Fun fact, Snowden decided to leak to the Gaurdian over NYT because he saw the Times kill a story on Bush's warrentless wiretaps in 2006 and knew they couldn't be trusted.
The Guardian can be too left for me in some cases but I agree that they are more trustworthy. The fact that The Guardian was originally founded with sympathy to those killed by the government for demanding democratic reforms says it all.
The Guardian can be too left for me in some cases
:-/
On the Guardian’s Transphobic Centrism
The Guardian faces boycott from LGBTQIA+ journalists
Not remotely left-wing enough for my tastes.
I never knew that! Neat.
the Guardian that sold out Assange, Corbyn?.....
They are just as bad when it matters, they are controlled opposition.
The thing that I think most people don’t realize, is that American media is 100% in support of the government being “fascist” or whatever they’re doing in DC right now. And the media landscape will only become MORE divisive with the recent round of mergers featuring the Oracle people. Cause at the end of the day, the media just wants us all to hate each other. If we’re too busy hating each other; we won’t have the desire to actually organize a G strike
The shareholders who control the media directly profit off clicks on news articles. Divisive times and chaos drive clicks.
Newscorp / Paramount / Comcast DIRECTLY PROFIT FROM A CHAOTIC TRUMP PRESIDENCY.
What part of trump's government is «"fascist" or whatever» and not fascist to you? I get that you value positive action over hate, but sorry. Let's call a government that
For what it is. It's not being hateful, it's just keeping the seriousness of what's being discussed in sight.
decided not to publish to protect US troops
Bullshit, the Semafor report (arc) said they received these leaks before the operation began when it still could've been cancelled if someone put a spotlight on what they were about to do. If anything, by withholding this information from the American people and allowing this reckless operation to go forward unimpeded they helped the Trump administration put these troops in harm's way.
This was not about protecting the lives of US troops or anyone else's, this was about protecting the power of the United States government to inflict violence wherever it wants to no matter who is in charge of it or how stupid or cruel their motivations are.
It was about the press protecting themselves from any trump backlash.
The government claims it left Congress out of the loop to prevent leaks, and there was still a leak? Was Hegseth fucking around on Signal again?
All the more reason why corporate news cannot be trusted and independent media organizations are the future. We can't rely on compromised, corrupt media who have bent the knee to this administration.
This Administration, the last Administration or any Administration.
In a real Democracy the Press is an independent Pillar from both the Political Pillar and Judicial Pillar, hence serving as an oversight over the other two.
This explains why in the US Politicians do whatever the fuck they want with little real pushback unless it negative affects some American Money elite or other: the Press in the US isn't at all independent.
Just reading the headlines made it obvious the MSM was in favor of this.
What they did to Manning and Assange has had an effect, I'm not saying that journalists shouldn't take more courage, but I understand their fear
Manning leaked classified material she had taken an oath to protect, Assange published classified material without any vetting or redaction of sensitive material (like names of contacts).
Neither are really relevant to the NY Times or WaPo showing us once again that they are not really interested in holding power accountable to the public interest.
Iirc, the press (the Guardian) and not Assange leaked it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assange%27s_War_on_Secrecy
Assange was convicted via plea deal under the Espionage Act that he had disclosed national defence cables to the public.
I don't want to get bogged in the weeds on the whole back-and-forth regarding who blames who for how the cables were published in full because multiple parties blame each other, and it's not really relevant to my point that this is not at all the same situation the WaPo or NYT found themselves in. They had a leak from a credible source that the current US president was about to command an illegal attack and extradition on Venezuala and Maduro.
They chose not to publish any information at all because it may forewarn Venezeula, thereby potentially impacting US troops if they ignore the leak and proceed anyway, thus deciding for the US public that the information is not in their public interest and keeping it from them. I think it is more than obvious that the information would have been of enormous public value and could have averted this whole dilemma. It is very likely they did this at the direction of the Trump administration.
It's worth noting that the NYT did exactly the same thing about the illegal NSA wiretapping program back in 2004. They knew GW Bush's admin was breaking the law and spying on the entire US public (via whistleblowers releasing data to them), but sat on their release at the direct requests of the Whitehouse, allowing Bush to secure his second term in Nov 2004, publishing multiple articles supporting and defending the Patriot Act and warrantless surveillance in the interim, and only finally releasing the article in late 2005 well over a year after they first had the story ready to go - and only because one of their reporters was sick of fighting for editorial management to allow the story to go out, and was instead publishing it on his own in a book.
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2F2008%2F03%2Ftimes-reporter%2F
The US establishment media choose presidents. Fuck 'the public interest'.
There is always an excuse, a difference that makes that case special and not the norm, if you really believe that if Trump wants to kill a journalist he will not find a way for him to end up behind bars, you have not found out what this administration is about
If it was such a problem then they should have leaked the info to a big news source outside the US to avoid problems, but they didnt even do that.
Or leaked to Venezuela
You'd spent rest of your life in prison for treason doing that
People have died for a lot worse causes
Sure but it is a pretty big ask too.
Yes, the NYT is the same paper it was in 2003.
That's why oligarchs should not own media
Where is wikileaks when we need them
probably back in Moscow?
To be fair all medium to large news agencies would do this after getting treatened to be prosecuted and shut down for being "against him". Smaller ones would need to stay anonymous, and be in an equally whistleblowing position.
I think this is more of a censurship problem than a specific news agencies one.
The way you describe it, its an authoritarianism problem before anything else.
Sounds like these people need to start leaking to reputable but not yet compromised outlets like The Bulwark, Crooked Media, Majority Report, Meidas Touch, etc.
Like it's a legit concern to not put troops in danger, but you can reveal plans without revealing exact times, positions, and actions.
"Sources in DOD reveal plans for joint operation in Venezuela to arrest & expedite Maduro for trial in the US within the next 72 hours."
No way that puts any troops in danger.
Fuck the troops.
Are we really calling Kegseth’s Signal chats “Brave” now?
Crazy that The Newspaper Of Record got a scope before the Congressional "Gang of Eight" explicitly designated with intelligence oversight.
Gotta wonder how Congress will resp- oh, no. They folded. Nevermind.
That has been the case since forever.
Same in EU or UK.
Posted this yesterday:
Let’s also give recognition to the regime press doing their part with fake news trying to create the illusion that the government has fled with the purpose to instigate the Venezuelans to do a coup.
Live coverage also cheerleaded and justified the action, especially the outcome as fully legitimate.
They are afraid to publish. Not complicit or just partially or whatever. But everyone is afraid, because they know they will be attacked and they know when they'll be attacked nobody will want or be able to help them.
That's not exactly complicit.
That fear that stops them from helping others is the same fear that condemns them. I’d give them a break 80 years ago, but we know how to defeat fascism this time (solidarity, always).
That only works if they expect someone will have their back.
I'm not saying they aren't too blame, but they have been molded into whatever the media in USA is today.
I’d say that’s still compliance. They have every legal right to post that, and a history of free press. Caving to the fascist regime is compliance.
If you don’t have a press that dares to report, then what good is it?
No, no, that's exactly what complicit is.
If you have prior knowledge of an intricate and credible conspiracy to commit a crime... and you... don't do anything with that information, whereas if you had released that information, it may well have made the commission of the crime much more difficult...
Then you are complicit with the conspiracy to commit the crime, even if you're not directly involved in carrying out the crime.
If you friend knows your partner is cheating on you, and doesn't tell you... they're not complicit with the cheating per se, but they are complicit with keeping you in the dark about it.
This really isn't that complicated.
Oh, excuses? They're afraid?
Ok, sure, yep, they have reasons to be complicit, doesn't mean they're not complicit though.
Just following orders!
Unlike most everyone else, it is their job to convey news. If they are too afraid to do that, then they are indeed complicit, because they are journalists, not your average civilian.
Fear is complicity.
If you have an opportunity to act and it's your fucking job to report stories of public interest, and you choose not to - you're complicit.
Trump attacks both of them regularly already, so what are they afraid of - more name-calling? Media regulations? No. They're not afraid of journalists being imprisoned, that would be an enormous boon to their reputations. They're afraid of their owner's and executives wealth being targeted. Bezos obviously re WaPo, and the NYT is chaired and owned by a sea of corporate interests and billionaires.
The media is supposed to be the fourth estate, but in the US it's just another corporate-captured tool serving the status quo and the billionaire class.
Coercion I believe is the word used in court.
Almost like the rico case had a point
All things considered, maybe they should have sent it to NYP who would publish for the the opposite reason (tabloid publicity).
Or, yknow, any decently large foreign news outlet with no stake in the US.
About
An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.
Rules
-No pro-Trump posts or comments
-No off topic posts
-Be civil
-No trolling
-Follow Lemmy terms of service
Social Media
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
