For anyone that thinks there is actually a problem here, what could the motivation or mechanism behind this "blackout" possibly be? Significant parts of the US media have been reporting pretty well on Snowden for a long time now.
The media discussion so far has centered around personal issues. Is Snowden a traitor, did he give secrets away to China/Russia, should he be assassinated, how is his girlfriend feeling, what did his father say, does he have a new job, etc. This interview puts the focus back where it should be: have intelligence agencies broken the law, have they taken justice into their own hands, have they been deceiving the executive branch, what balance should be struck between security and privacy, and so on. It also puts a human face on this man, who has never been given a chance to explain his motives.
No, this simply isn't true. Watch the front page of any daily newspaper - a large percentage of the articles are about new revelations or stories on the politics of a reform bill, and I have not seen a single one (in the last 4 months or so, when my memory is fresh) talking about Snowden personally.
This is just so much nonsense. What can they do, deny your press-pass?
so what
If the whitehouse denies access like that - cutting off some of their own ability to disseminate propaganda - the journalist can simply write on the subject anyway.
Even better, while other journalists are busy copying down the usual stuff, the "cut off" journalist can run the "government interfering with the Free Press" story. Loudly.
Denying "access" merely changes what the story will be about.
You are wrong. It's not the press pass it is access to the "unnamed high ranking official" that "leaks" you stories that sell your paper. Not only do you not have breaking stories you don't even have sourced stories. Imagine if WaPo had to write things like "the NYT is reporting...". That's a death knell.
And what do you complain about? That the government is not leaking you information anymore? That anonymous sources aren't taking your calls?
Those "anonymous sources" are included. Such sources will be glad to have important things reported on. Any that would cut you off for reporting the truth or deviating from their "story" are not a source of reliable information anyway.
What will be reported on? In a case like this, the run with the information they have.... from Snowden. If the government decides it doesn't want to tell it's side of the story (officially or unofficially through "sources"), then they let the accusations stand without a challenge.
Oh, and you may remember a time when journalists got their own information ("investigation"), instead of relying on PR offices.
I am constantly amazed how the government (and many big businesses) get away with this obvious bluff. There is simply no way they would withdraw from the public debate.
For which part? That a sophisticated, powerful entity is opposed to circumstances that will disadvantage them or that they will act to prevent other parties from causing those circumstances from occurring?
And here is quote from Pilger describing a specific admission of media manipulation by a major government:
[A former British official] described how the Foreign Office manipulated a willing media. "We would control access to the foreign secretary as a form of reward to journalists. If they were critical, we would not give them the goodies of trips around the world. We would feed them factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we'd freeze them out."
Yeah, read it. Brief mentions, parts taken out of the context?
That's supposed to NOT be a blackout?
This is one of the most discussed persons in America, a "national hero" to some, a "threat" to others, and they don't care to show the full interview itself?
They sure know how to milk other topics 24/7, with repeat showing, panels discussing them, etc...
Probably because these are mainstream news station and most people still don't know who Snowden is. And here's the kicker: they don't care who Snowden is or what he has to say. They just don't. It's a big deal for us, but it's an issue that has yet to surpass the unemployment rate and the declining economy as the chief concern for most Americans.
The result is the same -- information not getting to the people. It doesn't have to be a total lack of any news coverage for it to be a blackout.
If the intent is suppresing some news story (because lackluster coverage can also have other causes), then reduced coverage is a pretty effective way of creating a media blackout short of issuing direct censorship orders and preventing everybody from publishing anything at all.
The strategy is to control what the public discussion issues are --ie. what everybody on mass media is talking about--, not to stump every inner page single-column article or 30-second mention.
I was surprised to hear there was a blackout. The reddit commentary shows that it was picked up, albeit with lackluster coverage.
One important thing is still missing, though: Where is a link to the video that has a chance of persisting for some time? After all, this is a document of a certain historical significance, so it should be accessible.
Maybe I'm to meta-cynical, but the reason for that link not existing might just as well have something to do with a copyright-fuckup instead of an intelligence agency conspiracy.
Thank you and thanks also to the good people at archive.org.
The whole situation makes more sense now, given those links. I also just remembered that the original video of the interview was region-locked for Germany (where I live) on youtube, so residents of non-Germany recieved a "blocked in your country" message. Smells like somebody badly misjudged and sold territorially limited broadcast rights for the interview.
"
403 Forbidden
Request forbidden by administrative rules.
"
Found the comment by truncating the URL back to the main thread, though. Not sure why the direct URL to /cf1801o is being denied.
[back on topic]
Yah, the video, while not the usual "lets all copy/paste the AP or Reuters story as many places as possible", there HAVE been a bit of coverage.
If we're taking about suppressed stories, I'm still amazed at the utter lack of coverage of Binney/Drake's [1] amazing open letter to the president[2] that was published on Jan 7. Part of me wants to blame it on short attention spans and the usual celebrity worship; it only involves the OTHER whistleblowers, pre-Snowden, so I guess nobody cares.
I was able to find a very minor mention on Huffington Post in the week after it was published, and a few video interviews by Reason of Binney trying to promote the letter, and... that's it. (not counting the handful of "personal blog"-style articles that covered the story, of course)
1: signatures also include Loomis, Wiebe, McGovern, Ellsberg, ...
2: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/
errr - how much of that linked open letter is true. It states that NSA insiders had evidence that 9/11 attackers were monitored by NSA, calling AlQueda safe houses from the US to Yemen and shared nothing about it. and this was buried / covered up.
The EFF has been supporting these former NSA agents' whistleblowing efforts for a while now. Also, Ellsberg - author of the Pentagon Papers - has signed it in support.
While it's not a character reference, it is worth observing that the rather dramatic efforts the NSA has gone though to threaten and prosecute these whistleblowers. You may be interested in watching this talk from 29c3 where Drake and Binney told their stories in their own words:
It's also the one that finally made this NSA mess make sense, with their description of THINTHREAD being dropped because it was too inexpensive. It's all about moving money to their contractor friends.
I hadn't heard of this letter before the parent comment's mention of it, but the names mentioned are NSA whistleblowers who might have had the knowledge and access to substantiate whatever claims they make.
Given this, the title is super link-baity. Could a moderator update the title to "30 minute Snowden interview in Germany"? I still would have clicked through.
