Try searching CNN for "Snowden Interview" and there is NO mention of it. Same with MSNBC's search - nothing about this interview in the results.
Also, scroll down to user "Nostromo's" counter (claiming the media did cover the story) w/links and then my reply.
This kind of blatant dereliction of duty in US journalism (IMHO) presages the governments' plans for controlling the (M)essage on websites. One can only assume they have a turnkey solution to suppress submissions and comments on HN, Reddit, etc.
Support projects that attempt to combat censorship at the technological level. This is coming from someone who is working on my own* anti-censorship project. (I care more about the mission than the glory.) retroshare.sourceforge.net promises a great deal and looks OK from a mile-high view (except for mythical documentation). *check profile if interested
And see this link (German) for the explanation as to why this interview was not available in most non-German countries (including the UK) due to copyright licensing demands by the German interviewer: http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-un....
I worked in the media for umpteen years in the past. Anyone who thinks the US press colluded with the government to black out anything is flat out crazy.
We need to keep our paranoia in check. That article is B.S. — wrong on all the verifiable points. And the rest is just random guesses.
I went and checked the German news (I'm American but lived in Germany 5 years, and am still fluent) and it turns out that ARD screwed the pooch on this one: the two most respected media outlets in Germany are pissed off and have written about ARD's shoddy editing and refusal to provide easy access to the full interview. Here are my translations for the titles:
And then this article all about how ARD at first would only put the interview out with the German dubbing. Then, under pressure, ARD released it with the original sound. But, wouldn't make it accessible overseas...
The US media doesn't get a pass -- especially print media or long-form web articles on nytimes.com, etc, which shouldn't have concerned themselves with rights to video (see my response to 'nostromo'), but I was unaware of the copyright/licensing issues surrounding the interview until you brought them to light. I am more enraged by the explicit avoidance of the topic by the US media. Thanks for your comment
Thank you for taking the time to scope this out. Out of all the posts on this thread, very few people have taken the time to do the research, could be the language barrier of course.
Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.
To be fair, this being mentioned 2-3 times per channel kind of pales in comparison to when the Duck Dynasty thing happened it was on every news station nearly 24/7 for a week. I think the complaint is the amount of coverage this has been given, not whether it has been covered at all.
What adds more B.S. to all this is that the HN mods have not changed the title nor removed this blatantly false submit; even after it's been on HN for the entire day.
1) There is no blackout, 2) the US media is covering this, and 3) the general public does not care - hense it's not a major news story.
The question I ask myself is do I think that if Snowden were an enemy of an enemy (a "good" guy) of the US that this would have the same minimal media exposure?
I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play.
In any case I don't think this isolated interview is very significant in itself.
Seems like US news mainly focused on the claims about threat to his life, which was a minor point in the interview. Seems like US public is largely uninterested by the real news. Things like international industrial spying is probably too heavy topic for Americans, so the news didn't want bore the audience.
I don't think your definition of Godwin's Law matches its stated definition. However, I want your definition to get forked into its own law because it is an incredibly astute observation.
I highly recommend watching this interview, in which Snowden clearly explains his motives for doing what he did and describes the scope of the data collection carried out by the NSA and its allied foreign intelligence agencies. While I've followed this story quite extensively, this is first time I've actually watched an interview with Snowden, and I was very impressed with his intelligence, thoughtfulness, depth of knowledge and eloquence. (The interview is 30 minutes long.)
I was really disappointed at the interview. I feel like the interviewer really just spent their time throwing softballs for Snowden, instead of asking him at least some real questions (why leak things that were obviously within the domain of par-for-the-course intelligence collection? Comments on the faux outrage by Brazil, Germany, and company? Why not hit harder at intelligence services of other countries, despite the fact that he's shown that he has the knowledge?).
At the very least it would give him a platform to defend himself from the criticisms he receives (instead of preaching to the choir) and if he were to flub on a question TV stations could at least replay that all the time (no more complaining about a "blackout" due to lack of anything interesting).
I'm sorry but an interview that is basically rehashing everything said before, without even attempting to take a critical view, is not interesting
The article was fantastic and the depth of his history to serve the USA and to help the country just shows that he truly believes that what he did was for the best of the public interest.
I also liked the bit about Obama challenging him to come back to court, and his smart rebuttal.
Was this the interview where Snowden said that "not all spying is bad" and that "intelligence agencies do have a role to play"? That targeted spying programs should suffice for the needs of national intel agencies while mass surveillance is bad?
Because somehow that story didn't seem to gain as much traction. Of course, nor did it stop Snowden from leaking details on targeted spying programs too.
Nah, the time has passed for stuff like that. It's time to wait for a reset. The intelligent people tried to warn the rest of us long ago, no one cared then, fuck the rest of you now that it's too late. I'll only do anything to speed up the reset... and I doubt the rest of 'you' will be ready for that until things have once again gotten so bad that something else will needed for success.
#edit hellban request denied then, I guess. Thanks idiots, it's your site afterall.
In addition, the video has been taken down almost immediately every time it’s posted on YouTube.
AFAIK, the German company that produced the interview didn't sell the international rights to the German broadcaster, which is also why the original video is geolocked to Germany. So I'd guess it's this company that's behind the YouTube takedowns.
1) The US government has persuaded major media outlets CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, etc. to bury the interview.
2) The German media company that did the inteview is asking foreign news outlets for more money than they're willing to pay for the interview (and is protecting its copyright by having internet copies taken down).
As shown on reddit[1], this hasn't stopped a number of other news organizations from covering it, but the coverage has been very limited. In addition, Fox, MSNBC, and CBS seem to have ignored it completely. It might not be a media blackout, but this is a somewhat significant story (moreso than Bieber being arrested, which I'm certain garnered far more time, even on the political-oriented stations).
They can re-air portions of it without paying any money (fair use), right? They do it all the time. Why not this time? And why not discuss it? They discuss findings in scientific journals without reprinting the entire articles, so why not discuss a high-profile interview without re-broadcasting the entire thing?
It's the responsibility of the media to make the interview known to the public and direct the public to where they can view it (if they're not showing it directly on their network). When people talk about suppressing coverage, that to me is how they're doing it.
That 30 minute interview is greatly in the public interest.
That isn't how western government influences media in it's own country. Media know that the US government would be very unhappy about a certain story and they know that the US government is powerful and has carrots and sticks at its disposal.
A blackout ordered by the government, huh. Quite an allegation.
But don't forget to consider that rather than the American media, not a small bunch to corral easily, conspiring at the government's request not to report on something "juicy," that the media may have simply had things to cover that they felt were juicier or were perhaps spooked by the incendiary nature of the interview and engaged in self-censorship. And that it's possible American media has a different take on what's juicy and what's become old news versus foreign media.
Also consider that with the Internet it's not easy anymore to effectively create a media blackout over something not much worse than what's already been revealed by the media without repercussions. Plenty of hungry journalists looking to make a heroic name for themselves by defying such an order in the name of freedom.
Maybe it's true, but it's also pretty far-fetched, don't immediately presume it's true.
I believe this is due to stupid copyright issues, not anything particular sinister by the US media. I have approximately zero problem pirating it, so http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151
It seems clear that the virtual blackout of this insightful interview is yet another deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth from the view of the American public. The media has continually attempted to shill the official government lies about mass domestic surveillance programs, justifying them as necessary to fight the “War on Terror”, while attempting to painting Mr. Snowden as a traitor.
Say what you want about the other claims of this article, this is pretty spot-on and should be the concern of all U.S. citizens (by virtue of, y'know, citizenship). This person worked for our government, and facilitated the release of huge amounts of classified information. This is Of Interest to everyone, whether you love him or hate him.
Complete made up speculation. I'm in the UK, read & watch the news everyday, and didn't know this interview was happening. It's also the first time I've seen it mentioned online. It wasn't promoted properly. Re: YouTube takedowns - wouldn't it be the producer of the programme taking those videos down? You make it sound like the USG is removing videos from YouTube.
I'm in the UK, read & watch the news everyday, and didn't know this interview was happening. It's also the first time I've seen it mentioned online. It wasn't promoted properly.
It's news, not a brand of cereal. In theory journalists are supposed to occaisionally go and get stuff, otherwise they may as well fire them all and just get a photocopier and put marketing press releases through it. (In some papers I suspect this has already happened.)
With regards to the video not appearing on youtube and many other places.
The recording TV station that holds the rights to the interview (ARD /NRD) purposefully blocked international visitors from seeing the video through geo blocking, as they only hold distribution rights in Germany. I assume they would also force youtube to remove the video if it is uploaded to protect their copyright.
In short it is a copyright fck-up on behalf of the German TV channel that made a mistake when transferring the copyright from its subsidiary to itself. The international distribution right is now stuck somewhere in Nirvana in between the companies, which is why they aren't able to give/sell the video to other international TV stations like CNN, for them to show it.
Thanks daanlo. I understand and appreciate the concern that others have for this issue, but I wish there was less of a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to these stories. I feel like there many assumptions being made here, as responsible citizens we should be doing our own due diligence to verify the accuracy of articles like this before jumping to conclusions.
That said, we need to keep a sharp eye on the government. No doubt.
Other HNers 'dogwatcher', '_stephan', 'rdl' - have brought to light related copyright issues -- which might explain (in part) the lack of coverage on Cable media stations and have discredited the link. That said, the content of the interview was substantial and of eminent importance (newsworthy) for all US citizens.
Print media or long-form web articles on nytimes.com, etc, shouldn't have concerned themselves with rights to video (see my response to 'nostromo').
I was unaware of the copyright/licensing issues when I made the submission.
It's not news because no one cares. You guys all live in a bubble where you think this is the most important issue in the world right now. Maybe it is. But, honestly, no one cares.
The reddit comment pavanky links to (by Natedogg213) does a pretty good job pointing out the fact that this story simply isn't true, and is really just another case of lazy "mainstream media sux" claims. I'd like to add something from the other end:
Yes, it's true that this snowden interview wasn't well-reported on. It certainly wasn't blacked out, or suppressed, or whatever, but editors must not have considered it front-page material. That's because it /isn't/.
On days when HN collectively has its wits about it, we're lamenting the fact that too much journalism has focused on Snowden himself, and not enough on the important stories: what was revealed, how the NSA responded, how representatives (collectively and individually), and what the likely political future is for a reform bill. These are stories that give voters important and interesting information, and they tend to be very well covered. This interview doesn't reveal interesting new information in these areas.
[+] [-] spenvo|12 years ago|reply
Also, scroll down to user "Nostromo's" counter (claiming the media did cover the story) w/links and then my reply.
This kind of blatant dereliction of duty in US journalism (IMHO) presages the governments' plans for controlling the (M)essage on websites. One can only assume they have a turnkey solution to suppress submissions and comments on HN, Reddit, etc.
Support projects that attempt to combat censorship at the technological level. This is coming from someone who is working on my own* anti-censorship project. (I care more about the mission than the glory.) retroshare.sourceforge.net promises a great deal and looks OK from a mile-high view (except for mythical documentation). *check profile if interested
[+] [-] pavanky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
They interrupted that interview for some important breaking news.
Justin Bieber had been arrested for drag racing his car.
http://youtu.be/GH68bSJXGE8
[+] [-] gamblor956|12 years ago|reply
CNN covered the story here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/.
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/german-tv-snowden...
CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snowden-nsa-conducts-industrial-...
Fox News (AP): http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/26/german-tv-snowden-sa....
And see this link (German) for the explanation as to why this interview was not available in most non-German countries (including the UK) due to copyright licensing demands by the German interviewer: http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-un....
[+] [-] zeeed|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icantthinkofone|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogweather|12 years ago|reply
I went and checked the German news (I'm American but lived in Germany 5 years, and am still fluent) and it turns out that ARD screwed the pooch on this one: the two most respected media outlets in Germany are pissed off and have written about ARD's shoddy editing and refusal to provide easy access to the full interview. Here are my translations for the titles:
Der Spiegel "ARD relegates Snowden interview to the middle of the night" http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/ard-versendet-sno...
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ("FAZ") "The Snowden interview is going around the world ... or not? http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-...
Now, the Spiegel linked to ARD's mini-site for Snowden stuff, which claims to have the full video and full transcript in English: http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowdeninterview101.html
And then this article all about how ARD at first would only put the interview out with the German dubbing. Then, under pressure, ARD released it with the original sound. But, wouldn't make it accessible overseas...
Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/tv/ndr-veroeffentlicht-snowden-...
[+] [-] lispm|12 years ago|reply
They usually pay millions for some pictures with an ape and some prominent person, or for photos of an enhanced ass married to some other guy.
[+] [-] spenvo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3rd3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blakeja|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|12 years ago|reply
Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powertower|12 years ago|reply
1) There is no blackout, 2) the US media is covering this, and 3) the general public does not care - hense it's not a major news story.
[+] [-] foobarqux|12 years ago|reply
I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play.
In any case I don't think this isolated interview is very significant in itself.
[+] [-] cLeEOGPw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knice|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] greenyoda|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|12 years ago|reply
At the very least it would give him a platform to defend himself from the criticisms he receives (instead of preaching to the choir) and if he were to flub on a question TV stations could at least replay that all the time (no more complaining about a "blackout" due to lack of anything interesting).
I'm sorry but an interview that is basically rehashing everything said before, without even attempting to take a critical view, is not interesting
[+] [-] jpdus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 97s|12 years ago|reply
I also liked the bit about Obama challenging him to come back to court, and his smart rebuttal.
[+] [-] raldi|12 years ago|reply
How?
Edit: I found a transcript. http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html
[+] [-] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
Because somehow that story didn't seem to gain as much traction. Of course, nor did it stop Snowden from leaking details on targeted spying programs too.
[+] [-] ninjac0der|12 years ago|reply
#edit hellban request denied then, I guess. Thanks idiots, it's your site afterall.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snowden-nsa-conducts-industrial-...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/german-tv-snow...
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-snowd...
Just search "ARD snowden" on Google News. Not front page, but not hidden either.
Giving the interview right around the State of the Union probably didn't help it get any attention in the US.
[+] [-] _stephan|12 years ago|reply
AFAIK, the German company that produced the interview didn't sell the international rights to the German broadcaster, which is also why the original video is geolocked to Germany. So I'd guess it's this company that's behind the YouTube takedowns.
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-were-watching-sunda...
but obviously cannot rebroadcast the interview unless ARD gave permission.
AP also mentions it http://bigstory.ap.org/article/german-tv-snowden-says-nsa-al...
[+] [-] jobu|12 years ago|reply
1) The US government has persuaded major media outlets CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, etc. to bury the interview.
2) The German media company that did the inteview is asking foreign news outlets for more money than they're willing to pay for the interview (and is protecting its copyright by having internet copies taken down).
[+] [-] sb057|12 years ago|reply
[1]http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...
[+] [-] Joeri|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glesica|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sudonim|12 years ago|reply
That 30 minute interview is greatly in the public interest.
[+] [-] foobarqux|12 years ago|reply
Who is going to poke the bear?
[+] [-] d0ugie|12 years ago|reply
But don't forget to consider that rather than the American media, not a small bunch to corral easily, conspiring at the government's request not to report on something "juicy," that the media may have simply had things to cover that they felt were juicier or were perhaps spooked by the incendiary nature of the interview and engaged in self-censorship. And that it's possible American media has a different take on what's juicy and what's become old news versus foreign media.
Also consider that with the Internet it's not easy anymore to effectively create a media blackout over something not much worse than what's already been revealed by the media without repercussions. Plenty of hungry journalists looking to make a heroic name for themselves by defying such an order in the name of freedom.
Maybe it's true, but it's also pretty far-fetched, don't immediately presume it's true.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bfhp|12 years ago|reply
Say what you want about the other claims of this article, this is pretty spot-on and should be the concern of all U.S. citizens (by virtue of, y'know, citizenship). This person worked for our government, and facilitated the release of huge amounts of classified information. This is Of Interest to everyone, whether you love him or hate him.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csmithuk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moocowduckquack|12 years ago|reply
It's news, not a brand of cereal. In theory journalists are supposed to occaisionally go and get stuff, otherwise they may as well fire them all and just get a photocopier and put marketing press releases through it. (In some papers I suspect this has already happened.)
[+] [-] daanlo|12 years ago|reply
The details as to why and how are explained in the second half of this article (unfortunately in German): http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-un...
In short it is a copyright fck-up on behalf of the German TV channel that made a mistake when transferring the copyright from its subsidiary to itself. The international distribution right is now stuck somewhere in Nirvana in between the companies, which is why they aren't able to give/sell the video to other international TV stations like CNN, for them to show it.
At least this is my legal understanding of the situation. You can use a proxy like zenmate and see the video here: http://m.ardmediathek.de/Edward-Snowden-interview-in-english...
[+] [-] blakeja|12 years ago|reply
That said, we need to keep a sharp eye on the government. No doubt.
[+] [-] josh_fyi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxtheman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spenvo|12 years ago|reply
Print media or long-form web articles on nytimes.com, etc, shouldn't have concerned themselves with rights to video (see my response to 'nostromo').
I was unaware of the copyright/licensing issues when I made the submission.
[+] [-] l33tbro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srl|12 years ago|reply
Yes, it's true that this snowden interview wasn't well-reported on. It certainly wasn't blacked out, or suppressed, or whatever, but editors must not have considered it front-page material. That's because it /isn't/.
On days when HN collectively has its wits about it, we're lamenting the fact that too much journalism has focused on Snowden himself, and not enough on the important stories: what was revealed, how the NSA responded, how representatives (collectively and individually), and what the likely political future is for a reform bill. These are stories that give voters important and interesting information, and they tend to be very well covered. This interview doesn't reveal interesting new information in these areas.
[+] [-] zeeed|12 years ago|reply
https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en
[+] [-] wismer|12 years ago|reply
http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-vaccine-court-and-autism/