The mud-slingers and paid character-assasinators of the world call themselves journalists, and the real journalists go by the names of assange, and greenwald.
You'd be surprised how many of our officials are elected solely on the basis of mud-slinging and character-assassinating. Presidential elections are notably limited to "he's better than the other guy."
"Would you have preferred McCain over Obama in '08? No? Then shut up."
"Would you have preferred Romney in '12? No? Then shut up."
This is the beginning of the predictable blowback from the tactics against The Guardian.
Everyone within the United States press is now starting to realize that they could be potential targets in future leak prosecutions. Watch as they push back, hard.
Except that it seems a lot of those in the press are actually against the leaks, and against the press that report upon the leaks. They have good relations with their government 'sources' and want to protect that relationship.
I think they should just leave 'independent' journalism and just sign on the government payroll as PR reps.
I'll make it easy for you: those arguing against leaks are not real journalists. If they were real investigative journalists, they'd know the importance of leaks.
That's true for people arguing against all leaks, not for people arguing against these leaks.
Many people think Manning was irresponsible in leaking what he did - I'm a supporter of his, and even I do to an extent.
On the Snowden/NSA side, I'm completely on his side, and think his leaking was a great thing to do. But that's still subjective. It's perfectly possible to hold the opinion that the NSA is doing the right thing, and that Snowden was wrong to leak it, without being against the concept of leaks.
edit: in fact they outright say it in the article, except the opposite way:
"The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald is one of distaste — that they aren’t what we think of as real journalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of us in traditional media. They are, as one says, not like us."
This is honestly shocking to read in the nyt. I've been commenting to my friends that the nyt has been going down hill over the last couple of years, but this is kind of absurd. The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.
I'm a bit confused by your comment. What is shocking about the author's observation of those against the leaks? Are you shocked the observation came from someone in the NYT, or are you shocked that "real journalists" actually hold those beliefs in the first place?
> The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.
I also don't think anyone is saying this, specifically, even the targets of the author's criticism. It seems more that there are a few that are against the means of the message, rather than the message itself. That sounds crazy, but it's likely a self-interested tactic to keep their lines of information open (insert "Government PR employee comment" here). Or maybe they genuinely believe classified leaks are dangerous, which I'm sure can be true but I'd like to think they would have a little perspective on where the real danger lies.
Of course there are also a few who probably think the domestic spying is a net positive so it was morally wrong to reveal anything, and shame on them.
[+] [-] enry_straker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
"Would you have preferred McCain over Obama in '08? No? Then shut up."
"Would you have preferred Romney in '12? No? Then shut up."
Ad nauseum.
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] s_q_b|12 years ago|reply
Everyone within the United States press is now starting to realize that they could be potential targets in future leak prosecutions. Watch as they push back, hard.
[+] [-] nekopa|12 years ago|reply
I think they should just leave 'independent' journalism and just sign on the government payroll as PR reps.
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corin_|12 years ago|reply
Many people think Manning was irresponsible in leaking what he did - I'm a supporter of his, and even I do to an extent.
On the Snowden/NSA side, I'm completely on his side, and think his leaking was a great thing to do. But that's still subjective. It's perfectly possible to hold the opinion that the NSA is doing the right thing, and that Snowden was wrong to leak it, without being against the concept of leaks.
[+] [-] farrel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scoofy|12 years ago|reply
edit: in fact they outright say it in the article, except the opposite way:
"The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald is one of distaste — that they aren’t what we think of as real journalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of us in traditional media. They are, as one says, not like us."
This is honestly shocking to read in the nyt. I've been commenting to my friends that the nyt has been going down hill over the last couple of years, but this is kind of absurd. The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.
[+] [-] HelloMcFly|12 years ago|reply
> The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.
I also don't think anyone is saying this, specifically, even the targets of the author's criticism. It seems more that there are a few that are against the means of the message, rather than the message itself. That sounds crazy, but it's likely a self-interested tactic to keep their lines of information open (insert "Government PR employee comment" here). Or maybe they genuinely believe classified leaks are dangerous, which I'm sure can be true but I'd like to think they would have a little perspective on where the real danger lies.
Of course there are also a few who probably think the domestic spying is a net positive so it was morally wrong to reveal anything, and shame on them.