What exactly determine's the press's release schedule? Ratings? Milking? Ad conversation stats?
No idea why everything hasn't been released yet. It also isn't bulk data like the wikileaks fiasco. Looks like NSA program specs. Redaction can't be taking this long.
Funny how Snowden is now caught between a dictator in Russia and the Western for-profit press. Probably not a good place to be. I imagine he's smart enough to have an "insurance" file which means we'll never see the real dirt on the NSA.
The slow release schedule keeps the info in the news throughout the series. If it were dumped all at once, it would be "forgotten" by mainstream media by the time writers would have time to sort thru it.
I would imagine it takes a huge amount of work to properly report these stories. It takes time authenticate the documents (you can't just assume everything you get is accurate because it supposedly came from Snowden), you have to decipher all the intelligence jargon and put the story in context. You have to make sure you don't accidentally do something that puts American intelligence people in harm's way (my understanding is Snowden's insurance file includes lists of names and biographical details of agents.)
Glenn Greenwald did an AMA on reddit a while back where he was asked similar questions:
Q: I have to ask why the leaks are piece fed to the public? Why cant it be one big release? Thanks in advance.
Glenn Greenwald:
Many reasons:
1) It's irresponsible to dump documents without first understanding them and the consequences of publication.
2) It's 100% contrary to the agreement we made with our source when he came to us and talked about how he wanted us to report on them (if he wanted them all dumped, he wouldn't have needed us: he could have done it himself).
3) It would be impossible for the public to process a huge, indiscriminate dump, and media outlets would not care enough to read through them and report them because they'd have no vested interest in doing so (that's what WikiLeaks learned long ago, which is why they began partnering with media outlets on an exclusive basis for its releases).
4) The debate that we should be having would get overwhelmed by accusations that we were being irresponsible and helping the Terrorists; in other words, it would be strategically dumb to do.
5) There are already lots of risks for people reporting on these documents; there would be seriously heightened risks for anyone involved if they were just indiscriminately dumped.
Q: Out of the ones you have deemed to be worth releasing, what percentage of the Snowden documents have you released so far?
Glenn Greenwald: As I've said many times, there are thousands of documents, and the majority of ones that should (and will) be published still remain. Large numbers of people from around the world - including me and Laura Poitras - work every day as their primary or only occupation on getting these documents vetted, understood, and reported on as soon as possible.
Comments
What exactly determine's the press's release schedule? Ratings? Milking? Ad conversation stats?
No idea why everything hasn't been released yet. It also isn't bulk data like the wikileaks fiasco. Looks like NSA program specs. Redaction can't be taking this long.
Funny how Snowden is now caught between a dictator in Russia and the Western for-profit press. Probably not a good place to be. I imagine he's smart enough to have an "insurance" file which means we'll never see the real dirt on the NSA.
The slow release schedule keeps the info in the news throughout the series. If it were dumped all at once, it would be "forgotten" by mainstream media by the time writers would have time to sort thru it.
Can you cite this? Who is making this call? Greenwald? Did he specifically claim this methodology?
I see an ironic lack of transparency here.
Perhaps they can drag this on until the next presidential election race? (Oh please say it is so!)
I would imagine it takes a huge amount of work to properly report these stories. It takes time authenticate the documents (you can't just assume everything you get is accurate because it supposedly came from Snowden), you have to decipher all the intelligence jargon and put the story in context. You have to make sure you don't accidentally do something that puts American intelligence people in harm's way (my understanding is Snowden's insurance file includes lists of names and biographical details of agents.)
That's maybe a safe guess but who is doing this? Is Greenwald specifically saying he's doing this? If so, I'd appreciate a cite.
I think there's an ironic lack of transparency here and releases come out on some arbitrary (or planned) schedule that no one is privy to.
Glenn Greenwald did an AMA on reddit a while back where he was asked similar questions:
Q: I have to ask why the leaks are piece fed to the public? Why cant it be one big release? Thanks in advance.
Glenn Greenwald: Many reasons:
1) It's irresponsible to dump documents without first understanding them and the consequences of publication.
2) It's 100% contrary to the agreement we made with our source when he came to us and talked about how he wanted us to report on them (if he wanted them all dumped, he wouldn't have needed us: he could have done it himself).
3) It would be impossible for the public to process a huge, indiscriminate dump, and media outlets would not care enough to read through them and report them because they'd have no vested interest in doing so (that's what WikiLeaks learned long ago, which is why they began partnering with media outlets on an exclusive basis for its releases).
4) The debate that we should be having would get overwhelmed by accusations that we were being irresponsible and helping the Terrorists; in other words, it would be strategically dumb to do.
5) There are already lots of risks for people reporting on these documents; there would be seriously heightened risks for anyone involved if they were just indiscriminately dumped.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_gree...
Q: Out of the ones you have deemed to be worth releasing, what percentage of the Snowden documents have you released so far?
Glenn Greenwald: As I've said many times, there are thousands of documents, and the majority of ones that should (and will) be published still remain. Large numbers of people from around the world - including me and Laura Poitras - work every day as their primary or only occupation on getting these documents vetted, understood, and reported on as soon as possible.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_gree...
Appreciate the cite. Thanks.
Interesting how the "we must vet this stuff first" ties in pretty closely with a long profitable release.
I guess it's ironic, but I'm not sure it's wrong.
Wikileaks was arguably worse. Assange embargoed documents and timed releases to maximize the political impact and to advance his narrative.