There seems to be growing or steady discontent with the way a select group of committed and professional journalists have handled the National Security Agency documents from former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden. Whether the discontent is motivated by genuine concern about whether the files are having the impact they should or by an ideological opposition to the process in which the material is being published, that is hard to tell when engaging with some who are bothered.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Wednesday December 4, 2013 8:45 am|
|By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday December 3, 2013 2:10 pm|
Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger appeared before a British parliamentary committee to answer questions on how the media organization had handled the publication of National Security Agency documents from former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The invitation to appear before the committee seemed to be part of an escalation in attacks on the Guardian since it began to publish stories on NSA documents, especially the NSA’s partnership with the UK spy agency, GCHQ.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday December 3, 2013 1:15 pm|
In moments, a parliamentary hearing before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee will begin where Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger will be subjected to questioning for his role in publishing journalism on documents from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
The scheduled testimony has provoked outrage among press freedom groups. Particularly, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) in the United States sent a letter to the committee that was signed by the Associated Press, American Society of News Editors, McClatchy Company, New York Times Company, New Yorker, Washington Post and others.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Friday September 27, 2013 9:26 am|
At a hearing convened by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chair of the committee, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, ensured that a second round of questions would not be asked of the distinguished witnesses present—NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Assistant Attorney General James Cole.
|By: CTuttle Friday August 16, 2013 7:00 pm|
Now, besides McCain and Graham demanding a halt, it seems Leahy is also calling for cuts…\
|By: CTuttle Tuesday August 13, 2013 6:12 pm|
I’ve been covering the Israel/Palestine for well over a decade now and one would think I’d be inured to the farcical actions by now…! But, once again, my jaw hit the desk with this bit of news…
|By: cocktailhag Thursday June 6, 2013 8:00 pm|
While it’s certainly no surprise to find that the government has turned to yet another corrupt monopoly to carry out its dirty work against ordinary citizens, I seriously question the quality of their co-conspirator, Verizon. If we are going to have a lawless corporate behemoth shoveling our personal data, or rather, in the parlance du jour, “meta” data, into the insatiable maw of the new police state, wouldn’t it be nicer if the company were also capable of performing its core function adequately?
|By: spocko Sunday July 15, 2012 1:59 pm|
Reading Dial M for Murdoch by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman gave me the same feel as watching the movie Apollo 13. I knew the ending. I knew some broad strokes. News of the World, a Murdoch paper, got caught hacking the phone of a missing girl, they got busted. Some cops were involved, News International got caught covering it up and decided to shut down News of the World. People were paid off, some Murdoch executives went to jail, some powerful political aids and police resigned and then Murdoch got a pie in the face while testifying.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Monday July 18, 2011 7:27 am|
Murdoch-owned papers are working overtime to defend Murdoch from blowback from the phone hacking scandal. And in a recent editorial addressing the business of news and those who are criticizing members of the News Corp family, the Wall Street Journal delivers a dig against papers like The Guardian that have done business with WikiLeaks.
|By: Josh Mull Wednesday December 8, 2010 3:55 pm|
If you support Wikileaks, if you support transparency, accountability, or even just basic free speech, you should not be playing into the government’s semantic game that presents itself as a victim, and Wikileaks as an attacker. As someone who engages in journalism, as someone who engages in activism and dissent, I don’t want these things re-defined as an attack on the state.
I am not an insurgent, and neither are you. Until we realize that, until we understand the difference between journalism and war, then the government will continue to claim it’s acting in self defense.
Stop giving the government an excuse for repression. Stop calling Wikileaks “warfare”.