Didn’t NPR used to have a reputation for stuff like journalism?
lol, is this like how they thought that the people they are after didn’t know that the three letter orgs were trying to listen to their correspondence kind of thing?
It’s disturbing enough that there is such thing as an “investment arm of the CIA.”
Snowdens revelations almost certainly changed the behaviors of certain classes of people, but here is the thing–if you know how an action will change a targets behavior, you have still won .
Seriously, the largest collection of mathematicians and spies in the world is basically playing chess (checkers maybe?) with largely self taught opponents. The US will not prevent every incident, but who in their right mind thinks from an *INT level this changes anything?
…
Other than political embarrassment, project funding, and perhaps elections of course.
Whenever you’re engaged in Snowden apologetics or promoting your fellow travellers’ apologetics, you really should included a conflict of interests disclaimer somewhere in your article. Something like:
“Xeni Jardin serves on the board of directors of Freedom of the Press, along with Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. Freedom of the Press is an organization that was created to raise money for Wikileaks when the big credit card companies cut them off. FPF’s focus was later supporting Manning and covering her trial and now spends a lot of its time engaged in boosting Snowden. Recently the org also received a grant of $350,000 from Peter Omyidar’s First Look Media.”
I included the last bit as you’re promoting a Greenwald First Look Media story here.
Joined just to make that post? Looking forward to your future posts.
NPR has effectively become part of the MSM.
I used to be a faithful listener and supporter but stopped several years ago when I noticed they were parroting rather than investigating. The decades-long right wing war against NPR has finally paid off.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Yes, NPR was culpable of sloppy journalism and should have made the disclaimer that the company whose analysis made up the focus of the piece was in fact funded by In-Q-Tel, a VC firm who’s stated goal is to be representative of the intelligence community.
At the same time, you raise an interesting point. While its clear that anyone who has read Boing Boing knows that their editorial leanings are not unbiased, I think it wouldn’t hurt and could only help if authors would disclaim any personal or professional relationship with subjects in their articles.
I guess it comes down to the presumed purpose of the content source. Do I presume that NPR should be an unbiased news provider and therefore beholden to journalistic ethics? Yes.
Do i feel the same way about Boing Boing, which I started reading years ago because i felt an affinity for their nerd-oriented content… not as much.
But then we start sliding into “are bloggers journalists?” territory…
Upon reflection, I think there’s more than just one problem. In addition to asking about the source of the allegation, it might also be helpful to ask - is it true?
If Snowden actually had the effect described, then it wouldn’t matter if the CIA or the VFW or the Girl Scouts was the source - because it’s fact, not opinion. If it’s balderdash then it rises to the level of propaganda and needs to be called out. But first I think it would be useful to get an independent assessment of whether the allegation is true, and also if it’s important.
Good point.
Also:
–a wonderful word. Brought a smile to my face despite the topic at hand.
Right?! I was stunned to hear that too. A govt agency is investing our taxes? wtf…
Actually, that is an asset for Boing Boing, not a liability. Xeni & Boing Boing represents liberty, while Recorded Future & the CIA represent tyranny.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
