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

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#231

Post by coldtea »

res0nat0r wrote: post #209
coldtea wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lackluster coverage" is just another word for blackout. It's not like what's important makes the news -- or that media are free to play whatever they like.

Actually media blackout isn't another word for lackluster coverage.

The result is the same -- information not getting to the people. It doesn't have to be a total lack of any news coverage for it to be a blackout.

If the intent is suppresing some news story (because lackluster coverage can also have other causes), then reduced coverage is a pretty effective way of creating a media blackout short of issuing direct censorship orders and preventing everybody from publishing anything at all.

The strategy is to control what the public discussion issues are --ie. what everybody on mass media is talking about--, not to stump every inner page single-column article or 30-second mention.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#232

Post by coldtea »

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…

>"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.

Or you know, a soft-core version of the above.

Blackout doesn't involve violence -- just an order, implicit or explicit and some threat (which could just be "perhaps we'll call our friends at the IRS" or even "this is a matter of national security, trust us and don't play it. We'll return the favor to your media group.").

And it doesn't have to involve all the media, just the more wide-reaching networks, to control the main volume of public discussion. E.g they don't care if 20 or 30 million people see it. But they wouldn't like 350 million people watching it day and night, discussed in news and tv panels and editorials for a few days.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#233

Post by acqq »

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.

Another Redditor points: NYT, WaPO, MSNBC and FOX did not cover the interview.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#234

Post by pdkl95 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #139
pdkl95 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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…

errr - how much of that linked open letter is true. It states that NSA insiders had evidence that 9/11 attackers were monitored by NSA, calling AlQueda safe houses from the US to Yemen and shared nothing about it. and this was buried / covered up. that's a hell of an accusation

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/three-nsa-whistleblowers-...

The EFF has been supporting these former NSA agents' whistleblowing efforts for a while now. Also, Ellsberg - author of the Pentagon Papers - has signed it in support.

While it's not a character reference, it is worth observing that the rather dramatic efforts the NSA has gone though to threaten and prosecute these whistleblowers. You may be interested in watching this talk from 29c3 where Drake and Binney told their stories in their own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDM3MqHln8U

And yes, it's a hell of an accusation.

It's also the one that finally made this NSA mess make sense, with their description of THINTHREAD being dropped because it was too inexpensive. It's all about moving money to their contractor friends.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#235

Post by pdkl95 »

foobarqux wrote: post #158
pdkl95 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just so much nonsense. What can they do, deny your press-pass? 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. Den…

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…

Those "anonymous sources" are included. Such sources will be glad to have important things reported on. Any that would cut you off for reporting the truth or deviating from their "story" are not a source of reliable information anyway.

What will be reported on? In a case like this, the run with the information they have.... from Snowden. If the government decides it doesn't want to tell it's side of the story (officially or unofficially through "sources"), then they let the accusations stand without a challenge.

Oh, and you may remember a time when journalists got their own information ("investigation"), instead of relying on PR offices.

I am constantly amazed how the government (and many big businesses) get away with this obvious bluff. There is simply no way they would withdraw from the public debate.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#236

Post by brightsize »

zwischenzug wrote: post #95

NSA leader lied under oath to Congress. Why is this not as big as Watergate?

Yes, exactly. The fact seems to have gone down the memory hole as quickly as it became known. Maybe I shouldn't, but I find it astonishing that the press has no interest in Clapper's action. Evidently Congress and the "Justice" system has no interest either. When Roger Clemens was suspected of lying to Congress about the oh-so-pressing-national-problem of steroid use in baseball, the feds were all over him and he was tried for perjury. But Clapper? His testimony was said to be merely "inaccurate".

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#237

Post by meepmorp »

wismer wrote: post #126
meepmorp wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I agree with Swann's assertion here, but it should be evaluated on its own, independent of Swann's history of being a fucking jackass. Having demonstrably idiotic opinions on one matter doesn't necessarily make a person wrong on another.

True, but it makes me scrutinize it all the more.

This is a wholly reasonable reaction.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#238

Post by tripzilch »

emn13 wrote: post #197
krapp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 fri…

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

It's on archive.org now:

https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en

(thanks to zeeed for the link)

Not entirely clear about the license, it says "opensource movies" and credits the NDR person in the metadata.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#239

Post by GFischer »

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.

I had to look up what you were talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Robertson_%27%27GQ%27%27_i...

I had no idea about that, it's a US thing :) .

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#240

Post by foobarqux »

foobarqux wrote: post #223
ZenPro wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never said that. Please don't redirect. You made an assertion. Back it up.

Again, which assertion? That the government doesn't like Snowden being cast in a favorable light or that it uses mechanisms to deter people from doing so? A good place to start for the latter is chapter 1.3 of "Manufacturing Consent" http://www.scribd.com/doc/190262164/Manufacturing-consent

And here is quote from Pilger describing a specific admission of media manipulation by a major government:

[A former British official] described how the Foreign Office manipulated a willing media. "We would control access to the foreign secretary as a form of reward to journalists. If they were critical, we would not give them the goodies of trips around the world. We would feed them factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we'd freeze them out."

Post reply on HN