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

  •  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.

Click here for the mobile view of the site