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

TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#151

Post by Drbble »

einhverfr wrote: post #120
danso wrote: post #55

Just want to point this out: "strongly caution" is what the TSA flak told the reporter (according to the reporter). That doesn't necessarily mean "don't report this or we'll send you to Gitmo". It most likely was expressed in the context of "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do." I'm not saying the TSA flak won't be vindictive if a reporter covers the story. I'm just saying, there's not an imme…

I think it's probably in the middle. You have to remember that journalists rely on sources, and some of those sources come from government agencies. A strong caution contains an implied threat of non-cooperation, i.e. if you cover that story, we will be feeding other journalists more info than we feed you. We've already been seeing this a lot with the current administration, regarding trying to ban Fox News from the…

You need general, sure but the TSA management is not Apple, or even a politicians who uses media manipulation to win hearts and minds. It is just inept damage control trying to cover up corruption and incompetence.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#152

Post by IanDrake »

mattdeboard wrote: post #93
IanDrake wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that's entirely true. NPR was really suspicious of the government before 2008. Then something changed.

Have some data to support your cognitive bias?

Not sure that data is available, but I was listening to NPR news during that time. I thought they did decent job of highlighting the poor behavior of our government. Then things changed (not government behavior, which is the same if not worse).

At the pinnacle of the credit crisis they started hating on the financial services sector. As if they had any idea of what credit derivative were. The "experts" they had on air seemed to have a textbook definition which would then be simplified by saying "It's basically gambling". Uhg.

At some point I realized that most of their "experts" (in all their coverage) were either working for the government, the Federal Reserve, or had financial ties to the government (grant recipients, lobbyist, etc...). I stopped listening around 2010 after I found myself yelling at the radio too often. Maybe things have changed.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#153

Post by burgerbrain »

jrockway wrote: post #122
burgerbrain wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're not asking ""please don't cover this story"" . They are "strongly cautioning" them not to, which can reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat.

A threat to do what?

"I know where you live."

What is that a threat to do?

How about, "Be careful."?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#155

Post by jrockway »

burgerbrain wrote: post #153
jrockway wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A threat to do what?

"I know where you live." What is that a threat to do? How about, "Be careful." ?

The government's powers are limited by the Constitution. Someone who threatens to follow you home and kill you, however, is operating in an environment without restrictions, and you might therefore worry that you're actually going to be killed.

"Prior restraint" is a well-tested concept and it doesn't do very well in court. And all the government has to harass you are the courts.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#156

Post by burgerbrain »

jrockway wrote: post #155
burgerbrain wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I know where you live." What is that a threat to do? How about, "Be careful." ?

The government's powers are limited by the Constitution. Someone who threatens to follow you home and kill you, however, is operating in an environment without restrictions, and you might therefore worry that you're actually going to be killed. "Prior restraint" is a well-tested concept and it doesn't do very well in court. And all the government has to harass you are the courts.

Just because you think that the only way the government is capable of harassing you is with the courts, does not mean that they are not capable of veiled threats. A threats are not limited to personal physical violence.

Though I of course strongly disagree with your premise anyway, particularly when the governmental agency in question is the DHS.

Post reply on HN