Betraying Snowden:… [Cynical, but not odd]

Betraying Snowden: There’s a special place in journalism hell for The Washington Post editorial board by Daniel Denvir.

From the post:

There is a special place in journalism hell reserved for The Washington Post editorial board now that it has called on President Barack Obama to not pardon National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

As Glenn Greenwald wrote, it’s an odd move for a news publication, “which owes its sources duties of protection, and which — by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them — implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest.” Notably, the Post decided to “inexcusably omit . . . that it was not Edward Snowden, but the top editors of the Washington Post who decided to make these programs public,” as Greenwald added.

The Post’s peculiar justification is as follows: While the board grudgingly conceded that reporters, thanks to Snowden, revealed that the NSA’s collection of domestic telephone metadata — which “was a stretch, if not an outright violation, of federal surveillance law” — it condemns him for revealing “a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy.”

Washington Post opposition to a pardon for Edward Snowden isn’t odd at all.

Which story generates more PR for the Washington Post:

  1. The Washington Post, having won a Pulitzer prize due to Edward Snowden, joins a crowd calling for his pardon?
  2. The Washington Post, having won a Pulitzer prize due to Edward Snowden, opposes his being pardoned?

It’s not hard to guess which one generates more ad-views and therefore the potential for click-throughs.

I have no problems with the disclosure of PRISM, save for Snowden having to break his word as a contractor to keep his client’s secrets, well, secret.

No one could be unaware that the NSA engages in illegal and immoral activity on a daily basis before agreeing to be employed by them.

Although Snowden has done no worse than his former NSA employers, it illustrates why I have no trust in government agencies.

If they are willing to lie for what they consider to be “good” reasons to you, then they are most certainly willing to lie to me.

Once it is established that an agency, take the NSA for example, has lied on multiple occasions, on what basis would you trust them to be telling the truth today?

Their assurance, “we’re not lying this time?” That seems rather tenuous.

Same rule should apply to contractors who lie to or betray their clients.

Comments are closed.