NY Times Doesn't Think That NSA Sharing Raw Communications With Israel Is Newsworthy
from the really-now? dept
Last week, we were among those who wrote about the latest revelations via the Guardian about how the NSA was sharing raw communications it had collected with Israeli intelligence. This is a big story for any number of reasons, but apparently the NY Times doesn't think so. When Public Editor Margaret Sullivan asked why, the managing editor basically said the story wasn't newsworthy:He told me that The Times had chosen not to follow the story because its level of significance did not demand it.The resources issue is one I can understand totally. Here at Techdirt, we probably cover about one quarter to one third the number of stories we'd like to (which is also why I have about a thousand open tabs of stories I'm "hoping" to get to one of these days). But to claim that it's not "significant" or "surprising" or somehow newsworthy is pretty crazy. This is a major part of the story -- where the NSA keeps insisting that it is exceptionally careful with the data it collects, yet here it is handing off a ton of communications, including those of Americans, off to a foreign intelligence agency with basically no oversight. If the NY Times doesn't think that's newsworthy, the NY Times needs to recalibrate its newsworthy scale.
“I didn’t think it was a significant or surprising story,” he said. “I think the more energy we put into chasing the small ones, the less time we have to break our own. Not to mention cover the turmoil in Syria.”
So, I asked him, by e-mail, was this essentially a question of reporting resources? After all, The Times could have published an article written by a wire service, like Reuters or The Associated Press.
“I’d say resources and news judgment,” he responded.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: israel, journalism, nsa, nsa surveillance
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) How financial scams work.
(2) The consequences for the public of financial scams, past or present.
(3) The identity of financial scammers, past or present.
(4) Anything to do with Israel or the religion of Judaism.
(5) Anything to do with surveillance or holding politicians accountable for the lack of oversight of said surveillance.
In general, the NYT is a gutter rag not worth buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it bleeds it leads ...
The lack of any oversight on the use of data collected by the NSA isn't news any more ... it's just information now.
The NYT knows it's important to share this info with the... Squirrel!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it bleeds it leads ...
Besides, the people in power have used distractions too many times now, people aren't falling for it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if it bleeds it leads ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: if it bleeds it leads ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to work on those priorities...
NSA sharing personal data wholesale to other countries, without any of that 'oversight' they keep claiming they have to justify their actions, something that very much affects americans: Eh, not that important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the government hates bloggers...
Bloggers, on the other hand, tend to write about stories that interest them, not what makes them money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mission accomplished
The government knows that beating the drums of war will get other unpleasant news off the front page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me FTFY...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that's the answer you'd give me about Google.*
Anyhoo, this blurb really is standard, not "a significant or surprising story,” It's only a mistaken notion that such organizations don't have obvious agendas that even puts such evasions in the place of actual news on other sites.
[* IF you ever answered me. This is just to forestall your little passive-aggressive stock phrase. -- Nor do I complain: so long as can post what I want, it's fine with me.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most significant thing about the NSA performing espionage for the Israelis, against law-abiding American citizens, is the fact there is no formal spying agreement between these two countries.
At least there's an agreement enforceable by law with countries who participate in "Five Eyes". We have no such formal agreement with Israel, so the NSA handing over raw data on law-abiding citizens, the President, Congress, and Judicial system; appears to be illegal espionage and treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It appears that TNYT wants to avoid having this subject fatique. If they think leaks will keep on coming for the next year, there is certainly something to be said for that.
But as long as they choose not to publish something, you always have to wonder if it is really the right thing to cut.
If it is to hurt the debate after having a good cup of coffee with NSA it is very worrying, but I would rather give the devil the benefit of the doubt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The detail, the NSA was careful to carve out certain parts that Israel should not touch like the judiciary and congress to not attract the ire of politico class.
Is like surrendering prisoners to other countries so they can be tortured.
"We don't spy on Americans, we just give the raw data to another country so they do it for us"
Marvelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you have to realize that NTY is the unofficial, official spreader of government propaganda when ever the Obama administration needs something that makes them look good leaked to the news. By actually publishing items that really make them look bad, they will put in jeopardy getting all those juicy leaks.
NYT is no longer a MSM to trust to have just the news as it's core value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it be a stretch to suppose the majority of the folks working at the NYT are of jewish extraction?
Would it be a further stretch to suggest that a majority of those jewish people who work at the NYT, are supportive of israel?
There might lie the explanation as to why the NYT is reluctant to draw attention to this information sharing.
On that note, I fail, upon a casual perusal of the US Constitution, to find any mention of the US's seeming obligation to do every tiny bit of Israel's' bidding.
I seem to recall US arming Israel, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OVER THERE. Anyone else remember that rationale being pedaled? That was about the same time a bunch of fissile material "went missing" from US stockpiles.
I am truly sorry for anyone who didn't choose their religion. That usually means they were brainwashed from birth. The people from the middle east have major issues with this crap. We should have thought twice before embracing either of the "two idiots from the middle east" in any way. Now we're caught up in their religious squabbles.... that just happen to involve hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, and streets awash with blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one's afraid of the elephant in the room, because it's not there.
Would it be a stretch to suppose the majority of the folks working at the NYT are of jewish extraction?
Yes, it would be a stretch. It's not true.
Would it be a further stretch to suggest that a majority of those jewish people who work at the NYT, are supportive of israel?
Well, you're already on thin ground....
There might lie the explanation as to why the NYT is reluctant to draw attention to this information sharing.
Except... no. The NY Times regularly publishes all sorts of stories about Israel, many of them critical. Three seconds of searching reveals the following stories in just the past few weeks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/shortsighted-thinking-on-israeli-settlements.htm l
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/another-devil-we-know/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/ 07/27/opinion/global/israel-vs-iran-again.html
So, you can drop the stupid conspiracy theory. It's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religious nutcases are everywhere.
Fact: Both of you don't know why... so speculation is foolish. If I were to speculate along with yous... I would be on your side. But we could be wrong.
Also it's not his fault if he comes over as a bit anti-semetic. The right wing Israeli politicians of today claim any criticism of Zionism is actually anti-semitic. That means that Jews are grouped together with Zionists and are seen as the same, especially to non-religions people and others who do not know enough about the reality. You can't ignore the fact that there are religious people who believe that the state of Israel should be accepted no matter where it draws it's borders. It's seen to be their god given right to do so. You also can't ignore that people with religious beliefs publish slanted material to further their religious agenda. Think the Christian right wing and their anti-abortion, anti-gay views.
Point being that all extremist religious people are fucking crazy and they are everywhere.
You have them in politics, like a large number of American Republicans.
You have them in schools ignoring science and teaching creationism etc...
You have them in media... ?
It really isn't a stretch to think that a person making the important editorial decisions could be a religious nutcase.
You could also find several pro-Israel pieces written in the NYT to "prove the inverse" of your points with linked "proof".
I still probably think you are right btw...
However, I do think you could try to understand why he said that rather than outright dismiss it as somehow being anti-semetic. He already claimed to be atheist which usually means that he judges all religions equally. That gives being anti-semetic a rather weak level of status. Disregarding all religions as nonsense and seeing their nutcase actions in the name of their religion for what they are is not a specific "hate towards a certain religion". It's a general view of "religiousness is retarded" "is there nothing they wouldn't do in the name of their religion."
It doesn't appear that his speculation was because of "hate for Jews", rather it's a relevant and justified mistrust of religions for acting the way they have acted before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Religious nutcases are everywhere.
You made all that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Religious nutcases are everywhere.
In this instance I assumed it was "you're on thin ground" as in "you're out of order"... not "your argument is weak"
I assumed. I was wrong. Sorry.
In my defence it did appear to be heading that way. I too, am/was on the verge of thinking he was pretty anti-semetic.
You did mean his theory was falling apart or similar?
Text can be a difficult medium to convey meaning at times. Especially when abstractions are concerned, like ""you're already on thin ground" . Usually the tone of voice and facial expression would convey what was really meant in that situation. Emphasis on "you're" or is it "on thin ground". Pertains to "you" or is it "your thing".
Again.. I was wrong. I should have just asked rather than assume. Am I on thin ground now ? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
news is to "newsworthiness" like truth is to "truthiness"
In case you forgot: A guy named Jonathan Pollard is spending life in prison for doing that.
And in case you wondered: The NYT has reported on, or at least published a mention of Pollard's crime on more than 250 occasions during the past ~25 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has been
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video
US Journalist and activist Alexa O'Brien and Australian commentator Robert Manne are joined by video conference with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, Guardian Journalist Glenn Greenwald and Chelsea Manning's Lawyer David Coombs on stage at the Sydney Opera House (moderated by Bernard Keane of Crikey).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wars
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like "America Deceived II".
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
Impeach Obama.
Last link of "America Deceived II" before it is completely banned:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at this....
"Intimacy on the Web, With a Crowd" - today sep 22
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/technology/intimacy-on-the-web-with-a-crowd.html?hp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]