Skip to main content

View Diary: Whoa: New York Times Now Has Snowden Docs Carried By Secret Courier into the US (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The internal audit came from Snowden. (21+ / 0-)

    The Post article about it cites Snowden as the source:

    The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance.
    People keep saying that Snowden "only" gave the Post this or that, but I believe that he provided them with the same documents as they gave to the Guardian.  Snowden went to the Post first, btw.
    •  Yeah I realize that but I don't think he (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jaimas, truong son traveler

      gave them all the docs, just those two things. Otherwise they would have published more, don't you think? The Guardian has been consistently putting out stories based on Snowden's files.

      •  No I don't think that they would have (14+ / 0-)

        published more, at all.  Neither the Post nor the Guardian are going to do a wikileaks data dump.  Both are going to vet everything before publishing and sometimes that project takes time - months and even years - that's the thing about investigative journalism - it takes time and money to find corroborating sources and independent verification of whatever they are given.  None of this is strange or abnormal.

        If you want a somewhat accurate account of how the process working try watching "All the President's Men" - The Watergate stories came out over a very long period of time in drips and drabs - the movie doesn't really show how long they worked that story, but it gives an idea of how hard it can be to find people who are willing to verify information - and the internal battles that tend to go on within the media outlet itself.  

        •  This article seems to suggest that Greenwald (9+ / 0-)

          and Poitras are in fact the only ones who have complete sets. The Guardian itself doesn't even have all the documents, according to this.

          Poitras and Greenwald are an especially dramatic example of what outsider reporting looks like in 2013. They do not work in a newsroom, and they personally want to be in control of what gets published and when. When The Guardian didn’t move as quickly as they wanted with the first article on Verizon, Greenwald discussed taking it elsewhere, sending an encrypted draft to a colleague at another publication. He also considered creating a Web site on which they would publish everything, which he planned to call NSADisclosures. In the end, The Guardian moved ahead with their articles. But Poitras and Greenwald have created their own publishing network as well, placing articles with other outlets in Germany and Brazil and planning more for the future. They have not shared the full set of documents with anyone.

          That would make a certain amount of sense, since Greenwald and Poitras were the ones who travelled to Hong Kong and met Snowden in person, where he probably passed along the data.

          •  The Times article says nothing about (5+ / 0-)

            what Snowden's relationship with Barton Gellman of the Washington Post is.

            It exclusively covers Greenwald and Poitras.

            •  OK fair enough, but I think it would be (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eyesbright, Don midwest

              accurate to say that it's never been reported anywhere that Gellman has the entire set of files.

              My understanding is that Snowden contacted Gellman, sent him the Powerpoint and made certain demands that the whole thing be published. Since Gellman wouldn't go along, Snowden stopped working with him and shortly afterwards arranged the meeting with Greenwald and Poitras in Hong Kong. Given the sensitivity of the data, it makes sense that he might have only passed along the full set of docs in person.

              You could still be right of course and maybe there's more we don't know, but that's what has been publicly reported.

              •  Gellman is much more of an old-style (4+ / 0-)

                investigative journalist with a very long resume and history reporting on intelligence and military.  Greenwald and Poitras actually are very green and also "new-style" in that they are willing to talk about what they are doing.

                Just because Gellman isn't screaming from the mountain tops that he has all of the files, doesn't mean he doesn't have them; and the fact is that you keep saying that he only had the prism files when he has reported at least three critical stories that I can recount including the Verizon warrant, the prism story and the NSA's internal audit.  Just because Gellman isn't bragging about what he has "to come" does not mean that he doesn't have more forthcoming.

                And not for nothing, his experience counts for a lot.  If the Post had not broken those stories, too, Greenwald and the Guardian would have easily been written off.  It is also fortunate for Greenwald that he did not just do his website thing without the guidance and backing of an established newspaper or all of this stuff would have ended up in the dustbin of conspiracy theory.  The guy definitely lacks guile - probably because he's determined and believes what he is doing is truthful, but being perceived as being truthful and credible is part of the art of getting a story told - an art that alone and without help of established media, he'd fail at, honestly.

                •  I agree that mainstream media (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Don midwest, OLinda, DSPS owl

                  does add credibility and makes it harder to shoot the messenger. On the other hand, you've seen stories like these, reported by Very Serious People, that appear in papers like the NYT and then are more or less forgotten a week or so later.

                  Whereas Greenwald has really brought a lot of energy to the story with his "one guy standing up against the establishment" storyline. It's not entirely untrue either - no one forced David Gregory to ask if he should be arrested, or for the authorities to detain his partner. So obviously some people don't like Greenwald but I think his outsider approach and willingness to engage personally has brought a lot more attention to the story than it would have received otherwise.

                  •  The mainstream media also has some (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Creosote, kurt

                    decent checks and balances in place that support their credibility - certainly not all of them as we know from experiences with people like that idiot Judith Miller and her coverage of Iraq - but the "system" that is used generally does work pretty well - it is a system that is a far cry better than a wikileaks data dump - not necessarily because what wikileaks puts out there is "untrue", but because if some story or piece of information is tested against other stories and sources and then is found to be strong enough to be published, that does lend important credibility and life to a story.

                    And FWIW, it is imperative that you read every journalist reporting on government whether or not secrets are involved with a critical eye, including someone like Greenwald.  No reporter is smart enough not to be duped at some point in their career.  The test of a good one is whether or not they admit that they were hosed.  Judith Miller was a bad one, imo, primarily because she never admitted that she had been a part of the manipulation machine.

                    Anyway, I don't require that the Post, Times or whatever traditional media outlet endorse a story to think it might be true, but I do watch to see if the reporters are following journalistic standards when they report things that are difficult to "prove" beyond their story.  Also, if you are smar, you will always watch what the response to any given story is.  To me, the government's panic over Snowden suggests that his stories are verifiably true at some level.  They really should be smarter about that, imo - lol.

                    Haven't they ever read "Hitchhiker's Guide"?  "Don't Panic."

                •  Spot On (4+ / 0-)
                  The guy definitely lacks guile - probably because he's determined and believes what he is doing is truthful, but being perceived as being truthful and credible is part of the art of getting a story told - an art that alone and without help of established media, he'd fail at, honestly.
                  I love him for that quality, and in me it inspires trust in him which I might otherwise not feel, but most people don't process things the way I do.

                  Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

                  by davidincleveland on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 05:36:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (126)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Health Care (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site