• Conspiracy to commit journalism » Pressthink
    http://pressthink.org/2013/08/conspiracy-to-commit-journalism

    From Reuters:

    The Guardian’s decision to publicize the government threat – and the newspaper’s assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain – appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret #surveillance programs.

    This battle is global. Just as the surveillance state is an international actor — not one government, but many working together — and just as the surveillance net stretches worldwide because the communications network does too, the struggle to report on this secret system’s overreach is global, as well. It’s the collect-it-all coalition against an expanded Fourth Estate, worldwide.

    Those who would expose and oppose the security state also need good judgment. What to hold back, when not to publish, how not to react when provoked, what not to say in your own defense: alongside the forensic, the demands of the prudential. All day today, people have been asking me: why did The Guardian wait a month to tell us about, ”You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back?” Michael Calderone of the Huffington Post asked Rusbridger about that. His answer: #

    “Having been through this and not written about it on the day for operational reasons, I was sort of waiting for a moment when the government’s attitude to journalism –- when there was an issue that made this relevant,” Rusbridger said.

    That moment came after Sunday’s nine-hour airport detainment of David Miranda, partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist at the center of the NSA surveillance story.

    “The fact that David Miranda had been detained under this slightly obscure schedule of the terrorism act seemed a useful moment to write about the background to the government’s attitude to this in general,” Rusbridger said.

    Hear it? The holding back. The sensation of a political opening, through which the story can be driven. The alignment of argument with information. The clear contrast between a terror anyone can identify with — being detained for nine hours while transiting through a foreign country — and the state’s obscure use of terrorism law. These are political skills, indistinguishable from editorial acumen. In a conspiracy to commit journalism we must persuade as well as inform.

    #journalisme

  • Edward Snowden, meet Jeff Bezos
    http://pressthink.org/2013/08/edward-snowden-meet-jeff-bezos

    “In November 2010, WikiLeaks began using Amazon’s Web hosting service to leak thousands of pages of State Department cables. But the company abruptly terminated the contract within 24 hours of receiving a call from a staff member for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.”

    […]

    That’s not answering the bell for freedom of information. That’s doing what the surveillance state requires, and relying on a legalism to justify it. This is exactly the kind of behavior Edward Snowden was reacting against when he made his decision to go AWOL and reveal key documents to The Guardian and the Washington Post.

  • The Toobin principle PressThink
    http://pressthink.org/2013/08/the-toobin-principle

    « Abrogez le concept d’un #public_éclairé, réprimez votre décision de prendre une mesure aussi radicale. »

    La semaine dernière, lors de son programme CNN, Piers Morgan avait presque terminé un petit discours sur le fait qu’un mec ne pouvait pas à la fois bénéficier de la connaissance de dossiers de sécurité et cracher des informations classifiées « sur un coup de tête », quand James Risen, journaliste couvrant la sécurité nationale pour le New York Times, l’a interrompu : quels documents parmi ceux divulgués auriez-vous souhaité qu’ils ne le soient pas ? (...)

    C’était une bonne question. Piers Morgan n’a pas trop su quoi répondre.

    Quand, dans le même programme, Jeffrey Toobin du New Yorker a déclaré que le débat public sur les matériaux précédemment classifiés était « une bonne chose », mais qu’il pensait toujours qu’Edward Snowden était un criminel, Risen l’a interrompu : « Ce débat aurait été impossible sans lui », a-t-il dit.

    « La chose que je ne comprends pas concernant le climat de Washington ces jours-ci, est que les gens veulent avoir des débats à la télévision et ailleurs, mais en même temps ils veulent jeter en prison les gens qui permettent de les initier. »

    L’observation était pointue. Jeffery Toobin n’a pas trop su quoi répondre.

    ...

    #courtisans