
War on Leaks Is Pitting Journalist vs. Journalist - joshfraser
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/business/media/war-on-leaks-is-pitting-journalist-vs-journalist.html?ref=mediaequation&_r=1&
======
enry_straker
The mud-slingers and paid character-assasinators of the world call themselves
journalists, and the real journalists go by the names of assange, and
greenwald.

~~~
ihsw
You'd be surprised how many of our officials are elected solely on the basis
of mud-slinging and character-assassinating. Presidential elections are
notably limited to "he's better than the other guy."

"Would you have preferred McCain over Obama in '08? No? Then shut up."

"Would you have preferred Romney in '12? No? Then shut up."

Ad nauseum.

------
s_q_b
This is the beginning of the predictable blowback from the tactics against The
Guardian.

Everyone within the United States press is now starting to realize that they
could be potential targets in future leak prosecutions. Watch as they push
back, _hard_.

~~~
nekopa
Except that it seems a lot of those in the press are actually against the
leaks, and against the press that report upon the leaks. They have good
relations with their government 'sources' and want to protect that
relationship.

I think they should just leave 'independent' journalism and just sign on the
government payroll as PR reps.

~~~
s_q_b
There's a complex symbiotic relationship between the government and high level
journalists, especially with regard to national security issues.

It's not simply that they're government shills. Rather, there's a strong
appreciation for the sensitivity national security stories inherently possess
amongst traditional journalists. Often, these stories could cause war, regime
collapse, and loss of life in ways remote and unconsidered by the journalist.

The ad-hoc system worked out by United States media outlets is to approach
government officials prior to publication of certain sensitive stories. If
anything could seriously damage national security or cause immediate loss of
life, the officials will lobby the newspapers to remove certain pieces of
information.

In most circumstances, journalists only agree to these edits when there is
both immediate danger to specific persons, usually military or intelligence
assets, that would be caused by the information, _and_ the information
requested to be redacted is ancillary to subject of the story.

The reason so many in the media have had a viscerally negative reaction to
Assange and Snowden is that they completely ignored this delicate back and
forth, skipping straight to full scale publication. In essence, they did not
follow the media establishment's rules for responsible journalistic
disclosure.

The actions taken against The Guardian by the UK government marked a real sea
change in the way the United States media is treating this story. Going after
Greenwald? Sure, he was fair game, just a blogger with little to no editorial
oversight from the paper that bore his brand.

But The Guardian is a full-fledged newspaper, and most certainly not fair
game. United States journalists are now scared stiff. Smashing those hard
drives suddenly invoked the narrative of attempted control and oppression that
every professional journalist had drilled into them for years at university.

The blowback was immediate, swift, and severe. The New York Times, Wall Street
Journal, and Washington Post all plastered stories to their front pages about
Miranda's detention within a few minutes. Overnight editors shifted their
attitudes, and opinion pieces like this one spiked. Most significantly, The
New York Times is now spearheading a series of stories based upon the Snowden
disclosures, which will likely become the definitive investigation. This shift
will take time to trickle down, since American establishment journalism is
very elite-mediated, but the impact will be massive.

~~~
grey-area
_The reason so many in the media have had a viscerally negative reaction to
Assange and Snowden is that they completely ignored this delicate back and
forth, skipping straight to full scale publication. In essence, they did not
follow the media establishment 's rules for responsible journalistic
disclosure._

That's not really true of Greenwald working with the Guardian, the Guardian
editors have run each story past the authorities prior to publication,
according to Alan Rusbridger and Janine Gibson. And the stories have been
heavily redacted by them and Greenwald. I think they've been quite
responsible, and Greenwald certainly has had editorial input from the
Guardian, and is far from the only reporter there on this story, I think I've
seen at least 10 other bylines. See this interview with Charlie Rose for
details from the editors on their process:

[http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdzzZB7Xgo](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdzzZB7Xgo)

I think it's more that the traditional press sense the end of an era and with
it a huge erosion of their power and prestige - their monopoly on news is
simply vanishing, and that creates some hostility to these upstarts who don't
understand the rules of the game like Greenwald, wikileaks bloggers etc. and
who are willing to completely forgo any access to government sources, and thus
are in many ways more independent than the White House press pool.

It'll be great to see the nytimes running with this now that the guardian is
giving them access, they did a really detailed synopsis of the story so far
anchored on Laura Poitras recently which is really worth reading. I'm also
really interested to see what she does with her film, perhaps it'll come out
just in time for the elections!

~~~
s_q_b
Good points, I hadn't realized how involved the Guardian's editors had been in
Greenwald's recent stories, especially since he retained sole editorial
control over his publications in the past.

The way my friends in the journalistic world have explained it me was in terms
of "breaking unwritten rules." The anti-leaker reaction seems very extreme for
simple sour grapes, although I suppose it isn't wise to underestimate the
reactionary posturing of an industry in decline. I have heard pretty detailed
confirmation that the recent events at the Guardian have really altered the US
press's attitude thus far.

It's odd to me they didn't redact the program codenames. Since the codenames
are legal to know, as long as you don't say the underlying program to which
they refer, they're commonly plastered all over unclassified presentations.
Once you know the underlying technology, the combination of codename and
context gives away a lot of information.

I've seen people spidering based upon the program names that were leaked so
far. With a little bit of googling and clustering of results, they can figure
out which programs relate to e.g. upstream collection.

That seems like a bonanza for hostile intelligence agencies, especially since
they can add all of those codenames to KWS, and wait until someone
accidentally slips and describes them in an open channel.

------
devx
I'll make it easy for you: those arguing _against_ leaks are not real
journalists. If they were real investigative journalists, they'd know the
importance of leaks.

~~~
corin_
That's true for people arguing against _all_ leaks, not for people arguing
against _these_ leaks.

Many people think Manning was irresponsible in leaking what he did - I'm a
supporter of his, and even I do to an extent.

On the Snowden/NSA side, I'm completely on his side, and think his leaking was
a great thing to do. But that's still subjective. It's perfectly possible to
hold the opinion that the NSA is doing the right thing, and that Snowden was
wrong to leak it, without being against the concept of leaks.

~~~
sophacles
I don't get it - How does the decision process of what leaks are OK go?
Ultimately that's a paternalistic "I know better what's right" type approach.
It also has a lot of "security by obscurity" type of arguments builtin.

I think a better approach would be to get a minimal set of "we agree this
should be secret" approach and have everything else be open or leak-able.
Support for what a group is doing should not depend on it being unknown, such
support seems weak and abusable.

------
farrel
Journalist vs. Hack

------
scoofy
I think they mean "Journalist" vs. Journalist.

edit: in fact they outright say it in the article, except the opposite way:

"The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at Mr. Assange and Mr.
Greenwald is one of distaste — that they aren’t what we think of as real
journalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of
leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of us in traditional media.
They are, as one says, not like us."

This is honestly shocking to read in the nyt. I've been commenting to my
friends that the nyt has been going down hill over the last couple of years,
but this is kind of absurd. The idea that some how recording everyone's
communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is
really sickening.

~~~
HelloMcFly
I'm a bit confused by your comment. What is shocking about the author's
observation of those against the leaks? Are you shocked the observation came
from someone in the NYT, or are you shocked that "real journalists" actually
hold those beliefs in the first place?

> The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in
> iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.

I also don't think anyone is saying this, specifically, even the targets of
the author's criticism. It seems more that there are a few that are against
the means of the message, rather than the message itself. That sounds crazy,
but it's likely a self-interested tactic to keep their lines of information
open (insert "Government PR employee comment" here). Or maybe they genuinely
believe classified leaks are dangerous, which I'm sure _can_ be true but I'd
like to think they would have a little perspective on where the real danger
lies.

Of course there are also a few who probably think the domestic spying is a net
positive so it was morally wrong to reveal anything, and shame on them.

~~~
scoofy
I think i understand what you are saying. Let me rephase...

That the likes of Gregory and Toobin are acting as they are is disheartening.
Suppose David Gregory had been put in the position of Greenwald. I realize he
was probably given his position as a "readjustment" from his predecessor, and
perhaps he feels the need to play that role, but what kind of self respecting
journalist would sit on the story that every american was having every
communication recorded and saved. It seems a bit shocking, and frankly,
unbelievable that one would pass up an almost certain pulitzer because... not
even sure why.

