Not in the news

[Sarmatian]

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.

First documents appeared in June. He was charged in June. Other documents appeared after he was charged. He didn't choose Moscow, he was stranded in it. He applied for asylum in two dozen countries and was refused in all of them. He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, of all countries.

[rvg]

First documents appeared in June. He was charged in June. Other documents appeared after he was charged. He didn't choose Moscow, he was stranded in it. He applied for asylum in two dozen countries and was refused in all of them. He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, of all countries.

And? For what purpose did those other documents appear?

[Sarmatian]

And? For what purpose did those other documents appear?

Informing the public of the extent of violation of their rights and freedoms.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The goal of Snowden's revelations is to stop all NSA domestic surveillance not generated following a federal court (not the special intelligence court which is almost a "subpoena the ham sandwich" rubber stamp) warrant. Morally and Constitutionally, that is the only acceptable stance.

Perhaps Snowden's revelations would have been ignored by the powers that be in Washington, with his "appropriate" format whistle blowing going no further than a Senate subcommittee and the whole thing being hushed by a gag order. I have more faith in our elected officials than that, I grudgingly admit, but I may well be wrong.


As to getting the media to focus on this, there is not a chance. The media WOULD air the story if they could get the ratings. They cannot. The USA viewer wants entertainment and entertaining news when a disaster is happening. The state of the Union address drew maybe 11 million viewers. The Superbowl beat that by an order of magnitude. The only news programs that ever get into the top 25 (and that rarely) in a given week are 60 minutes and Fox (a huge slice of the loyal news watchers pick this cable channel over the other choices). More people watched Big Bang Theory than the State of the Union. The only reason news stays on TV is weather and the fact that it is cheap to produce.

[Pannonian]

As to getting the media to focus on this, there is not a chance. The media WOULD air the story if they could get the ratings. They cannot. The USA viewer wants entertainment and entertaining news when a disaster is happening. The state of the Union address drew maybe 11 million viewers. The Superbowl beat that by an order of magnitude. The only news programs that ever get into the top 25 (and that rarely) in a given week are 60 minutes and Fox (a huge slice of the loyal news watchers pick this cable channel over the other choices). More people watched Big Bang Theory than the State of the Union. The only reason news stays on TV is weather and the fact that it is cheap to produce.

I admit to being aware of this thread, but not caring because I was more interested in Man United's crosserama against Fulham.

[HopAlongBunny]

Maintain the "bubble"
If it is not reported-event does not exist

It reminds me of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent; a book I had to "sign" for to purchase...chilling effect?

[rvg]

Informing the public of the extent of violation of their rights and freedoms.

He didn't have to release the specifics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He didn't have to release the specifics.

But he did. He, on his own, had determined that the government would not do the right thing so he, on his own, had to insure as fully as possible that it could not occur.

[Fisherking]

He didn't have to release the specifics.

But he did. He, on his own, had determined that the government would not do the right thing so he, on his own, had to insure as fully as possible that it could not occur.

I think it is so much hype and hogwash.

The first things he released were the names of programs and laws to give standing for lawsuits.

The second round were which allies we were spying on and the phone numbers.

It is to the governments benefit to blow it out of proportions and say he ruined the security network.

Caught with their hand in the cookie jar they are pointing at the accuser.

They speculate over what he has and may have or could release.

This was not wiki leaks. All the material was targeted. No masses of files.

If you have a comprehensive list of all the evil things he put out, please show us. You might even win a convert or two.

Show us the damage!

[Sarmatian]

But he did. He, on his own, had determined that the government would not do the right thing so he, on his own, had to insure as fully as possible that it could not occur.

The interview in the OP is very informative in that regard. He explained how the only way for the public and politicians to find out is if NSA self-reports. He was torn when it came to making all of this public and he finally made a decision when the head of the NSA directly lied about it to a congress committee.

Now, you can choose to think he lied about that and that he only wanted publicity, that's fair I guess, maybe he did lie, but somehow I doubt it.

He also explained how the Five Eyes alliance work and how basically all members were doing the same thing. This isn't only about USA. There is no reason to believe that all intelligence agencies around the world with adequate funding and infrastructure aren't doing the same thing.

The big issue is how public has little interest in all of this. We're truly sheep and it appears that as long as the shepherd doesn't do something that directly affects us, we'll just happily bleat away.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I understand your point.

[HopAlongBunny]

Interesting that watching fake news can leave you better informed than watching Fox: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._informed.html

[Husar]

Interesting that watching fake news can leave you better informed than watching Fox: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._informed.html

I had this hunch that watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report kept me relatively well-informed about US politics even though they're not entirely serious shows, guess it wasn't all wrong.

[HoreTore]

Interesting that watching fake news can leave you better informed than watching Fox

Hmmm..............

[a completely inoffensive name]

We are all the public. You let silly social faux pas prevent you from contributing to the social discourse and in return you wonder why the majority of people are troglodytes that are not involved or educated in any way.

Be a little less Benjamin the Donkey in your life and see what impact you can actually have on those around you.

[Fisherking]

Sure! What is real news and what is fake news. Are they just telling you what they want you to know? Is it information or misinformation. How can you tell?

Two years ago anyone telling you the NSA and FBI was spying on citizens listening to phone calls or reading your email was just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps, if you are backward you still think that.

You are not interested because you think you have done nothing wrong, but on average everyone commits between 3 to 7 felonies everyday without them even knowing it. You may think that is just fear mongering, but it is not.

Any and every electronic device, hooked to the internet or not can be used. Even your neighborhood streetlights can be watching and recording you.

Don’t believe me, just look it up.

Around the same time Snowden was releasing his information Michael Hastings died in a car crash. Some said it was a government plot. Crazy conspiracy theory said the powers that be. It can’t be done!

Well,http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/08...-brakes-engine
Look at the date of the article Aug 13, 2010.

Recently several have documented that it can be done. Forbs Magazine for one.

Then there was the short piece about what Snowden could expect if he had stayed home to face the Feds. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson...d-snowden-dead

But why should anyone worry! They will never be a target of the government, right?

They are only looking for terrorists, after all. Only right-wingers, former military, whole foots types, second amendment activists, and about 80 or so other groups are on this governments watch list. Chances are if you aren’t on this one you will be on the next government list.

But it is all ok, America is the land of the free.

[HoreTore]

Not entirely sure who the last two posters are adressing...

[Fisherking]

On a not so different note: http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/why-is...s-in-newsrooms


It would seem the government wants more control over the stories, broadcast or printed, that you are to learn about.

But I suppose none of you really see any danger in this.

[HoreTore]

But I suppose none of you really see any danger in this.

Not really, since the paranoid blogger you linked to contained 10% truth and 90% fantasy.

Pat Robertson really is a brilliant source of objective information.

[Empire*Of*Media]

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.

exactly!
this is the most little small things you can know!! mnay even doesnt go to internet!

and thats what i've said many times but some people here only know to oppose and attack!! instead of rethink and search for more..........but they are what the world 1% and their world media wants to be.

[Tuuvi]

Not really, since the paranoid blogger you linked to contained 10% truth and 90% fantasy.

Pat Robertson really is a brilliant source of objective information.

Here is the opinion piece written by an FCC commissioner that Fisherking's link was getting its information from:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...66903828260732

[HoreTore]

Here is the opinion piece written by an FCC commissioner that Fisherking's link was getting its information from:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...66903828260732

I saw that as well, which is what made me realize just how batshit insane that blogger was.

[Tuuvi]

I didn't notice how bad the article was until I skimmed it a second time. Maybe I've lived in Utah for so long that I've become immune to Conservative hyperbole.

Either way I do think the CIN initiative is worrying. How does interviewing news broadcasters about their coverage policies help entrepreneurs enter the market? Maybe the CIN really is just an objective fact finding mission, but given how both the Right and the Left are so worried about how the media is distorting information to influence the public, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think the Obama administration or maybe the FCC on its own wants to ensure that the public has access to what Obama/FCC deem to be "critical information".

[Fisherking]

I saw that as well, which is what made me realize just how batshit insane that blogger was.

Why is it you feel compelled to lie, obfuscate and deliberately misconstrue.

As with the title of the thread, this is exactly the problem with news coverage in the US.

They are all ardently partisan.

But don’t worry. In a week or so Mother Jones will pick it up and have roughly the same take as the first link.

And as you know, it was not a blog but a civil rights organization. You can’t even read a by line.

I don’t know that I have ever seen someone as terrified of other ideas as you. Are you afraid to think for your self?

[HoreTore]

I didn't notice how bad the article was until I skimmed it a second time. Maybe I've lived in Utah for so long that I've become immune to Conservative hyperbole.

Either way I do think the CIN initiative is worrying. How does interviewing news broadcasters about their coverage policies help entrepreneurs enter the market? Maybe the CIN really is just an objective fact finding mission, but given how both the Right and the Left are so worried about how the media is distorting information to influence the public, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think the Obama administration or maybe the FCC on its own wants to ensure that the public has access to what Obama/FCC deem to be "critical information".

Why would anyone want to research how cats react to bearded men?

But we've done that, researching how news selection is done is way more useful to us.

[HoreTore]

And as you know, it was not a blog but a civil rights organization. You can’t even read a by line.

It was the blog section on the website of a conservative hack organization founded by evangelical loonie Pat Robertson, who spends most of their time challenging abortion-related issues in court.

[Fisherking]

So, who reports is more frightening to you than what is reported? How enlightened.

Perhaps this will shed more light on the problem: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

But the main cause is political bias on the part of the outlets, and apparently you.

Yes, those right-wingers are as likely to pass stupid laws or regulations when they are in power as left-wingers. But they are not in power.

The trouble is that if the administration keeps going down this path they may be. Then it would be time to see what the other side is saying.

[HoreTore]

So, who reports is more frightening to you than what is reported?

The quality of the source is vital when judging the reliability of the information, yes.

[Tuuvi]

Why would anyone want to research how cats react to bearded men?

But we've done that, researching how news selection is done is way more useful to us.

Yes it's useful but why does it need to be done by a government agency tasked with regulating the airwaves? Clearly there's potential for abuse.

[Fisherking]

that is just his way