Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Inside the Guardian and the Snowden Leaks

timothy posted about a year ago | from the if-it-bleeds-it-leads dept.

The Media 239

An anonymous reader writes "An interesting and thoughtful article in the New Yorker about the inner workings of the Guardian newspaper. It explains a lot about why the Snowden files ended up there and not elsewhere. Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right. An illustrative quote about Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor: 'He has a really useful piece of equipment that most editors don't have, which is a spinal column.' I would encourage everyone to read this, and if you support the type of journalism the Guardian has been engaging in, think about buying a subscription. The article also talks about the financial side of the newspaper business, and real journalism is not going to happen unless somebody pays for it."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reference Newspapers (5, Interesting)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45094857)

Dear slashdotters, The Guardian is quickly becoming one of my preferred references. Can you help me broaden my horizons by naming other good newspapers? (English/French/Spanish language only sorry)

Re:Reference Newspapers (-1, Troll)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#45094895)

They say "real journalism" but in my experience, the "real journalists" never really seem to get most things accurate. Every time I've been aware of the events behind a particular story (in some cases, being involved in the story) the "journalists" always seem to miss important details or flat out have some details wrong (for example, a plane crash one of my classmates was involved in, it was reported that all passengers died when in fact there was a survivor.)

The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45094921)

Did you tell him to watch out for Samuel L Jackson?

Re:Reference Newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45094969)

Newspapers should not be used as a reference. Their reference material is what should be cited. So in that respect, wikileaks is going to be the most accurate source of information.

Re:Reference Newspapers (-1, Flamebait)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#45095299)

Except wikileaks (and Assange himself) is already known to embellish the truth, or even outright fabricate it. For example, what they claimed were cameras in that "collateral murder" video were in fact weapons. I'm not even an expert and I clearly saw both Kalashnikov and RPG being carried by those people walking - I don't know how anybody could mistake those for cameras.

Assange himself admitted that his intent is to cause outcry, even if he has to lie about it.

Re:Reference Newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095733)

Have you seen a 800mm prime lens recently? Anybody could have mistaken one for an RPG, the issue on the video was not that mistake that killed the reporters but what happened afterwards.

Re:Reference Newspapers (2, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45096193)

The issue we're discussing is the edits and editorials that wikileaks added to the video.

They are not an unbiased source. If they edited it, it can't be trusted.

Re:Reference Newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096259)

I'm not even an expert and I clearly saw both Kalashnikov and RPG being carried by those people walking - I don't know how anybody could mistake those for cameras.

Say hello to your buddy ColdFjord for all of us here at Slashdot who
would be happy to take a crap on your heads, you lying dickeating
sack of shit.

Re:Reference Newspapers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096267)

I clearly saw both Kalashnikov and RPG

No, you didn't. As for Ak-47's, those were explicitly allowed by the occupational forces - was Bush not merciful - for personal defense.

Which means that if a SWAT team saw a licensed permit holder walking down a street in America, and opened fire with automatic weapons, you'd support that, right? And then also fired upon anyone who tried to rescue the wounded, right? Right?

Re:Reference Newspapers (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095133)

They say "real journalism" but in my experience, the "real journalists" never really seem to get most things accurate. Every time I've been aware of the events behind a particular story (in some cases, being involved in the story) the "journalists" always seem to miss important details or flat out have some details wrong (for example, a plane crash one of my classmates was involved in, it was reported that all passengers died when in fact there was a survivor.)

The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.

The Blogosphere woudn't know what real investigative journalism is (and unfortunately they are not the only ones since most traditional newspapers have forgotten what journalism is. Hint : it is not government PR) if they were hit by a 10 foot pole.
Thank god some good actors still exist in the US and abroad. Propublica in the US and The Guardian in the UK. In France Le Canard Enchaîné. While Le monde and Le Figaro may seem independent they survive thanks to government grants. So they'll never ever tell the whole story. In Italy ha no one. Each newspapaer is more corrupt than the next, and all all of them receive government aid.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1, Informative)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year ago | (#45095239)

Same here. The dozen or so times I've known details about something reported in a newspaper they've gotten pretty much everything wrong. I wouldn't trust them to spell their own name right let alone properly report on an event. What's in the newspaper is complete fiction when compared to reality.

Re:Reference Newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095961)

I have a friend that works in a small NGO... she got told that she joined the big leagues by some folks in Greenpeace when she got misquoted by the news.

The news is just a bunch of stories, slightly more realistic than fiction.

Re:Reference Newspapers (2)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45095267)

The so called "blogosphere" is nothing more than an echo chamber that has no more credibility than journalism.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096081)

Worse would be a "journalist" using a blog or social media as his/her source feeding a even bigger echo chamber.

Re:Reference Newspapers (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#45095403)

The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.

Glad it's only an opinion because there is no evidence to suggest this is true. One can use the Boston bombing as a classic example of how the blogosphere got it completely wrong. Same with Sandy Hook, to use just two examples.

The reason why blogs appear to be more accurate is because they generally cater to one specific area whereas those in the industry cover just about everything and need to put that information in a form digestible to the masses. Even though they may have a reporter dedicated to an area, that one person has to cover the gamut of the subject which isn't easy under any circumstance. When you're on a deadline, it is much more difficult.

Unless someone is on the scene, recording things as they happen then write about it in an unbiased manner (or as unbiased as they can be by not using terms such as "pigs", "gestapo" and so on), their reporting will be significantly less accurate than those who do this for a living. Further, and as previously mentioned, they need to put concepts and ideas into neat and compact sound bites for people to understand.

That said, and to use a tired quote, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Same with the blogosphere.

Re:Reference Newspapers (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45095617)

The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.

Exactly. They seem more "accurate" to you because the ones you visit share your views.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45096271)

Same as newspapers and web sites then.

Re:Reference Newspapers (4, Informative)

komodo685 (2920329) | about a year ago | (#45095893)

Given his, AlphaWolf_HK, other remarks on this same page:

Except wikileaks (and Assange himself) is already known to embellish the truth, or even outright fabricate it. For example, what they claimed were cameras in that "collateral murder" video were in fact weapons. I'm not even an expert and I clearly saw both Kalashnikov and RPG being carried by those people walking - I don't know how anybody could mistake those for cameras. Assange himself admitted that his intent is to cause outcry, even if he has to lie about it.

All of which are false (those in fact were cameras, held by the two reporters named Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh working for Reuters), more info here [wikipedia.org] . I think we have additional evidence that in fact bloggers are a much worse source of news than reporters. Instead tending to reinforce the beliefs and opinions of those that seek them out rather than provide accurate commentary. Slashdot, please mod AlphaWolf_HK down.

Re:Reference Newspapers (-1, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45096307)

Two were cameras, the rest were weapons. They were imbedded with combatants and had nothing to complain about when they were righteously killed. They bought their tickets, they took their chances.

Goes double for the fool who tried to use his van full of kids as a combat ambulance.

That the version presented was so far from the truth is what cost wikileaks their credibility.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095603)

for example, a plane crash one of my classmates was involved in, it was reported that all passengers died when in fact there was a survivor.).

Yep, that was me. But in all fairness they tried to correct the thing and sent a hitman after me.

Re:Reference Newspapers (-1)

FrankHS (835148) | about a year ago | (#45095687)

"Real journalists" have a conflict of interest. They want to keep their jobs and their access to government sorces. As a result, they become stenographers for government PR people.

The media owners also have a conflict of interest. They are intimidated by the government and demand that the journalists do what it takes to keep the midia owners business safe. They are also intimidated by the threat of lawsuits.

As a result the media has become garbage. I am sad to say that there is no high quality media in the United States today. Better coverage can be had from foreign sources and bloggers.

Re:Reference Newspapers (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#45096007)

There are a lot of prima donnas out there operating under the guise of being journalist while acting as a surrogate mouthpiece for whatever powerful entity helps them further their career. They aren't real journalists despite their claim to the contrary. The NYT and WSJ editorial staff are good examples of these shills.

These are the same people that put up a fight claiming that bloggers can't be journalists. Essentially, because independent bloggers aren't part of the bought and paid for scheme the "professionals" have set up, there is a risk that real news may be reported on in an intelligent and insightful way. It is analogous to how lawyers involved in politics have created governmental policies and laws that serve only to benefit their own kind.

Re:Reference Newspapers (2, Insightful)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about a year ago | (#45096447)

No, its because independent bloggers have no editors or anyone to check their sources. In the world of blogs, waiting on fact checks is suicide. Its post post post and hope that something you wrote was right. Who gives a shit if you spread misinformation, its a fucking blog.

Those weren't real journalists then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096153)

Just your ordinary run of the mill modern corporate journalists.

Re:Reference Newspapers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45094933)

Honestly, I would recommend reading diverse viewpoints. I read fox news, huffington post, bbc & al jazeera on a daily basis. I buy the atlantic and the economist. Then the daily show & the onion :)

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45095467)

Honestly, I would recommend reading diverse viewpoints.

I totally agree. Most of these journalists and editors do find out the truth, before they decide how to spin and twist and embellish it to create either sensationalism, or their preferred narrative. And since they don't all have the exact same goals, an intelligent critical thinker can often tease at least some of the truth out of the differing lies.

Re:Reference Newspapers (3, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#45095899)

I'd probably recommend the reverse order.

Things will get less factual as you proceed from right to left (in your list).

Re:Reference Newspapers (3, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#45095343)

http://www.economist.com/ [economist.com]

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

gander666 (723553) | about a year ago | (#45095485)

Beat me to it. I have been a subscriber for more years than I can remember. Worth every penny.

Re:Reference Newspapers (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#45095505)

http://www.economist.com/ [economist.com]

I second this. The journalists at The Economist are mostly British, although most subscribers are American. It is very entertaining to read news about America from an outsider's perspective, especially about typical American issues, like our dysfunctional health care system, guns, abortion, etc.

As for American news magazines, like Time or Newsweek, I wouldn't even use them to line my parakeet's cage, for fear that I would end up with a retarded parakeet.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#45095983)

Have you not noticed the steady decline in quality at the Economist?

I used to be a huge fan of the Economist. However, I won't be renewing my subscription this time around.

The Economist's "outsider perspective" on America has become anything but.

Re:Reference Newspapers (5, Insightful)

komodo685 (2920329) | about a year ago | (#45095387)

4 Points
1) Diversity is good, but... You must keep in mind that is not sufficient reason to read a source. A 'diversity' of falsehoods is worthless.
2) You can't read everything. Choose the areas that mean the most to you (international affairs, economics, national or local politics, etc) and try to find 2-3 sources that seem to do good work in those areas.
3) Be aware who is paying the bills. The consumers/adverisers in typical newspapers? Purely advertisers as in television/online reporting? Government in state funded broadcasting? I don't believe reporters will bend their views to match the person paying the bills. Instead reporters with unsympathetic views will often not get hired in the first place (probably not a lot of leftwingers in Fox or rightwingers on MSNBC). I'd strongly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent [wikipedia.org] for more information.
4) Let your choices evolve. The editors today may not be the editors tomorrow. Companies get bought out, new ones arise. How much longer will the Guardian's editor remain?

My recommendations:
The guardian [theguardian.com] -- You already have your reasons. I think their dissimenating the NSA leaks and wikileaks info when no one else would [gawker.com] is justification enough.
al jazeera [aljazeera.com] -- Particularly foreign viewpoint, high quality.
Democracy Now [democracynow.org] -- Not the best quality but clearly believe what they say and is run off donations. Also provides an American (important to me as I am one) viewpoint on things.
Their are others I think are probably good and have seen other posters mention already but I'm not experienced enough with them to know.

Re:Reference Newspapers (0, Flamebait)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45095413)

My opinion of The Guardian, they are better at standing tall on a big story, but they're totally full of **** most of the time. They run political lies like a tabloid, just lie lie lie lie lie. They stand tall behind their lies just as much as their scoops. And something like Snowden's leaks, there is no journalism involved. They didn't investigate something and get to some answers. Somebody dropped a golden egg in their lap, and their editors have the business sense to jump on it strong. That's the only reason any of it is even true. And in the first week of the Snowden leaks, they were actually phrasing a lot of it in a dishonest way; speculating about things they later reported on, that we now know the details of, which were typically not what they were speculating. So they managed to tarnish even that. If you look at those first weeks, the Washington Post was giving more honest, less sensational reporting, based on the same leaks. And the Post is a pretty awful rag.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095559)

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Despite its obvious origins I often find they have well researched foreign news that is all to lacking in the US.

Re:Reference Newspapers (-1, Flamebait)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | about a year ago | (#45095615)

There is enough leftist hatred and antisemitism in the Guardian to kill a civilization.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

komodo685 (2920329) | about a year ago | (#45095795)

There is enough leftist hatred and antisemitism in the Guardian to kill a civilization.

Great! Then you will have no trouble citing multiple stories The Guardian has written indicating as much.

For extra points provide some commentary from other news sources, which typically leaning pro-Israel (especially in America), would no doubt have torn apart those same Guardian stories.

Re:Reference Newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095695)

Not a newspaper but a magazine: Science et vie (French). Most articles are well-balanced presenting bost sides of the story, and try to make it readable for the layman. They've had really informative articles on astronomy, fracking, the plight of the reactors in Japan, and of course the usual discussion of climate change. Unfortunately they don't have a big presence on the internet and their issues are hard to find in North America.

The Financial Times (4, Insightful)

gamanimatron (1327245) | about a year ago | (#45095749)

www.ft.com [ft.com]

Their focus is mostly financial, but I really enjoy their world news reporting. Whenever I pick up a "normal" paper here, even (especially?) one of the "big" ones, it seems that they're trying to sell me an extreme viewpoint - and maybe some male enhancement products to go with it - rather than actually impart any information. The FT is much more reporting like I remember it used to be. Maybe because they actually charge enough for their paper to cover their costs.

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year ago | (#45095855)

The English translation of the German magazine, Der Spiegel [spiegel.de] .

Re:Reference Newspapers (1)

jregel (39009) | about a year ago | (#45095913)

In the UK, I rate the Independent, along with the aforementioned Guardian.

1st amendment (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#45094863)

Very interesting read. The thing that shocks me the most is that there is still such extensive censorship going on around the world, including in the U.K.

" On Davies’s advice, Rusbridger took the unprecedented step of bringing in the New York Times as a partner. A British newspaper might be blocked from publishing, but an American outlet would have First Amendment protection."

Re:1st amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096035)

Very interesting read. The thing that shocks me the most is that there is still such extensive censorship going on around the world, including in the U.K.

Then you should get out more. They're called D-notices, and are one of the well-known aspects of the UK press for the past century.

Don't be naive. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45094905)

The Guardian is a hard-left medium that has proven itself to be anti-American over the decades.

Re:Don't be naive. (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about a year ago | (#45094963)

You bet. Just because somebody puts something in print doesn't mean it is correct, or that they are on are side. What amazes me is that the Guardian hasn't gotten nailed for violation of the British Official Secrets act.

Re:Don't be naive. (4, Insightful)

biodata (1981610) | about a year ago | (#45095039)

The open question is what is a private citizen employed by a private company employed by an agency of a foreign power doing with access to British secrets. If Britain shares its secrets with foreign citizens then it seems only appropriate for the Guardian to share them with British citizens.

Re:Don't be naive. (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | about a year ago | (#45095349)

According to modern (US) interpretations of "secrets" anything that has happened or been shared outside of your house is no longer a secret.

Re:Don't be naive. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095027)

The Guardian is a hard-left medium that has proven itself to be anti-American over the decades.

Your point being?

Oh right, you think america should be given respect for free instead of earning it through deed like everyone else has to.

Re:Don't be naive. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45096355)

There were two sides in the cold war. Anti-American doesn't imply impartial; just the opposite. They had a side and still haven't accepted that their philosophy didn't just lose but was WRONG.

You make it sound so TAWDRY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45094907)

But I want to feel it inside me, too, so do it to me one more time.

Not even disguising Slashvertisements any more? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45094951)

...think about buying a subscription. The article also talks about the financial side of the newspaper business, and real journalism is not going to happen unless somebody pays for it.

So, we're not even remotely attempting to disguise Slashvertisements any more - just outright asking people to buy stuff? Yeah. This bodes well for the quality of news on this site in the coming months...

Re:Not even disguising Slashvertisements any more? (1)

mellon (7048) | about a year ago | (#45095629)

I think that's a bit unfair. I appreciate very much what the Guardian is doing with Snowdon's revelations, and would love to support them. It's too bad that their best user interface is the free web version, and all the editions you'd pay for are less usable. It's a classic case of "why won't you take my money?" I have the same problem with Wired—I'd gladly pay to get access to the web site without ads, but that's not on offer, and I do not want a subscription to their paper version or their horrible iPad edition.

However, in the case of electronic editions, one can subscribe to it just for the sake of doing it, and not actually read that version. This works okay for the Guardian web site, which has a pretty good ad-to-content ratio.

Erm, ok... (1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45094999)

Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right.

And that's where you biffed it. The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is. But you tend not to see biases towards things you agree with as clearly as things you disagree with, so I forgive your temporary bout of insanity in making that statement. Maybe they got this one instance right, maybe not. An entire slashdot thread has been created just so we can scream at, er, I mean, debate, the veracity of that statement. But... the Guardian is biased. Sorry man.

Re:Erm, ok... (4, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about a year ago | (#45095061)

So? You can be biased and still do good journalism. In fact, I'd say it's impossible not to be biased. Everyone is biased, it's human nature. Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

Re:Erm, ok... (3, Insightful)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#45095221)

Everyone has an opinion but reporters are to report the news . They should be like the wildlife cinematographers of old. No interference just pure animal life anything less is fake. I don't want to pay for opinions that what i read Slashdot for and watch MSNBC or CNN. Far too much opinionated. This is all IMO but i have seen the news change for the worse over the years.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095871)

Except a lot of wildlife documentary makers have interfered with wildlife in their film pursuits over the years. Sometimes this is done by virtue of the fact that some things are known to happen in the wild, but are (or were) nigh impossible to capture unless staged.

In fact, it could be said that the whole strict non-interference thing is a fairly recent invention, as far as things go. Robotics, remote monitoring, smaller cameras, and other technologies have enabled this to happen.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096339)

Everyone has an opinion but reporters are to report the news . They should be like the wildlife cinematographers of old. No interference just pure animal life anything less is fake.

Oh but we left THAT ideal decades ago. The media has gone from passive observation to "let's go make some news" about the same time as Cable TV news got started. Of course talk radio doesn't help.. But you are right, there SHOULD be a wide gap between commentators who are offering opinion and reporters who are giving facts. These days, they are one and the same person and rarely do they understand that there is a difference between the two jobs.

Re:Erm, ok... (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45095237)

ObDisclaimer: I happen to like the Guardian.

So? You can be biased and still do good journalism.

That is the third-most stupid thing I have read on slashdot this week; And this week has been particularly harsh on my brain meats. While the literal definition of journalism, "the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television," does not include mention of the ethics of journalism, I expect people to have a grasp on it. As you do not, I shall now dispense a brief explanation of why it's so important.

Democracy can only function well with an educated populace. You simply can't vote the most capable candidate into office unless you know the issues, and that means knowing facts. Not interpretation of them. Not skewed versions of them. Not partial lists of them. You need to know everything about it, or you're not making an informed decision, you're making a decision based on propaganda and lies. When your audience is millions of Americans, your voice carries a lot of power. With great power comes great responsibility. And anyone who passes off their own biases as fact is not a supporter of Democracy and I do not want them on my team.

In fact, I'd say it's impossible not to be biased. Everyone is biased, it's human nature. Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

Your argument is that because we can't be perfect at something, we shouldn't even try. This is such a classic mistake we've given it a formal name: The Nirvana Fallacy. And yes martha, there is a wikipedia [wikipedia.org] on it.

Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

The institution of science does a pretty good job of limiting the effects of bias. Oh yes, you can point out the problems. Oh yes, they're very real. But compared to say... Fox News, they're doing a pretty good job. There's a reason scientists have been alternately revered and burned a the stake throughout history -- it's because of their stubborn devotion to the truth regardless of religious or political preference. And that stubborn devotion has catapulted forward all of humanity from banging rocks together to make fire and foraging for food, and sleeping in caves, to all the modern conveniences you have before you.

So I see your nilhism and perfectionism and raise you... rationality. Your move, Internet.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095521)

Democracy can only function well with an educated populace.

So I see your nilhism and perfectionism and raise you... rationality. Your move, Internet.

A republic, on the other hand, can function quite well with an under-educated populace. The democratic part of the USA's democratic republic is only allowed to work as well as the people within the republic ruling circle allow it to work. People seem vehemently determined to believe that the entire country is not run by a select few.

Re:Erm, ok... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45095571)

People seem vehemently determined to believe that the entire country is not run by a select few.

I would very much like to meet such a person, who probably also rides a unicorn into work every day. The only people who believe that are our children, who aren't yet experienced enough to know that civics class is based largely on fiction.

Re:Erm, ok... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095557)

You simply can't vote the most capable candidate into office unless you know the issues, and that means knowing facts. Not interpretation of them. Not skewed versions of them. Not partial lists of them. You need to know everything about it, or you're not making an informed decision, you're making a decision based on propaganda and lies. When your audience is millions of Americans, your voice carries a lot of power. With great power comes great responsibility. And anyone who passes off their own biases as fact is not a supporter of Democracy and I do not want them on my team.

Ähm... no. Hunter S. Thompson was a brilliant Journalist and the total opposite of your definition. He was neither a complete tool, wich seems to be the basic requisite of working for Fox...

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095631)

So I see your nilhism and perfectionism and raise you... rationality. Your move, Internet.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

Re:Erm, ok... (3, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | about a year ago | (#45095985)

I think he meant that reporters' biases will guide what they think is worth investigating, and therefore some may be less likely to cover certain areas of public or political life. As long as other reporters with different biases choose to cover those areas then that's actually good. Keeping all other things equal (training, talent, skill), those with passion for their work will tend to do a better job of it. However once their subject is chosen, those reporters' investigations may still be carried out and reported in a thorough and unbiased way despite their biases, if their professionalism is sufficiently high.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096137)

Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

The institution of science does a pretty good job of limiting the effects of bias. Oh yes, you can point out the problems. Oh yes, they're very real. But compared to say... Fox News, they're doing a pretty good job. There's a reason scientists have been alternately revered and burned a the stake throughout history -- it's because of their stubborn devotion to the truth regardless of religious or political preference. And that stubborn devotion has catapulted forward all of humanity from banging rocks together to make fire and foraging for food, and sleeping in caves, to all the modern conveniences you have before you.

So I see your nilhism and perfectionism and raise you... rationality. Your move, Internet.

The institution of science is an organization? You've got to be kidding me. Scientists are some of the most difficult people to organize in the world.

Re:Erm, ok... (3, Informative)

mellon (7048) | about a year ago | (#45095651)

You could go so far as to say that if a news outlet claims to be free from bias, they probably aren't doing journalism. Because they probably mean that they present "balanced" stories, meaning not neutral, reality-based stories, but rather stories that always present two and only two sides to an issue, even if the only proponent for one side is an obvious idiot or crook, and even when there are four sides with equally valid points to make.

Re:Erm, ok... (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45095085)

I read that line, and all I could think was, "Awww, you DID notice!"

...and then I realized it was an anon poster, not timothy himself.

Re:Erm, ok... (4, Insightful)

seyyah (986027) | about a year ago | (#45095177)

And that's where you biffed it. The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is. But you tend not to see biases towards things you agree with as clearly as things you disagree with, so I forgive your temporary bout of insanity in making that statement. Maybe they got this one instance right, maybe not. An entire slashdot thread has been created just so we can scream at, er, I mean, debate, the veracity of that statement. But... the Guardian is biased. Sorry man.

You don't have to be a post-modernist to agree that all media (hell, everyon) is biased. However, I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.

Re:Erm, ok... (3, Insightful)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45095553)

I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.

I gotta say, they're just as biased as Fox News, just differently biased since they are from a different country with a different political landscape. If you're looking for less-biased news from the UK, the gold standard example is the BBC. And once you've seen good reporting, then it should be pretty obvious that The Guardian is heavily biased.

The problem with the BBC is that their abhorrence for bias can lead to excessive caution.
 

Re:Erm, ok... (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about a year ago | (#45095679)

The BBC is great, but they are just as biased as any news outfit. Their bias tends to be toward a sort of civilized middle-of-the-road establishment view, but it's a mistake to think that that is not a bias.

Re:Erm, ok... (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#45096213)

Your claim seems to be that everybody is equally biased, and that is a failed argument on any subject, not just bias. If you can't distinguish between different sources, then how can you even measure them to say they're the same? You'd need to be claiming that you can see differences in the field, before it would make sense to claim that two particular examples are equally biased.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45095685)

You don't have to be a post-modernist to agree that all media (hell, everyon) is biased. However, I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.

I happen to disagree. About the only way they could be more biased is if they had a love van in the back lot and were handing out fliers on Marxism. But let's be objective about this; Do you consider them to be more, less, or about as biased, as the New York Times?

If you answered the same or more, I have some bad news [freakonomics.com] for you.

You simply cannot see your own biases. It's what I said originally. They're called cognitive blind spots for a reason. And this is one of yours. I'm sorry, but they're biased. They're about as biased as Fox News. You just think Fox News seems more biased because your own bias puts you left of center, which makes Fox News seem comparatively farther away than the NYT or the Guardian.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096045)

That Freakonomics article doesn't mention what their methodology is. They say you can go back and find it, but I couldn't after a few minutes of searching. In addition, that "study" of media bias was done by a conservative who is clearly biased himself. How can I trust this?

Since you're the one making the claim, the onus is on you to show that Guardian is in fact just as biased as Fox News.

Re:Erm, ok... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096113)

You don't have to be a post-modernist to agree that all media (hell, everyon) is biased. However, I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.

I happen to disagree. About the only way they could be more biased is if they had a love van in the back lot and were handing out fliers on Marxism. But let's be objective about this; Do you consider them to be more, less, or about as biased, as the New York Times?

If you answered the same or more, I have some bad news [freakonomics.com] for you.

You simply cannot see your own biases. It's what I said originally. They're called cognitive blind spots for a reason. And this is one of yours. I'm sorry, but they're biased. They're about as biased as Fox News. You just think Fox News seems more biased because your own bias puts you left of center, which makes Fox News seem comparatively farther away than the NYT or the Guardian.

And you can't see yours:) From a US perspectively you may be right, but from a European one the Guardian is left-of-center to some extent while Fox is so far to the right it falls outside our mainstream left/right scale.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095727)

There's a reason why Snowden's material didn't end up in the hands of the New York Times, or Fox News. Both would have buried the story. The NYT to protect Obama, Fox News to help continue the neocon warfare state.

You say there are degrees, but in fact the far left and far right commentators are pretty much the same.

Re:Erm, ok... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095217)

No one is trying to claim that The Guardian isn't biased. Of course it is. All media outlets are biased, and any readers who believe in unbiased media are biased themselves, aligned with their supposed unbiased media.

All of this is obvious.

The point is, it is a publication which isn't completely controlled by government and corporate entities, which is a rarity nowadays. They have their own self-serving agenda alright, but still stand out as quite different than pretty much every other major news outlet.

Re:Erm, ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095247)

I second that, and this maybe trolling, but I would add, if the media/press did its job the NSA and other unknown agencies would have been exposed years ago., instead of waiting until some unknown person coming forward claiming to have the inner workings of the NSA. Instead we have to put up with mindless babble (actually you don't have to put up with it) over an earthquake, or some storm or some random shooting, for 2 straight weeks.

Not to mention how the media/press continues to push government propaganda upon the people that watch/read. They did this with just about everything from communism to terrorism, the war on drugs, ect. the only way to see any real journalism is to find underground internet press, and not the ones that push absurd paranoid theories.

Re:Erm, ok... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095443)

The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is.

That's complete and utter bollox. Typical yank, firing off their gob when they know nothing about the subject or any have relevant experience. Twat!

Re:Erm, ok... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095597)

The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is.

No. Fox News is far more unbalanced. The Guardian is middle left from a european point of view and Fox News would be far right. And there is one other point. You can be biased and write smart stuff. One of them does, the other...?

Modern journalism (4, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | about a year ago | (#45095105)

What do you expect from journalism?

As long as a story about Lindsay Lohans latest rehab draws ten times as much readers as some background article about the NSA spying capabilities while being less risky at the same time, the development is clear.

Do you really expect someone to risk the ire of that organisation that can dig (or make) up your dirtiest secrets in order to get less readers? You have to be an idealist or crazy (or preferably both) to do so.

Re:Modern journalism (4, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45095289)

We all know that NSA surveillance .... wait, did you say there was a story about Lindsay Lohan? In rehab? I can't find the link, do you have one? ;)

Re:Modern journalism (1)

RubberChainsaw (669667) | about a year ago | (#45095767)

What we need to get the attention of the average person are stories about Lindsay Lohan being spied on by the NSA.

Re:Modern journalism (5, Funny)

mseeger (40923) | about a year ago | (#45095995)

I had once the idea to spin a story that the NSA had nude pictures of a celeb and anyone could get them with a FOIA request ;-). But that would be too evil.

Re:Modern journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096185)

What do you expect from journalism?

As long as a story about Lindsay Lohans latest rehab draws ten times as much readers as some background article about the NSA spying capabilities while being less risky at the same time, the development is clear.

What do you expect from journalism? As long as people feel helpless to do anything about the situation, whether this or global warming or endangered animals, why should they care more about that than Lindsay Lohan? You just want people to get mad? Then what?

Re:Modern journalism (1)

xded (1046894) | about a year ago | (#45096397)

True.

But the point here is not what an average person thinking about himself would do. The point is what a non-ordinary person caring about society can do.

Whether you want our times to be told by the former or the latter, it remains your choice.

What the definition of 'journalist' should be, this is the matter of discussion.

An anonymous reader writes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095135)

...if you support the type of journalism the Guardian has been engaging in, think about buying a subscription....

Am I connected with the Guardian journalists? Oh, dear me, no! The Guardian Marketing Department is a separate company....

less "getting it right", more "Mulligan." (0)

SuperBanana (662181) | about a year ago | (#45095151)

Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right.

You mean like the fact that the reporter in question thought Snowdon was fucking with him and ignored him, until Snowdon managed to find an intermediary?

I don't really call that "getting it right." I call that a Mulligan. The whole thing damn near went into the toilet because the reporter couldn't be bothered to explore the goldmine that fell into his lap.

Re:less "getting it right", more "Mulligan." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095843)

Classic example of the snark described in the summary. So much so, in fact, that one must assume you are being ironic for comedic effect. I didn't laugh.

Re:less "getting it right", more "Mulligan." (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#45096135)

I think everyone would prefer it if journalists would have an accurate crystal ball to determine who they should listen to and who they shouldn't, but such a thing doesn't exist, reporters are human, and mistakes are going to happen. I'm sure reporters get all types of crazy sounding conspiracy theory nuts. This one turned out to be right in retrospect, but how did he know that in advance?

Not just journalists. I'd prefer if I, a scientist, knew which bits of preliminary data and which hypotheses to chase after. Some of the few that I've actually gone somewhere with sat on the back burner for an embarrassing amount of time before I came back to them and realized what I had been wasting my time with was far less important or likely to go anywhere.

Unbiased and impartial quote! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095195)

THIS JUST IN:

Editor of paper claims they're the only ones doing something right and that all other competitors are spineless!

News at 11.

Guardian = Blair's Fabian mouthpiece (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095301)

The Guardian is infinitely more repulsive than ANY of Rupert Murdoch's outlets, including Fox News. Even fans of Fox News know it is rabble rousing lying garbage, even if they feel it is pulling for 'their' team. Fans of The Guardian, on the other hand, are so very thick, they NEVER see the propaganda or manipulation.

The Guardian employs the most racist war-mongering zionists to promote Tony Blair's campaign of rolling holocausts in the Middle East and North Africa. Unlike Murdoch, who pushes the "white is right" message, the Guardian pushes the "White Man's Burden" fabian ploy that is a twisted evil form of liberalism found in the Victorian reformers.

Now I note that Slashdot, like other George Soros outlets in the pseudo-independent left-leaning media outlets, is REFUSING to cover the fact of the BBC caught red-handed faking 'chemical weapons' propaganda.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/10/fake-bbc-video/

Craig Murray was a Blair loyalist working in one of the most depraved regimes in Blair's direct sphere of influence. When Murray got 'blood' on his nice white diplomatic 'nazi' uniform, he did his nut, and demanded that Blair condemn the atrocities that his allies were carrying out in ex-soviet states (like the one Murray was ambassador in). Blair refused, stating that Britain fully supported dictators that boiled Humans alive, giving Murray no choice but to resign, and become a full time critic of Blair and his war-aims. This is the well-known phenomenon of the 'good nazi' as seen with various people in WW2 who KNEW what Hitler was up to, but could not stand remaining a member of the party when they personally suffered the truth rubbing in their own faces. Humans in power can be so hypocritical this way- the old "do bad things- just never let me see them" adage.

Anyway, Craig Murray became a tireless attack dog after his conversion, and is a rare example of a once high ranking member of Blair's war-machine who now spends his time revealing the crimes of his former master.

While Snowden is revealing a TINY fraction of the truth about the NSA and MI5/MI6, the information is years out-of-date and tells people nothing they did not already know, if they had been paying attention to outlets OTHER than those in the mainstream media, or run by George Soros. Snowden has been allowed to access and disseminate this information at the highest level. It is an inoculation project to get the sheeple passed the idea of FULL SURVEILLANCE so they get bored thinking about it, and allow the Xbox Ones and TV's with cameras and internet connections into their homes.

At the same time, the full surveillance projects of the NSA, GCHQ and similar agencies in most other significant nations, are growing exponentially, driven by the ever decreasing cost and ever increasing power of commodity computer hardware. Modern computer systems can trivially gather ALL the data generated by ALL Humans daily, and store this information indefinitely. The sick minds behind the technology at the NSA and GCHQ cannot resist the temptation to do whatever the technology theoretically allows. No concept of morality comes into it.

The Guardian is a FABIAN outlet. The fabians believe that society should be split between masters, and cattle. The difference between fabians and other master-race apologists of recent times (like the zionists) is that the fabians are NOT racist, but social Darwinians. Those that run the Guardian believe ALL Humans should be given EQUAL opportunity to succeed over a number of generations, and then the 'winners' be recognised as a master race with the right to do with the rest of Humanity whatever they so wish. Tony Blair is their 'Jesus Christ'.

Understand this. When you look at the rolling series of horrific wars created by the West in recent times, America is ONLY responsible for the muscle. The 'brains' of this project are entirely British. Blair began this project in earnest when he tried to coerce the Americans to invade Kosovo, after Blair began the Kosovo war. However, Yugoslavia had Soviet weapon systems and Soviet training, so the US army was scared stiff over the prospect of fighting on the ground, and thus refused. Blair needed the US to regain its 'courage' to fight ground wars (after the trauma of Vietnam had made this difficult) so the False-flag of 9/11 occurred and changed everything. The 9/11 operation was infinitely simpler and cheaper than the design of ANY US weapon system, and yet served a war purpose more successfully than any possible new physical weapon.

After 9/11, as Blair and his neo-con allies anticipated, Americans could not wait to start fighting real wars on the ground again. While EVERY liberal outlet stated that the US would bomb Afghanistan (and later Iraq) for months before even contemplating invading, those of us that understood Blair's intentions and actions KNEW that the US armed forces would immediately roll into these two nations. Blair had ensured that never again (not really true- the 9/11 effect is over now- see Syria) would the US hesitate before putting boots on the ground. The failure of the Kosovo project became a long forgotten memory.

Despite the best efforts of The Guardian, Syria and Iran are significant issues for Blair today. Decent Humans know Blair and his people (including Obama) for the evil depravities they really are, and resist the final steps needed for global war. In the last resort, the sheeple resist becoming the "turkeys that vote for Xmas". Trust in politicians and the mainstream media is at an all time low. Even so, all the momentum is on Blair's side, and the police state and US war machine grow significantly EVERY year.

Who pays for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095311)

Why am I paying a newspaper or website money just so that they can regurgitate AP/Reuters/AFP stories? Or so that they can report on how Miley Cyrus showed her cunt again on MTV? Or how amazing the new *insert comic franchise* reboot is going to be this summer? Or so that they can spew their opinionated garbage under the guise of being 'objective reporting'?

Most 'news' is nothing more than reprinted boiler plate material. The newspapers take PR information from publicists and reprint it for easy content. Or they take some boiler plate content from the Associated Press and without having any reporters verify the information they reprint it. How many newspapers, websites, and tv networks actually investigate the majority of their content? How many have majority original and not reused content?

Most investigative reporting is just a biased report from the editor. Want to show someone in a bad light? Just make a quote and say "from off the record conversation". Want to make up a fact. Say it was from "anonymous sources". Look at how often the 'news' contains absolutely zero research or confirmation. Most reports are nothing more than hit-pieces or talking points meant to drive bumper sticker level political conversations.

And who are we supposed to trust in the news? Wikileaks? With their insane agenda driven content and ridiculous 'gotcha journalism' and tabloid editing of 'Collateral Murder'. The Guardian? Glenn Greenwald who said on Real Time on HBO that Islam is a peaceful religion and that if America stopped the war on terror that nearly all Jihad would stop. What kind of utopian fantasy thinking is that?

Where are the reports that the U.S. was running guns to Mexican terrorists? Guns that were used in school shootings? The media seems pretty silent on Fast & Furious. Benghazi? Nothing to see here. IRS targeting political enemies of the current administration? Nothing to see here move along.

When a good book comes out about Benghazi I'll buy it. But waiting for the 'news' to report anything substantial is a joke. I'll wait on Snowden and the NSA as well, until someone in the intelligence community writes a book. Or Snowden himself distances himself from Guardian/Greenwald and writes his own book. But having Snowden's information put through the Guardian/Greenwald filter is a hilarious sham. Just more biased crap.

Blogosphere vs. Old Media (5, Insightful)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about a year ago | (#45095417)

One of the side effects of the rise of the blogging hordes is the death of traditional journalism. Even if old media is biased one way or another, the decent newspapers of record have some respect for journalistic integrity. Reporting on a government corruption scandal is very different from reporting on the latest iPhone over at Engadget or the endless stream of celebrity garbage "news." Seeking out the real story from actual, verifiable sources rather than a blogger posting their own opinion as fact is the difference. While I'm sure some bloggers are journalists in the traditional sense, not all are, and blogs are even more sensitive to producing content that makes people click than newspapers are.

Some people may cite this as anti-progress, but look at media prior to the Internet, in fact, before cable TV. There were only 3 network news sources, and a few newspapers of record producing content. Now there's tons of media outlets, thousands of random bloggers, and an increasing trend of the medial outlets crowdsourcing content from their readers (CNN iReport, etc. etc.) Having so many choices means that opinions are more diverse, but conversely it also means that it narrows people's viewpoints. Conservatives are Fox News fans, but they're also fans of even more conservative bloggers. It makes liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative, and that leads to situations like we're in today with Congress and the Tea Party faction. You would never have something like this in the 50s/60s simply because the population didn't have enough customized hot-button content to whip them into whatever polarized frenzy they're into.

Traditional journalism does need to return to media, but as the submitter states, you have to pay for it, and integrity doesn't pay the bills like the latest unverified rumor from a friend of a friend of Lindsey Lohan...

Re:Blogosphere vs. Old Media (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095863)

There is a guy named Matt Drudge, I'm sure most of you have heard of him. The ONLY reason he is famous now is because ABC was given the Lewinsky scandal 3 times over a 9 month period and decided to bury it every time. Drudge used the new internet thingy and made a name for himself posting it. Had ABC done journalism Drudge and thousands of other internet news outlets, and probably Fox News as well, wouldn't exist. Fox News only exists because Roger Ailes, working for MSNBC, wasn't allowed to run the news department his own way and couldn't run the news he wanted to.

A LOT of those other news "outlets" wouldn't exist if the big media did their job, but they chose not to. Those big 3 networks buried countless stories while they were in charge and there was no real way to get around it. Now they HATE that when they bury a story to help their buddies in DC that Fox News will run it instead, or it will end up on Drudge or The Blaze. Their ONLY hope is to discredit those sources, but they have proven themselves out too often, check the ratings, that when people say Faux News the rest of us know they are just idiots who think censorship should exist because they can't win an honest debate.

CNN in the last presidential election lost all credibility when their moderator interrupted Romney to lie and protect Obama and they cheered her for it. They have had to make massive cuts since then and continue to hemorrhage viewers. They will probably never get another presidential debate again because of their stunts, but at least they have their biased integrity.

Re:Blogosphere vs. Old Media (1, Interesting)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about a year ago | (#45096121)

obDisclaimer: I have a left wing bias to say the least. But that's not important for this post since it applies to both sides equally.

You do have to admit that Drudge, the Huffington Post and all the others serve as echo chambers for extreme viewpoints. The conservative side gets bombarded with anti-liberal stories day in and day out, and doesn't have to listen to any other opinion if they don't want to. Same thing happens on the liberal side. You wouldn't have heard Walter Cronkite on CBS news during the Vietnam War talking about "godless baby killers" or something like that, but I could definitely see a more targeted media organization, or let's face it, some dude with a blog, saying something like this. There's no consequences for the blogger dude, and the media outlets will be rewarded for offering this as entertaining fare to their audience.

Personally, I have some very conservative relatives who, while very smart, don't get exposed to differing viewpoints on issues. And when you hear something catchy that you agree with, then repeat it to your friends, then have those same friends amplify your beliefs, you do end up with a very polarized population. Both liberal and conservative talk show hosts know this and use it to their advantage. Suddenly all those people on both sides go out and elect officials that share their polarized opinions of the world, and a sensible debate over healthcare policy turns into a protracted fight that neither side will give ground on. So, talking with people like this for me feels like I'm Rob Reiner ("Meathead") from All in the Family. Yeah, Meathead was a pinko-liberal commie but his character was reasonable compared with Archie...

I don't know, maybe people were more reasonable back in the day when we were fighting a cold war with an adversary who could wipe us out if they were having a bad day.

Apologies for the cognitive dissonance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095599)

Apologies for the cognitive dissonance. It certainly seems that The Guardian's intentions here are good. As per the link below, they may need to re-earn some people's trust.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/09/02/2210227/the-guardian-and-the-wikileaks-encryption-key [slashdot.org]

Stopped reading after the first sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095693)

the Guardian, Britain’s liberal daily

The Guardian is not liberal at al. In fact, it is quite strongly pro-Labour.

Re:Stopped reading after the first sentence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45095867)

Yeah, like 95% of the readers on a US tech site can make the distinction - which is neither large nor important.

You fuckwit.

What if Snowden had gone to the New York TImes? (5, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#45096001)

If Snowden had gone to the NYT they would have folded to government pressure. At a minimum they would have "vetted" the releases with the Feds, and as a result all of the important revelations would not be published. It is more likely the Times would have handed over the raw files and then published a bunch of bland articles that whitewashed the entire situation.

The NTY has been riding the work of Woodward and Bernstein since Watergate. That was a long time ago, and now they are in the pocket of intrenched special interests, just like the rest of US journalism.

It's a sad day when no major new organization in the US can be counted on to stand up to external pressure, whether it be economic or political. It ironic that a newspaper in the UK is doing the heavy lifting in this case, since there is no constitutional protection of the press in England, and there is in the US.

Re:What if Snowden had gone to the New York TImes? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45096089)

W&B worked for the Washington Post, not the NYT.

The NYT would be reporting it if Bush were Pres (2)

srichard25 (221590) | about a year ago | (#45096445)

If a Republican were in the White House, the NYT would have reported on this instantly and heavily. When Bush was in office, the NYT leaked confidential info that put our troops in danger. And look at the constant stream of stories they did on Abu Gharib and interrogation techniques. Why weren't they scared of the feds then?

The main reason the American media are holding back on this story is because Obama is currently in the White House.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>