hopefully it is now.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#194

Post by krapp »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #185
tptacek wrote: post #153

Reddit takedown of this stupid blog post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl... Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.

To be fair, this being mentioned 2-3 times per channel kind of pales in comparison to when the Duck Dynasty thing happened it was on every news station nearly 24/7 for a week. I think the complaint is the amount of coverage this has been given, not whether it has been covered at all.

"Blackout" implies a direct or implicit threat of violence by the government against the media, and the media either willingly or unwillingly complying to censor something they would otherwise cover.

The American media is in the business of selling time to advertisers, not necessarily informing the public. Duck Dynasty is more popular than Edward Snowden and that particular story was incredibly sensational, so it gets covered more, so it gets more viewers, so it makes the commercial time worth more. Conspiracies aren't necessary to explain it... it's not worth more effort for stations than it gets.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#195

Post by lukifer »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #115
spenvo wrote: post #3

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…

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.

The media and the government collude to conceal important truths from the public, in the same sense that Coke and Pepsi collude to reduce consumption of tap water; which is to say, not at all, yet extremely effectively.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#197

Post by emn13 »

krapp wrote: post #194
ryguytilidie wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this being mentioned 2-3 times per channel kind of pales in comparison to when the Duck Dynasty thing happened it was on every news station nearly 24/7 for a week. I think the complaint is the amount of coverage this has been given, not whether it has been covered at all.

"Blackout" implies a direct or implicit threat of violence by the government against the media, and the media either willingly or unwillingly complying to censor something they would otherwise cover. The American media is in the business of selling time to advertisers, not necessarily informing the public. Duck Dynasty is more popular than Edward Snowden and that particular story was incredibly sensational, so it get…

Controversy sells. Also, crazy paranoid ravings are a time honored entertainment tradition. I don't buy for a second that Snowden's interview is being avoided because it's not newsworthy enough. In any case, since when did youtube exert editorial control to bar un-entertaining videos?

This looks like real self-censorship: it's not newsworthy enough to be worth alienating people that you might want to have as your friend later on. You still don't need a conspiracy to explain it; but it's nevertheless toxic for democracy.

Frankly, I think self-censorship like this is much worse than explicit censorship. At least with explicit censorship there's still some attempt to question the party line; but with self-censorship you've lost even that.

As to the video itself, is it possible ARD simply has a copyright claim it wishes to enforce?

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#199

Post by roc »

foobarqux wrote: post #164
tptacek wrote: post #153

Reddit takedown of this stupid blog post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl... Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.

The question I ask myself is do I think that if Snowden were an enemy of an enemy (a "good" guy) of the US that this would have the same minimal media exposure? I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play. In any case I don't think this isolated interview is very significant in itself.

> "I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play."

There's no need for hypotheticals here. When actual Russian dissidents wind up actually dead under extremely suspicious circumstances it actually does not get much more coverage in the US media.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#200

Post by calibraxis »

krapp wrote: post #194
ryguytilidie wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this being mentioned 2-3 times per channel kind of pales in comparison to when the Duck Dynasty thing happened it was on every news station nearly 24/7 for a week. I think the complaint is the amount of coverage this has been given, not whether it has been covered at all.

"Blackout" implies a direct or implicit threat of violence by the government against the media, and the media either willingly or unwillingly complying to censor something they would otherwise cover. The American media is in the business of selling time to advertisers, not necessarily informing the public. Duck Dynasty is more popular than Edward Snowden and that particular story was incredibly sensational, so it get…

I have no idea about whether Snowden was covered, but "media blackout" certainly doesn't require gov't violence:

* media (corporations typically owned by larger corporations) can decide not to report what's against owners' interests

* advertisers (corporations buying access to eyeballs) may find news against their interests

Many journalists might want to report, but they have bosses/editors, and those covering important news are selected for having certain attitudes. Government may threaten to revoke access, but that's probably too marginal to cause a blackout.

Post reply on HN