I see it a little differently, though I agree with your basic point about not being able to work out the whole truth from only partial information.
The reasons I'm happy to give Greenwald's NSA reporting a (qualified) pass on this are:
1) He (and a few others) are the only source of information we have on the level of surveillance we're all exposed to. Greenwald is a commentator speaking up to power, and the justification I see is that there is a basic asymmetry in that power. Without these stories, no-one would be challenging the surveillance.
Note that I'm not giving him a pass because the stories are unsupported. I'm giving him a (temporary) pass because so many have later been confirmed to be true. In essence, we need a debate on the level of surveillance a democracy will have, and without this as a catalyst, it would not be happening.
2) I suspect that a lot of these documents are highly sensitive. As much as I'd like a debate, I don't want to risk people's lives. Hence, if Greenwald produces the minimum documentation that still sparks reform, I think he's done us all a service.
Thanks for continuing the conversation - I don't think I've ever seen a thread continue on for a week here on HN. :)
I suspect that ultimately the truth lies somewhere in between the media's portrayal of the NSA and the administration's own description - there are likely privacy and/or oversight issues at play, but I don't buy the prevailing attitude that the NSA is a rogue agency that is sweeping up everything it can simply for the purpose of sweeping up everything it can.
As a journalist, any time Greenwald wants to release information he needs to evaluate what effect his reporting will have on his journalistic reputation alongside the profitability of his reporting. I think he's unlikely to ever write an article that states that the NSA is doing something beneficial to national interests - it won't bring in nearly as many readers as a story on overzealous infringing of privacy, and it could potentially call into question his previous reporting.
That's not to say that you can't have reporting that's both balanced and worth reading. I've found some of the NY Times' reporting on the NSA to be fairly interesting. In particular, "No Morsel Too Miniscule for Consuming NSA"[1], despite the sensational title, was fairly balanced; definitely not propaganda, but at the same time not falling into the trap of saying "the NSA is likely watching you, your friends and your family 24/7". They go on for 7 pages describing the NSA's problems and successes, inefficiencies, bureaucracy, etc. They manage to ask the reader to call into question privacy issues and ask whether we're getting our tax dollar's worth in terms of foreign intelligence delivered - and they managed to do it without whipping their readers into fear-driven frenzy. It astounds me that two different news agencies can look at the documents that Snowden leaked and get such different interpretations.
Comments
What a great answer! Thank you for responding :)
I see it a little differently, though I agree with your basic point about not being able to work out the whole truth from only partial information.
The reasons I'm happy to give Greenwald's NSA reporting a (qualified) pass on this are:
1) He (and a few others) are the only source of information we have on the level of surveillance we're all exposed to. Greenwald is a commentator speaking up to power, and the justification I see is that there is a basic asymmetry in that power. Without these stories, no-one would be challenging the surveillance.
Note that I'm not giving him a pass because the stories are unsupported. I'm giving him a (temporary) pass because so many have later been confirmed to be true. In essence, we need a debate on the level of surveillance a democracy will have, and without this as a catalyst, it would not be happening.
2) I suspect that a lot of these documents are highly sensitive. As much as I'd like a debate, I don't want to risk people's lives. Hence, if Greenwald produces the minimum documentation that still sparks reform, I think he's done us all a service.
Thanks for continuing the conversation - I don't think I've ever seen a thread continue on for a week here on HN. :)
I suspect that ultimately the truth lies somewhere in between the media's portrayal of the NSA and the administration's own description - there are likely privacy and/or oversight issues at play, but I don't buy the prevailing attitude that the NSA is a rogue agency that is sweeping up everything it can simply for the purpose of sweeping up everything it can.
As a journalist, any time Greenwald wants to release information he needs to evaluate what effect his reporting will have on his journalistic reputation alongside the profitability of his reporting. I think he's unlikely to ever write an article that states that the NSA is doing something beneficial to national interests - it won't bring in nearly as many readers as a story on overzealous infringing of privacy, and it could potentially call into question his previous reporting.
That's not to say that you can't have reporting that's both balanced and worth reading. I've found some of the NY Times' reporting on the NSA to be fairly interesting. In particular, "No Morsel Too Miniscule for Consuming NSA"[1], despite the sensational title, was fairly balanced; definitely not propaganda, but at the same time not falling into the trap of saying "the NSA is likely watching you, your friends and your family 24/7". They go on for 7 pages describing the NSA's problems and successes, inefficiencies, bureaucracy, etc. They manage to ask the reader to call into question privacy issues and ask whether we're getting our tax dollar's worth in terms of foreign intelligence delivered - and they managed to do it without whipping their readers into fear-driven frenzy. It astounds me that two different news agencies can look at the documents that Snowden leaked and get such different interpretations.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minusc...