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

Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

computerweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#21

Post by saulpw »

garciasn wrote: post #6

> Why was only 1% of the documents published, in the end? “The documents are not like the WikiLeaks ones from the US state department, which were written by diplomats and, for the most part, easily understandable,” said Ewen MacAskill. “The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. The…

> a capable public can make this determination

The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#22

Post by duxup »

pphysch wrote: post #10

> the files are in the New York Times office What a sham. The NYT has openly said many times that it allows the US Government to determine what is "fit to print". How did it come to this? I strongly believe there was some level of collusion between Greenwald & the USG. How else did he get to have a successful media career in the West, while fellow publisher/journalist Assange rots in prison? https://www.nytimes.com/2…

>How did it come to this?

Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

It's a tough situation because the government may not be a trusted partner, but I understand asking / trying to avoid collateral damage.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#23

Post by krapp »

toyg wrote: post #15
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, the purpose of journalism is to make money - news is a product like any other. A story people aren't as interested in anymore is a story that doesn't make as much revenue.

News is actually a loss-leader - either for ads or for influence.

Nevertheless, news is still there to sell ad space. In a captialist system, it can't exist unless someone is making money on it, somehow.

The rationale for choosing not to publish from the Snowden Archive because of lack of interest is an economic one.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#24

Post by pauldenton »

jasmes wrote: post #8

Journalistic integrity balancing with the national security interests of the most powerful nation on the planet is complicated. I am comfortable trusting the NYT to do their job. I hope that eventually all the technical papers eventually are available out of nerdy curiosity, but I’d prefer that be through declassification and not espionage.

Just like they did in 2003 with WMDs in Iraq? Or when they said that Trump colluded with the Russians and that's why he got elected? At least the journalists who said Saddam had WMDs didn't get a Pulitzer Prize, like those reporting on Russiagate did back in 2018. https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/the-absurd-russiagate-pulitzer... Meanwhile NYPost breaks the Hunter Biden Laptop story and gets banned from every major social media and tech site for saying the truth, while NYT and Washington Post get Pulitzer Prizes for telling lies.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#25

Post by believecty »

saulpw wrote: post #21
garciasn wrote: post #6

> Why was only 1% of the documents published, in the end? “The documents are not like the WikiLeaks ones from the US state department, which were written by diplomats and, for the most part, easily understandable,” said Ewen MacAskill. “The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. The…

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

[flagged]

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#26

Post by aleph_minus_one »

duxup wrote: post #22
pphysch wrote: post #10

> the files are in the New York Times office What a sham. The NYT has openly said many times that it allows the US Government to determine what is "fit to print". How did it come to this? I strongly believe there was some level of collusion between Greenwald & the USG. How else did he get to have a successful media career in the West, while fellow publisher/journalist Assange rots in prison? https://www.nytimes.com/2…

>How did it come to this? Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be? It's a tough situation because the government may not be a trusted partner, but I understand asking / trying to avoid collateral damage.

> Because leaks can have consequences and it's not clear to the NYT exactly what those might be?

With this, the NYT has decided that they want to be a government propaganda organ instead of a journalistic organ.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#29

Post by deanCommie »

believecty wrote: post #25
saulpw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a capable public can make this determination The public is not capable, either technically nor emotionally nor politically.

[flagged]

I just want to be clarify, is your point that the MRNA vaccines do not work, but ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine do?

I don't have a response, I just want to make sure I understand precisely what your statement meant.

Re: Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published

#30

Post by criddell »

garciasn wrote: post #6

> Why was only 1% of the documents published, in the end? “The documents are not like the WikiLeaks ones from the US state department, which were written by diplomats and, for the most part, easily understandable,” said Ewen MacAskill. “The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. The…

They came to an agreement with Snowden and should honor that. We might want to see the rest, but I think long term it’s better for leakers to know journalists are trustworthy.
Post reply on HN