Friday, October 18, 2013

BBC, USA Today and AP play down (ignore) Snowden revelations

The front page of today's New York Times has an article by James Risen on NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden.  Risen interviewed Ed online, over several days.  Risen reports:

 He argued that he had helped American national security by prompting a badly needed public debate about the scope of the intelligence effort. “The secret continuance of these programs represents a far greater danger than their disclosure,” he said. He added that he had been more concerned that Americans had not been told about the N.S.A.’s reach than he was about any specific surveillance operation.
“So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision,” he said. “However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that’s a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of ‘governing in the dark,’ where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.”         



In the interview, he speaks of a climate of fear and intimidation at the NSA.  He explains that going through channels does not work -- through the examples of what was done to Thomas Drake as well as a minor spat he had with a supervisor when he (Ed) identified a flaw in the CIA software.  In 2009, while removing items that were not supposed to be on a computer, he came across an IG report on the NSA's illegal spying under Bully Boy Bush and discovered how pervasive and illegal the spying was.  He tells Risen he realized, "If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, secret powers become tremendously dangerous."

Somehow the BBC, AP,  Michael Winter (USA Today) and RIA Novosti reduce this interview to Ed not turning over secrets to other governments.  With RIA, a Russian outlet, it may make sense for them to emphasize Russia didn't get any secrets -- it's a 'local' angle for them.  Equally true, while they lead with that, RIA covers other aspects of the interview.

BBC, USA Today and AP don't.  In fact, the job they do, it's not journalism.  It's not even tabloid journalism.  They're concealing the truth of a published interview from their readers.  How very sad and pathetic they look this morning.

And at what point do readers hold these three accountable for failure to honestly report the news?

FYI, Ed's statements in the interview re: China and Russia?

Nothing new.  This has been asserted repeatedly.  The outlets run with it as though it's new or novel while ignoring the 2009 IG report and other important details.

Gossip columnist do a better job than these three did.

Sherwood Ross' "Hersh Says Obama Slaying Story 'One Big Lie'" (OpEd News) details journalists Seymour Hersh's comments regarding the book he's writing about the reality of the hunt for Osama bin Ladne:




President Obama's administration lies systematically, Hersh asserts, yet is never challenged by America's supine media. "It's pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy (Obama)," Hersh said.

Hersh claims President Obama is worse than Bush, "Guardian" writer Lisa O'Carroll, who interviewed Hersh, reports."Do you think Obama's been judged by any rational standards?" Hersh asks."Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria?…How does Obama get away with the drone program?… How does he justify it? What's the intelligence?…Why don't we find out how good or bad this policy is?"

Hersh concludes, "The republic's in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple."



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.























 







Posted by at