EC, are you saying that giving false assurances and gestures of friendship to people, while planning on ignoring any information received that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative, is PROFESSIONAL journalism? And that it has been standard practice for 30 years? This seems incredible and it takes my opinion of older journalism down a fe…
EC, are you saying that giving false assurances and gestures of friendship to people, while planning on ignoring any information received that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative, is PROFESSIONAL journalism? And that it has been standard practice for 30 years? This seems incredible and it takes my opinion of older journalism down a few notches.
I understand concerns with reporter shopping, but I imagine that there should be a symmetric concern about reporters choosing stories. Choice always allows bias. And the Snowden revelations would have gone nowhere if the reporters he chose had refused to work with him. And many other whistleblower stories.
Despite its superficial reason, I think the reporter shopping rule is deceptive. Most people with things to say get to choose their venue. The use of "shopping", as in "doctor shopping" is designed to make "source choice" (doesn't it sound better framed as "choice") sound bad, in same the same way as adding "denial" to reasonable positions makes "vaccine concern" become "vaccine denial" and therefore akin to "holocaust denial".
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
I am not sure how this relates to Snowden or Greenwald. I'd think you were a fan since these accusations go beyond Snowden's revelations. Also, there is no reason to think Snowden had access to everything the NSA did.
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
EC, I very much DO have the time. I read what you and others said this morning, commented ("snarked" might be more accurate) and I came back in late afternoon for the additional comments. I am often rather sharp of tongue. I meant no specific offense against you, you might be at the top of your profession for all I know. But as you may have gathered, neither I nor many others here exactly hold the media in very high esteem. 😎 Yet an argument could even be made that is how the game is played, angels and devils, I believe you said. My name-calling aside, thank you for your insights and opinions.
EC, are you saying that giving false assurances and gestures of friendship to people, while planning on ignoring any information received that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative, is PROFESSIONAL journalism? And that it has been standard practice for 30 years? This seems incredible and it takes my opinion of older journalism down a few notches.
I understand concerns with reporter shopping, but I imagine that there should be a symmetric concern about reporters choosing stories. Choice always allows bias. And the Snowden revelations would have gone nowhere if the reporters he chose had refused to work with him. And many other whistleblower stories.
Despite its superficial reason, I think the reporter shopping rule is deceptive. Most people with things to say get to choose their venue. The use of "shopping", as in "doctor shopping" is designed to make "source choice" (doesn't it sound better framed as "choice") sound bad, in same the same way as adding "denial" to reasonable positions makes "vaccine concern" become "vaccine denial" and therefore akin to "holocaust denial".
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
"We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25205846
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
I am not sure how this relates to Snowden or Greenwald. I'd think you were a fan since these accusations go beyond Snowden's revelations. Also, there is no reason to think Snowden had access to everything the NSA did.
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
Here is a good example once again of the government and the NY Times engaged in criminal actions against another journalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMq7qL0EHhI
EC, I very much DO have the time. I read what you and others said this morning, commented ("snarked" might be more accurate) and I came back in late afternoon for the additional comments. I am often rather sharp of tongue. I meant no specific offense against you, you might be at the top of your profession for all I know. But as you may have gathered, neither I nor many others here exactly hold the media in very high esteem. 😎 Yet an argument could even be made that is how the game is played, angels and devils, I believe you said. My name-calling aside, thank you for your insights and opinions.