Not in the news

[Fisherking]

Symptomatic: http://benswann.com/media-blacks-out...nt-you-to-see/

What else doesn’t make the news and why?

Broadcasters often just don’t report things they don’t want you to be informed upon.

Whether it is MSNBC or Fox or any other outlet they just skip what does not go along with the corporate view of how the world should be.

If it does not advance the crony capitalism empowered by the current political system you aren’t going to here about it.

[HoreTore]

That reminds me: I need to buy some more tin foil.....

[InsaneApache]

Frags got a shed full, you should ask him if you can borrow some.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Frags got a shed full, you should ask him if you can borrow some.

He's not that silly. The shed is LINED with tinfoil....

[Beskar]

That reminds me: I need to buy some more tin foil.....

Well, if the interview is:
1) real (sorry not seen it yet, but will do shortly)
2) not being aired in the US

Then the title of "What the government doesn't want you to see" can be seen as having some legitimacy.

[Sarmatian]

Interesting stuff. Snowden is very eloquent and intelligent guy.

[Husar]

It's an interview conducted by German public television, the German version is on youtube and an English (original interview) version as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x38jkFlPeg

Of course it's possible that the video is not available outside of Germany but I wouldn't know that.

[Beskar]

Of course it's possible that the video is not available outside of Germany...

Correct.
I found this link which works for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ask57bjVv5Q

It seems to be chopped a little into smaller segments lasting a total of 3 minutes opposed to the full 30 minutes but what he says isn't really anything mindblowing. It is what you expect to hear pretty much from anything coming out of Hollywood. The most surprising factor is the number of 'hits' the programme got, which Snowden says was one, which was a wiretransfer from a California cabby of $85,000 which was picked up. Outside of that, nothing.

I am struggling to find a source for the full version, the links are either 'dead' 'not working' 'cannot be aired in country' and Hola! isn't able to bypass it...

[Sarmatian]

In the op there's a link to a full 30 min interview - you can't watch it?

[Beskar]

In the op there's a link to a full 30 min interview - you can't watch it?

When I click play, it comes up with "Stream ID not found on server". I will try again later, might be flooded or similar.

Edit: Managed to get it working now, Sarmatian. Thanks.

[Sarmatian]

It worked for me again 30 seconds ago.

Tin foil, indeed...

If I don't post again in 3 days, the NSA got me. Avenge me, my friends, and don't let my dream of mandatory topless beach volley for hot girls aged 18-25 go to waste...

[HoreTore]

Well, if the interview is:
1) real (sorry not seen it yet, but will do shortly)
2) not being aired in the US

Then the title of "What the government doesn't want you to see" can be seen as having some legitimacy.

It's not aired in Norway either.

Does that mean Erna Solberg is working with the US gubmint to screw me over?

Let's face the facts here: it's gone unnoticed because it's not interesting, not because of some NWO-conspiracy.

[Beskar]

Let's face the facts here: it's gone unnoticed because it's not interesting, not because of some NWO-conspiracy.

Since the highlight of Norwegian TV is showing fire-log burn, I am not surprised such an interview wouldn't inspire many watchers in ol' Norse. Clearly it was broadcast in Germany, there was a clear interest there by people that it even ended up transmitted by word of mouth across the Atlantic and there are those who wanted to hear about it. Clear fact we are noticing it now is in clear contradiction to the 'unnoticed' you suggest.

The interview did get picked up by BBC news who ran an article upon one of the comments made.

Either way, there is a clear public interest in the issue, however, they most likely had incentives not to do so, such as having to pay an overpriced licence for the said interview.

But I guess the log-fire is simply reduced to ashes that makes things a little dim from your perspective.

[HoreTore]

Since the highlight of Norwegian TV is showing fire-log burn, I am not surprised such an interview wouldn't inspire many watchers in ol' Norse. Clearly it was broadcast in Germany, there was a clear interest there by people that it even ended up transmitted by word of mouth across the Atlantic and there are those who wanted to hear about it. Clear fact we are noticing it now is in clear contradiction to the 'unnoticed' you suggest.

Either way, there is a clear public interest in the issue, however, they most likely had incentives not to do so, such as having to pay an overpriced licence for the said interview.

But I guess the log-fire is simply reduced to ashes that makes things a little dim from your perspective.

Watching firelogs burn? Nah, that was boooooring. The full weekend dedicated to knitting, however.....

Anyway. Snowden is doing a whole bunch of interviews. Basically, every news source in Europe is doing their own. Why would the US media show all of them? He's basically saying the same thing in all of them, so how is it interesting?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I find myself underwhelmed by this particular instance of inefficient reportage by the media.

Snowden, to all appearances, wants to blow the whistle on the NSA. It's illegal, but that is sometimes true in whistleblowing instances. He chose to run rather than to face the music domestically. Cannot find myself lauding him for that. He will now live in exile. His choice.

The whole thing boils down to freedom versus security. At what point is security too costly in terms of the loss of freedom. In this electronic age, I am not sure that we're all familiar enough with the technology to really grasp what was going on.

Hoover having "skeleton files" on movers and shakers in DC makes sense. We can all understand it. A computer program that sucks up all of our cell phone calls and does word searches etc. but may or may not be able to access a specific call without direct intervention is a little more nebulous.

Understandable would be the NSA is copying Jane's sexting photos to Joe and pinning them up on the wall in the break-room. That is the kind of thing that people understand.

The rest? People's eyes glaze over except for a few percentage points of the savvier younglings who start screaming Big Brother. Since that sub-group is the same subgroup that thought Napster's piracy was cool, they don't necessarily convince a lot of others.

[Beskar]

Snowden, to all appearances, wants to blow the whistle on the NSA. It's illegal, but that is sometimes true in whistleblowing instances. He chose to run rather than to face the music domestically. Cannot find myself lauding him for that. He will now live in exile. His choice.

You know he cannot 'face the music' right, as his case would be done behind closed doors due to national secrets. Maximum exposure involved running so he can be heard than simply silenced and locked away within the court system.

Unless you suggest a martyr for a martyr's sake.

[Fisherking]

Watching firelogs burn? Nah, that was boooooring. The full weekend dedicated to knitting, however.....

Anyway. Snowden is doing a whole bunch of interviews. Basically, every news source in Europe is doing their own. Why would the US media show all of them? He's basically saying the same thing in all of them, so how is it interesting?

Just so you have a clearer picture the in Utgard, the US news is that the US media ignored it.

The only interview they are aware of the ARD/NDR interview which is also the only one that seems to get any hits on web searches. It is available in several languages, however. So perhaps it is one and the same as all these mass interviews you are eluding to.

Unless you have something through your tin hat that no one else knows.

[HoreTore]

Just so you have a clearer picture the in Utgard, the US news is that the US media ignored it.

The only interview they are aware of the ARD/NDR interview which is also the only one that seems to get any hits on web searches. It is available in several languages, however. So perhaps it is one and the same as all these mass interviews you are eluding to.

Unless you have something through your tin hat that no one else knows.

If you believe this to be his only interview, you should really pay more attention to what's happening in the world.

EDIT: From the top of my head, he has given interviews to the Guardian and the Washington Post. So much for a US media blackout of Snowden, eh?

The big question is, did he say anything revolutionary different to the Nazi's than what he told the Post a little over a month ago? The surprising answer is:

Nope.

I wonder why the media doesn't bother to report on the same thing twice?

[Husar]

The big question is, did he say anything revolutionary different to the Nazi's than what he told the Post a little over a month ago?

They're not Nazis, put down your tinfoil hat.

And "Nazi's" is genitive singular, you could at least get the grammar right.

[Montmorency]

the media doesn't bother to report on the same thing twice?

*guffaws*

[Fragony]

Frags got a shed full, you should ask him if you can borrow some.

Oh shoo ;)

It's just true that media ignore what doesn't suit them. Media = ministry of truth

[Sarmatian]

I find myself underwhelmed by this particular instance of inefficient reportage by the media.

Snowden, to all appearances, wants to blow the whistle on the NSA. It's illegal, but that is sometimes true in whistleblowing instances. He chose to run rather than to face the music domestically. Cannot find myself lauding him for that. He will now live in exile. His choice.

The whole thing boils down to freedom versus security. At what point is security too costly in terms of the loss of freedom. In this electronic age, I am not sure that we're all familiar enough with the technology to really grasp what was going on.

Hoover having "skeleton files" on movers and shakers in DC makes sense. We can all understand it. A computer program that sucks up all of our cell phone calls and does word searches etc. but may or may not be able to access a specific call without direct intervention is a little more nebulous.

Understandable would be the NSA is copying Jane's sexting photos to Joe and pinning them up on the wall in the break-room. That is the kind of thing that people understand.

The rest? People's eyes glaze over except for a few percentage points of the savvier younglings who start screaming Big Brother. Since that sub-group is the same subgroup that thought Napster's piracy was cool, they don't necessarily convince a lot of others.

I'm really amazed how it came to this view. Unlike us euroweenies, who demand that our governments guarantee our "freedom to" do something, you Americans always prided yourself on your "freedom from" government meddling. Bill of rights ought to protects your rights. Isn't that why you have the 2nd amendment? Isn't that why you supposedly keep arms?

The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed. It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.

Well, if nothing else, it proves that those keeping their private arsenals in their basements or attics do it because they think their penis grows proportionally with increase in firepower, not because they want to protect their rights and freedoms.

[HoreTore]

They're not Nazis, put down your tinfoil hat.

And "Nazi's" is genitive singular, you could at least get the grammar right.

"Nazi" is a synonym for no.

And the word should always be spelled wrong, so as to attract grammar nazis.

[Fisherking]

I'm really amazed how it came to this view. Unlike us euroweenies, who demand that our governments guarantee our "freedom to" do something, you Americans always prided yourself on your "freedom from" government meddling. Bill of rights ought to protects your rights. Isn't that why you have the 2nd amendment? Isn't that why you supposedly keep arms?

The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed. It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.

Well, if nothing else, it proves that those keeping their private arsenals in their basements or attics do it because they think their penis grows proportionally with increase in firepower, not because they want to protect their rights and freedoms.

Most Americans are not going to get worked up about anything unless the talking heads tell them to get worked up about it.

Stories or innuendos about Snowden working for the Russians or Chinese. Stories to make him look small or a crackpot. Unpatriotic.

Whistleblowers often get maligned. The fact that they often are charged recently under the Espionage Act is meaningless to the uninformed.

Don’t you know, people are supposed to be upset about Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus and just trust the government to do what is best for the people. After all, spying on the whole world is just to try and catch the bad guys, don’t you know.

When they need to get upset the News Man will let them know.

[Montmorency]

Nah.

The fact is, it's the other way around: the media don't report extensively on the subject (at this point) because not only is it a much more difficult thing to report on than "Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus", but the American public just doesn't want to hear about it. The people who do want to hear about it are already going to sources that oblige them, so why would major outlets invest any resources in bringing them into the fold - when everyone else is already tuned in?

[rvg]

The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed.

And many were. Rand Paul being the most notable one of the Tea Party types, he was absolutely furious.

It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.

Snowden is a bad guy not because he revealed what he did, but because he ran away. By running away he totally ruined his credibility and goodwill with the masses.

Well, if nothing else, it proves that those keeping their private arsenals in their basements or attics do it because they think their penis grows proportionally with increase in firepower, not because they want to protect their rights and freedoms.

Well duh. Biggest penis == instant win in Life.

[Husar]

What I don't quite get is why America only accepts dead people or comic characters as heroes.

IMO someone who does something heroic and lives on to do even more heroic things is a better hero than someone who dies in the process.
At the very least the former hero saved one more life by saving his own.

What would have happened had Snowden stayed in the US would probably have been a death sentence and he would've had to release all of his documents at once given that he probably couldn't have done it piecemeal out of a federal high security prison. Then the press would've condensed it all into two weeks of shallow reporting before Snowden would've been officially killed as an evil traitor who aided terrorists and the US public would've cared even less about all of it...

Where exactly do I overlook the advantage of that approach?

[rvg]

Revealing more than needs to be revealed is bad for the country. Snowden originally revealed enough to show that we have a problem than needs to be solved. Had he stayed in the country, he'd be hailed as a hero and would become a minor celebrity. Case closed. Feds would not have touched him.
Instead he chose to run away and proceeded to reveal more. For what purpose? We already know there's a problem, there's no reason to continue to leak information, since at this point it does nothing short of damaging American interests. He kept leaking data purely for self-interest, i.e. creating more notoriety and fame for himself. Doing that while sitting in Moscow does not endear him to the general public. Snowden is pretty much guaranteed to be a pariah for the rest of his life.

[Fisherking]

What I don't quite get is why America only accepts dead people or comic characters as heroes.

IMO someone who does something heroic and lives on to do even more heroic things is a better hero than someone who dies in the process.
At the very least the former hero saved one more life by saving his own.

What would have happened had Snowden stayed in the US would probably have been a death sentence and he would've had to release all of his documents at once given that he probably couldn't have done it piecemeal out of a federal high security prison. Then the press would've condensed it all into two weeks of shallow reporting before Snowden would've been officially killed as an evil traitor who aided terrorists and the US public would've cared even less about all of it...

Where exactly do I overlook the advantage of that approach?

They are mainly victims of their own complacency.

That and comic book. The Hero always stands up to the bad guys and wins in the end!

Justice will prevail!

Of course none of them have any experience with the federal legal system. Justice doesn’t enter the equation.

Snowden is already tried and convicted by the press and the pundits. He would never receive a jury trial. And none of it would be in open court.

That they are naïve is an understatement.

Despite numerous experiences they continue to believe their government are “The Good Guys”.

Collectively, I have to say, my countrymen are simpletons.

As for justice;

No one who knew this was going on could go to court to stop it because it was secret and they had no standing.

When Snowden gave them the proof so that they had standing what was the result?

Dismissal!

On December 28, 2013, Judge William Pauley granted a motion to dismissed the suit. The court acknowledge that the program "vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States"
In an argument regarding the ACLU's claim that the NSA was exceeding the bounds of section 215 of the Patriot Act Judge Pauley wrote:
"The ACLU would never have learned about the section 215 order authorizing collection of telephone metadata related to its telephone numbers but for the unauthorized disclosures of Edward Snowden. Congress did not intend that targets of section 215 order would ever learn of them. And the statutory scheme also makes clear that congress intended to preclude suits by targets even if they discovered section 215 orders implicating them. It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets—including the means and methods of intelligence gathering—could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief: recipients of orders would be subject to 215's secrecy protocol confining challenges to the FISC while targets could sue in any federal district court. A target's awareness of section 215 does not alter the Congressional calculus. The ACLU's statutory claim must therefore be dismissed."

Old stuff: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...the-free-.html

And what has changed?

Nothing! A few promises to reform and a little bit of show.

And I guess that makes it ok.

[Greyblades]

To every person on this thread that says Snowden is a traitor/coward/narcisist/whatever for running away once he blew the whistle, I would like you to consider what the American government has done over that last, oh, 70 years:
It has repeatedly censored, oppressed and persecuted people because of their skin colour, country of origin, sexuality or ideology.
It has constantly screwed over it's own lower class for half baked reasons, put downs ranging from repeated attempts to undo healthcare reforms to actively spreading deadly chemicals over it's own slums just to see what happens.
It has put dictators, warlords, extremists in power in several different countries for petty ideological reasons.
It has tried and occasionally succeeded in assassinating people, great and small, for said ideological reasons.
It has used a national tragedy as an excuse to send thousands of men and women to thier deaths in a war with one of their own warlords, who was unrelated to said event, all to secure materials it already has.
It has killed millions over the world in futile attempts to restrict narcotics, half of which are no more deadly or addictive than alcohol and tobacco and the other half have exploded in production directly due to those attempts.

You want to argue the truth, ethics or validity of each of those parts; go ahead. you want to point out that my or anyone else's government is little better; fine. But if you think that Snowden, or any American who attempts to reveal that it's own government was betraying the very principles it swears to maintain, could leave themselves in the hands of the irrational, psychopathic, unfettered and vengeful entity you call the US Government and not get silenced or even killed, you need to take a rain check.

Snowden right now has almost all of the government wanting him dead for making them look bad, and half the country wanting him lynched because the news tells them they should. The only thing we would have heard about the entire ordeal if he tried to reveal what he did without evacuating America would have been his (Quote) unfortunate suicide (/Quote)

The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed. It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.

But of course, the conservative majority know only what their conservative representatives tell them. Meanwhile their conservative representatives are too scared that if they were to follow their ideology and take issue with this it could result in a de-clawing of the governments powers. And that's all they care about. Not their convictions or ideology but how much power they get to play with when they eventually retake the white house.

Sure, they could ride the Snowden debacle and retake capitol hill 10+ years early. But really, what's the point if they don't get to keep spying on the illegals and poor people's emails? No, better to stew in their voter's ignorance until once again the slightly less conservative half of the US voting block we call "The Left" forgets how much of a complete up their previous 5 or so rises to power were and once again vote them in. Because there's no way that the people will maintain a streak of sanity indefinitely. The houses, senate, it's all theirs, they just have to wait a decade, maybe two and they get their asses back in the drivers seat without giving up a shred of the Government's invasive and all encompassing powers.

Don't believe me? Consider this, they've been trying to get rid of Obama for 6 years, sabotaging his efforts to run the country in an attempt to keep him from being reelected and now that failed they're trying to impeach him. Yet for all they've done they haven't once tried to remove any of the president's suite of powers. Sure, there's been rules lawyering and a great wringing of hands over the interpretation of what president's allowed to do, but no actual calls for removal of those powers. You'd think that if they really believed he would ruin the country they would do absolutely anything to stop him, even remove those presidential powers. Yet there hasn't been one attempt.

Funny that.