Snowden: I Probably Wouldn't Have Revealed Quite As Much As Reporters Did
from the journalism-choices dept
People who have followed the Snowden story closely know that he gave all of the documents over to a small group of reporters, and then got rid of his own copies, telling the reporters to make their own choices about what to reveal and what to keep secret. He also claimed that he had gone through the files he had to make sure that he wasn't handing over any really damaging stuff -- but of what he was giving them he wanted the reporters to make their own journalistic choices about what to report on. And yet, some people (often those in the "string up Snowden" cabal) keep insisting that Snowden himself is directing the various reports and deciding what reports should reveal what information. However, over the weekend in an interview with the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, Snowden actually notes that he probably would have been "more conservative" in choosing what to reveal:Snowden, who worked with the journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Bart Gellman to bring highly classified materials about N.S.A. surveillance programs to the public eye, also responded to a Mayer question that he summarized by saying, “do I agree with all of the stories that the journalists have presented?”In earlier stories, Snowden has more or less admitted that part of the reason he went to trusted journalists like those three above was that he was too close to the story and the NSA himself to make fair, journalistic decisions on which of the documents deserved to be public. Otherwise, he could have just dumped all of the documents publicly. It appears to reinforce the idea that -- contrary to the claims of some -- Snowden was exceptionally careful in getting this information out there, not even trusting his own judgment to make the final calls on what should and should not be released.
“I don’t,” he went on. “I would draw those lines a little differently, and I think much more conservatively than some of the journalists have,” without naming which reporters’ stories he disagreed with.
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: ed snowden, revelations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They are far to close to the issues at play, and can not see any path other than the one they are on. They hire people who agree with them, and are getting paid, to hasten the trip down the path.
I think the stories so far are really damning, but at the same time there are not many people screaming for it to stop yet. We all focus on the problem that means to most to us, and ignore that in the wider view you can connect all of these ills back to a common source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think he did pretty well
Given those constraints, I think that the ratio of stuff that the American Public needs to be aware of in order to exert their admittedly minuscule amount of influence on their representatives is rather high.
It may be true that other secret services are not accountable to their respective electorates either and that there is an international conspiracy of lawlessness and unaccountability in that area.
But the U.S. public deserves to be involved in the decision whether they want to be the worst of the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, in doing so, they are once again misleading the public. They are willfully ignoring what he didn't say in order to spin this as some sort of vindication for their willfully ignoring our constitution so they can spy on all of us with no oversight. He didn't say, "I would have reported less because some of what was reported lacked journalistic merit." He recognized that he needed outsiders (journalists) to make the decision of what to report and what to hold on to because he was too close to it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they would push and report on the money that's being poured In our congress including the favors we may see some real change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case the subject matter (intelligence gathering methodology) is a secret buried so deep in spin, "necessary" lies and misdirection that even journalists are pretty clueless on the subject. Journalists with insufficient knowledge in an area seek help from other sources. In this case NSA/DOJ have stonewalled journalists and things that are worse.
The politicians have a room for making policy without public interferrence historically. They are unwilling to give it up, under the disguise of "counter-terrorism". The problem is that any story that questions the angelic, patriotic and prudent story of these organs, will raise demand for more openness and eventually lead to quite the headache for the politicians. Particularly since foreign powers may have an interest in knowing the methods used and even worse, abusing the openness for industrial espionage, political extortion (or counter-extortion as it were) or even pushing military/sphere interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're lucky that Snowden released his load to individual reporters --not media corporations. It's an important dictinction. Remember when NBC News immediately yanked a veteran reporter off his post after he witnessed Israel's killing of several young boys on a beach a few months ago?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/17/nbc-removes-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza-coverage-witnesse s-israeli-beach-killing-four-boys/
What gets passed off as "news" today by the MSM is a highly filtered, highly propagandized version of current events, carefully crafted to please the "powers that be" -- rather than letting slip the kind of unbiased reporting that might actually inform the citizenry and give them the tools to --God forbid-- think for themselves..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some information is missing, here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead they took the opportunity to shout at the top of their lungs "think of the children, do you want terrorists to win?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lets be honest, would it actually be any different , besides they've already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "think of the children"
I'm thinking that I don't want my children, and all the other children in the world, to grow up enslaved by "the greatest weapon for oppression in the history of man".
(quote from Ed Snowden's first email to Laura Portias; see http://www.wired.com/2014/10/snowdens-first-emails-to-poitras/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the most bang for the buck
** If Snowden dumped his stash all at once, it would have made an immediate big splash in the press, but would have soon been off the front pages and largely forgotten by the public.
**If he had kept everything to himself and chosen to release the documents little by little in order to keep the headlines warm, he would have almost certainly died an early death. (and probably mysterious, like Yasser Arafat)
But by releasing to journalists, and letting them sift through it at their leasure and do additional investigative work as journalists are known to do, Snowden insured not only his own life, but a long life of news headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the most bang for the buck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the most bang for the buck
This was just after the Exxon Valdez disaster, and they found themselves talking to Exxon's PR firm. The advice, to minimize the PR damage: Release ALL information, all at once.
No matter how much information they released, it would only get so much space in the papers on day one. With no new information leaking out, it would cease to be a story. Only if there was new, fresh information leaking out, would it remain in the news.
A slow but steady trickle of revelations from Snowden's data insures that every revelation gets covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the most bang for the buck
On the other hand,
Those must be pretty lazy journalists. Look what CNN has done with the video of World Trade Center Towers coming down. They have been using that footage for a decade to get ratings.
Ever watch Fox News cover some minor slip of the tongue by a liberal. It is impressive. Their ability to blow something all out of proportion is legendary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.newsweek.com/wary-privacy-issues-ditch-dropbox-and-avoid-google-says-edward-snowden-2769 56
It's hard to determine the extent Snowden is going overboard vs the extent he is pointing out serious issues. More and more Google traffic is being encrypted by default so is Snowden suggesting Google and others are secretly cooperating with the govt in ways we still don't know? Or is he beginning to make vague statements to ask for attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not necessarily. Google's (and other's) cooperation in the ways we do actually know is more than enough to justify Snowden's recommendations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After various corrections (trusting infrastructure isn't eavesdropped upon) I would be willing to trust Google and similar parties to respond only to lawful, adversarial reviewed, court orders for data /provided they are able to disclose said requests publicly/ for accountability (no less than one year after the cases go to trial or are dropped).
As recent lawsuits have revealed, we do not yet have the conditions that would allow any consumers, my self included, to trust /any/ corporation in that manor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who does NSA work for, and is the present revelations sufficient.
As the NSA is caught even spying on the Senate this is not a given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who does the NSA work for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Gasp!*
NSA: He's still a traitor, because reasons that are classified because if we told you they would tell the terrorists how to circumvent our twisted logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mistakes
While I, personally, would have made slightly different choices in what to release, such discussion is a distraction. After all, none of this should have been necessary in the first place; if the NSA had respected the rule of law under the Constitution, there would be no need of whistleblowers to point out their criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mistakes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, if these journalists had just sat on the information Snowden turned over to them. All the risks and sacrifices Snowden took would have been in vain.
It just sounds a little regretful to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is fairly common for people to disagree with media coverage, what angles they play up which ones they play down.
Snowden did not scream ZOMG THIS PERSON SUCKS FOR WHAT THEY DID!
He gave an honest answer, he would have selected differently.
As he had stated elsewhere, he really is to close to the issue to have a clear view.
We've seen other 'public figures' taking the media to task, in much harsher terms, when they fail to cover a pet cause the "right" way.
Snowden selected people and left the decisions to them, when asked to play monday morning quarterback he said he would have called a different play order.
I don't think it is insulting, but yet another honest answer from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]