What Does It Say About The US Press That The Toughest Interview Keith Alexander Has Is From A Comedian?
from the too-much-and-none-of-it-good dept
Last night was the debut of comedian John Oliver's new show on HBO called Last Week Tonight. Oliver, of course, is well known from his years on The Daily Show (though, if you're not familiar with it, you should also listen to his podcast, The Bugle). On his first show, Oliver was able to get former NSA boss Keith Alexander, who retired about a month ago. The resulting ten minute interview is well worth watching, not just because it's pretty damn funny, but because it's one of the few times a journalist has actually asked Alexander direct tough questions about the NSA -- and it's not even from a journalist:Alexander kicks off this new interview claiming that Americans don't understand that they're not the target of the NSA, and Oliver immediately shoots back:
Oliver: No, the target is not the American people, but it seems that too often you miss the target and hit the person next to them going 'Whoa, him!'Alexander responds with the usual NSA talking points about "we just collect metadata" and again, Oliver immediately hits back:
Alexander: You see, we're not just out there gathering information, listening to their phone calls, or collecting their emails. But, that's the first thing that people jump to.
Oliver: But you are out there doing that. You're just saying that you're not then reading them. You are gathering that data.
Oliver: That's not nothing. That's significant information. Otherwise, you wouldn't want it.Oliver also pushes back on the whole "needle and haystack" argument, by pointing out that people's "concerns" are that the NSA is also collecting "the whole farm, and the county and the state, and now you've got photos of the farmer's wife in the shower as well." Later on, after a series of funny exchanges, including Oliver being shocked that Keith Alexander has never heard of Pinterest (where Oliver suggests all the worst people in the world gather), Oliver asks:
Oliver: In your mind, has the NSA ever done something illegal.Alexander is being incredibly dishonest here, not surprisingly. The NSA's own internal audit highlighted that the NSA abused its power to spy on Americans thousands of times each year. The NSA's Inspector General's report noted a track record of flagrant abuse which led to the program almost getting shut down. As for those "12 individuals," Alexander is simply wrong. As we detailed, most of those 12 actually self-reported the details but often did so years later (in one case seven years later).
Alexander: In my time, no. Not that I know of. You know, one of the most impressive things that I've seen in my career was people who made a mistake, that could be a huge mistake, stepping up to say 'I made a mistake.' And in every case, to my knowledge, everyone but 12 individuals stepped forward at the time they made those mistakes.
Oliver: Right, but you can't say 'everyone... except for 12.' That's like saying 'I've never killed anyone... apart from those three people I have buried under my patio at home.'
Alexander: The key issue I was trying to make was, in every case, we reported. In some cases, those who made a mistake, but were still caught.
So Alexander is flat out lying in saying that there were 12 non-self-reported cases that got caught. In fact, it's pretty clear that if most of those 12 had chosen to keep their abuses secret, we'd have never known about them. Which should lead to the obvious question: how many people within the NSA abused the powers to spy on people, didn't self-report, and therefore were never caught. It's incredible for him to basically be arguing that everyone who abused the system was caught, when the details show they actually failed to discover most of the intentional abuses until someone admitted to them much later.
And we won't even get into the fact that a court and the federal government's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) have both found the entire program to be illegal and unconstitutional.
Either way, those are only a few examples, but the pushback against Alexander still seems much greater from Oliver than any journalist so far, and that says something (not good) about the state of journalism today.
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: john oliver, journalism, keith alexander, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And the media wonders why...
When Stewart is named the modern-day Walter Cronkite... Well, that should tell you something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the media wonders why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And the media wonders why...
colbert as, well, you know, colbert is a NATIONAL TREASURE, and as alluded, one of the few MINOR ways we can get shadows of real news, not to mention political commentary with MORALS AND BALLS...
while he might get some shots in as a letterman replacement (not a big fan of him, anyways), he will probably not be 1/10th the political influence/inspiration he is now...
it will be a net loss, as far as i'm concerned...
AND, as big a fan as i am, ain't stayin' up to watch him, they better do next-day replays, 'cause otherwise, they won't get one eyeballs worth of viewing from me and spousal unit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the media wonders why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-- Sid Caesar
"When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat."
-- George Carlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More like a stage pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
were still caught....
If they admit it, have you really caught them?
Perhaps the problem you have parsing that explains the entire dysfunction of NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cf. the jester in Shakespeare's "King Lear".
But then nobody of importance listens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's Asking the TOUGH Questions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't fear repercussions
Professionally they don't care if they loose access to those people directly. They don't NEED sources to make their program work and work well.
Personally they are VERY public figures compared to most real journalists. If they were to be attempted to be thrown in jail or continuously hassled for hours on end by the government "we" would throw a shit fit. Not so for your average no-name or even semi-well known journalists.
That is why they have no issue with fighting back, and every "real" journalist is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's funny
A:"The only agency in gov't that really listens!"
Who says Alexander doesn't have a sense of humor... wait, you don't suppose he missed that, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the sad thing is that some still trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sad thing is that some still trust
Gallup does similar polls, and show similar numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sad thing is that some still trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sad thing is that some still trust
The correct call is to find a better candidate and get everyone to go vote for the better candidate.
Apathy and no-shows will have to just take the crap from those who showed up and voted for the better candidate.
THAT'S how democracy is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sad thing is that some still trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sad thing is that some still trust
I don't like the way our NSA is working, so we need to vote for people who also want to change it, so that our government works the way we want it to.
When you distance yourself from our government, our government distances itself from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And people wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it comes to the legality of what the NSA has been doing, the fact you proclaim "illegal here, illegal there" does not make it so, and one district court judge's decision seemingly congruent with your opinion does not make it so. Where the heck do you think the FISC members come from? They are likewise district court judges, and, horror or horrors, district, circuit court, and Supreme Court judges have actually been known to disagree. When you sling mud and call Gen. Alexander a liar, it would help if you actually listened to what he says instead of selectively ignoring qualifying statements.
I noted that Gen. Alexander mentioned your Nobel Peace Prize nominee, or at least the "Gold Standard Whistleblower of the Year". I do not know if what he said is correct or not because I do not have any access to the information he relies upon when saying that Snowden has caused you harm. You, without any access as well, seem not the least bit troubled to declare he is full of it, lying, deceiving, etc. For one who constantly proclaims fealty to facts, publishing articles without having the relevant facts directly in hand seems a bit out of sync.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He hasn't shown much indication of that lately.
"To twist his words like a nose of wax"
What words were twisted? It looks to me not like someone is misrepresenting what he's saying, but rather calling out what he's saying as being deceptive. In other wordes, at worst, someone is UNtwisting his words.
"the fact you proclaim "illegal here, illegal there" does not make it so"
Personally, I think that if the actions of the NSA are legal (and I think there is reasonable doubt about that), it makes the whole thing even worse.
"You, without any access as well, seem not the least bit troubled to declare he is full of it, lying, deceiving, etc."
No such access is needed to know that he's being deceptive. All we have to do is pay attention to the publicly reveal and acknowledged facts, which is what Oliver was doing. For example, the NSA does, in fact, "collect everything". Their denials come down to two arguments -- "we don't do it under this program" and "but we don't look at it". Both of those answers are obfuscations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A few of the lies that come to mind:
- "anybody who would tell you that we’re keeping files or dossiers on the American people knows that’s not true.”
- "the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is absolutely false.”
- There were “54 cases in which these programs helped disrupt terror plots in the U.S. and throughout the world,” (actual number turned out to be 1 - and that was just a case of someone sending money to someone in Somalia)
Yeah, I can see your point. We should take everything he says at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've learned that when someone refers to someone else as "an honorable man" it's generally to argue that you should ignore all of their failings. General Alexander has not shown himself to be honorable in a number of important matters.
To twist his words like a nose of wax in order to make misleading points
I will note that, as per usual, you have not actually pointed to any words I twisted. Nor what "misleading" points I've made. Probably because you can't.
When it comes to the legality of what the NSA has been doing, the fact you proclaim "illegal here, illegal there" does not make it so, and one district court judge's decision seemingly congruent with your opinion does not make it so.
This is absolutely true. Nor do I deny that. But that doesn't change the fact that his claims that there's no illegality at all is obviously in question -- and many people, including those in power to make that call -- disagree.
horror or horrors, district, circuit court, and Supreme Court judges have actually been known to disagree.
Again, I agree. But that's why I find it questionable that General Alexander insists, without question, that his actions were legal. Clearly not everyone agrees with that.
When you sling mud and call Gen. Alexander a liar, it would help if you actually listened to what he says instead of selectively ignoring qualifying statements.
I very specifically highlighted where he lied. It wasn't about the "legal/illegal" question, but about his claim that they caught the only abuses. That's simply not true.
I noted that Gen. Alexander mentioned your Nobel Peace Prize nominee
I've never made any reference to Snowden and the various nominations he received for the Nobel Peace Prize, because I don't find that to be particularly interesting. Nominations are kind of meaningless, and given past winners of the award, the award itself is somewhat dubious in stature.
I do not know if what he said is correct or not because I do not have any access to the information he relies upon when saying that Snowden has caused you harm. You, without any access as well, seem not the least bit troubled to declare he is full of it, lying, deceiving, etc.
I made no statement at all one whether or not harm has been caused. My reference to his lying was about his claims to have caught all the abusers.
I'm not sure why you're so angry and so desperate to misrepresent me, but considering your long history of doing the same, this does not surprise me. Perhaps -- and this is just a suggestion -- you should do something so bold as to let go of some of this irrational hatred you appear to have towards anything you hold dear. In particular, you have a noticed likelihood of angrily defending "friends" -- either those in the intelligence community or those who have a long history of patent and copyright maximalism. Perhaps you could try letting go of your obvious biases towards a police state and IP maximalism, and recognize that I'm not your enemy.
For one who constantly proclaims fealty to facts, publishing articles without having the relevant facts directly in hand seems a bit out of sync.
That's a laugh given your history of lies and mistruths. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for why this happens, maybe it's because a comedian can afford to be boycotted by politicians, but a news show cannot. A comedian can always just put a bunch of celebrities on the show; that's considered normal. A show like 60 minutes, on the other hand, would be severely impacted if they couldn't get interviews with politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Against the Wall
Our leaders are dinosaurs and the techs that make it possible are just little children with a god complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even a journalist? That's a shocker of a statement coming from TechDirt.
From his numerous interviews on The Daily Show to his interview of the former head of both the NSA and US Cyber Command on his new show, how can you say John Oliver is not a journalist?
For shame, TechDirt, for shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only bit of real journalism on those shows are the one-on-one table interviews.
The real strength of Stewart and Colbert is when they point out the hypocrisy and failures of our media - and why anyone bother to even watch television news anymore is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mind = blown
Hypothetically, lets say there is an employee of the nsa who gets caught intentionally abusing their position and grabs a bunch of info about a public figure for black mail via a heretofore unknown nsa program. What happens to them? Theres no way it could go to trial, because that would mean disclosing capabilities or whatever. The entire fact that a no-no happened would have to be classified lest the terrorists realize just how spied on they are.
I think that the absolute worst thing that could potentially happen is just firing them. Maybe Alexander HAS to lie, or else every nsa employee will realise they have de facto immunity for any abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mind = blown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mind = blown
Firing an NSA employee for breaking the law would be like firing a baker for breaking an egg. The one's who are actually getting fired are the other ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mind = blown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a comedian...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A disclaimer along the lines of:
Lying Scum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye John Oliver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goodbye John Oliver
Does Snowden need a roomate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama? Snooze. Softball questions. Hell anything about his Harvard Grades or how he could have ever afforded to go their in the first place?? Nothing!!!! To this day, it's been one cover up after another. Huge Obama screw ups and yet the mainstream news is quite. Something Minor on a republican and it's plastered all over the place multi-times. It's really laughable. Unbiased news, I mean really? Most all of these Reporters in indoctrinated in in these Progressive schools.
Comedians used to go after anyone and everyone especially the Presidents!!! With Obama, where are they. Most are pretty quite when it comes to Obama, everyone else, pretty much fair game. Most of these news Agency's have just been sucking up to this Administration big time!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's two things
And two, people suspect journalist's motives anyway and don't believe them. Every big network reporter has an hidden agenda, you know. Even the ones working for networks strongly identified with one side or another are often accused of being a plant from the other side. Nobody trust anyone.
When a comedian comes along and does this kind of interview, you KNOW what his hidden agenda is, which is to make the subject look like an idiot and makes jokes. To do that, they need to ask the questions regular reports won't touch or can't touch, or didn't think about. It takes more brains to do comedy than it does to do regular reporting so automatically you are likely to be dealing with a much smarter interviewer than usual. Regular airhead reporters could not possibly DO comedy, other than to be the punchline.
So that's how this happens. And yes, it's sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that's the toughest interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If that's the toughest interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If that's the toughest interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]