
US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview - spenvo
http://benswann.com/media-blacks-out-new-snowden-interview-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#ixzz2s0BPBRUm
======
spenvo
Try searching CNN for "Snowden Interview" and there is NO mention of it. Same
with MSNBC's search - nothing about this interview in the results.

Also, scroll down to user "Nostromo's" counter (claiming the media _did_ cover
the story) w/links and then my reply.

This kind of blatant dereliction of duty in US journalism (IMHO) presages the
governments' plans for controlling the (M)essage on websites. One can only
assume they have a turnkey solution to suppress submissions and comments on
HN, Reddit, etc.

Support projects that attempt to combat censorship at the technological level.
This is coming from someone who is working on my own* anti-censorship project.
(I care more about the mission than the glory.) retroshare.sourceforge.net
promises a great deal and looks OK from a mile-high view (except for mythical
documentation). *check profile if interested

~~~
pavanky
Before you go witch hunting go read this.
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_blacks_out_snowden_interview_exposing/cf1801o)

~~~
mbateman
This should really be the top comment.

For anyone that thinks there is actually a problem here, what could the
motivation or mechanism behind this "blackout" possibly be? Significant parts
of the US media have been reporting pretty well on Snowden for a long time
now.

~~~
atlantic
The media discussion so far has centered around personal issues. Is Snowden a
traitor, did he give secrets away to China/Russia, should he be assassinated,
how is his girlfriend feeling, what did his father say, does he have a new
job, etc. This interview puts the focus back where it should be: have
intelligence agencies broken the law, have they taken justice into their own
hands, have they been deceiving the executive branch, what balance should be
struck between security and privacy, and so on. It also puts a human face on
this man, who has never been given a chance to explain his motives.

~~~
srl
No, this simply isn't true. Watch the front page of any daily newspaper - a
large percentage of the articles are about new revelations or stories on the
politics of a reform bill, and I have not seen a single one (in the last 4
months or so, when my memory is fresh) talking about Snowden personally.

------
dogweather
We need to keep our paranoia in check. That article is B.S. — wrong on all the
verifiable points. And the rest is just random guesses.

I went and checked the German news (I'm American but lived in Germany 5 years,
and am still fluent) and it turns out that ARD screwed the pooch on this one:
the two most respected media outlets in Germany are pissed off and have
written about ARD's shoddy editing and refusal to provide easy access to the
full interview. Here are my translations for the titles:

Der Spiegel "ARD relegates Snowden interview to the middle of the night"
[http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/ard-versendet-
sno...](http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/ard-versendet-snowden-
interview-vor-mitternacht-a-945657.html)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ("FAZ") "The Snowden interview is going around
the world ... or not? [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-
snowden-...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-und-
die-ard-ein-interview-geht-um-die-welt-oder-nicht-12771773.html)

Now, the Spiegel linked to ARD's mini-site for Snowden stuff, which claims to
have the full video and full transcript in English:
[http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowdeninterview101.html](http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowdeninterview101.html)

And then this article all about how ARD at first would only put the interview
out with the German dubbing. Then, under pressure, ARD released it with the
original sound. But, wouldn't make it accessible overseas...

Der Spiegel [http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/tv/ndr-veroeffentlicht-
snowden-...](http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/tv/ndr-veroeffentlicht-snowden-
interview-mit-originalton-a-945822.html)

~~~
lispm
The US media simply could have bought the rights.

They usually pay millions for some pictures with an ape and some prominent
person, or for photos of an enhanced ass married to some other guy.

~~~
ceol
Because _people want to see them._ People (as in the general public) really
don't care about yet-another Snowden interview, so news outlets aren't going
to shell out the big bucks.

~~~
throwaway2048
yet another? I beleive this is the first one

------
tptacek
Reddit takedown of this stupid blog post:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_blacks_out_snowden_interview_exposing/cf1801o)

Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but
Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with
the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.

~~~
ryguytilidie
To be fair, this being mentioned 2-3 times per channel kind of pales in
comparison to when the Duck Dynasty thing happened it was on every news
station nearly 24/7 for a week. I think the complaint is the amount of
coverage this has been given, not whether it has been covered at all.

~~~
krapp
"Blackout" implies a direct or implicit threat of violence by the government
against the media, and the media either willingly or unwillingly complying to
censor something they would otherwise cover.

The American media is in the business of selling time to advertisers, not
necessarily informing the public. Duck Dynasty is more popular than Edward
Snowden and that particular story was incredibly sensational, so it gets
covered more, so it gets more viewers, so it makes the commercial time worth
more. Conspiracies aren't necessary to explain it... it's not worth more
effort for stations than it gets.

~~~
emn13
Controversy sells. Also, crazy paranoid ravings are a time honored
entertainment tradition. I don't buy for a second that Snowden's interview is
being avoided because it's not newsworthy enough. In any case, since when did
youtube exert editorial control to bar un-entertaining videos?

This looks like real self-censorship: it's not newsworthy _enough_ to be worth
alienating people that you might want to have as your friend later on. You
still don't need a conspiracy to explain it; but it's nevertheless toxic for
democracy.

Frankly, I think self-censorship like this is much worse than explicit
censorship. At least with explicit censorship there's still some attempt to
question the party line; but with self-censorship you've lost even that.

As to the video itself, is it possible ARD simply has a copyright claim it
wishes to enforce?

~~~
krapp
I don't think the Snowden story is that controversial anymore.

>As to the video itself, is it possible ARD simply has a copyright claim it
wishes to enforce?

Maybe? Affiliates certainly aren't going to pay money for it, they'll just
take whatever feeds their parent station sends them, and if the parents aren't
willing to pay for it then it doesn't get covered in depth.

------
greenyoda
I highly recommend watching this interview, in which Snowden clearly explains
his motives for doing what he did and describes the scope of the data
collection carried out by the NSA and its allied foreign intelligence
agencies. While I've followed this story quite extensively, this is first time
I've actually watched an interview with Snowden, and I was very impressed with
his intelligence, thoughtfulness, depth of knowledge and eloquence. (The
interview is 30 minutes long.)

~~~
ninjac0der
Nah, the time has passed for stuff like that. It's time to wait for a reset.
The intelligent people tried to warn the rest of us long ago, no one cared
then, fuck the rest of you now that it's too late. I'll only do anything to
speed up the reset... and I doubt the rest of 'you' will be ready for that
until things have once again gotten so bad that something else will needed for
success.

#edit hellban request denied then, I guess. Thanks idiots, it's your site
afterall.

~~~
ninjac0der
God, someone can post 'Seriously?' and get a hellban and I cannot? Look in the
mirror you sad fucks. I still have 312 "points" from you idiots. Try harder.

~~~
StavrosK
Eh, you know, if every opposing viewpoint were banned, we'd end up with (even
more) groupthink.

~~~
ninjac0der
Better to just make them feel 'naturally' unwelcome in this sick ecosphere of
over-socialized nerds? Systems of re-enforcement like this are akin to the
worst kind of intellectual inter-breeding.

~~~
moocowduckquack
I think we should build a sick ecosphere of over-socialized nerds. In space.
We can use it for testing, umm, things.

------
nostromo
All from a few days ago:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snowden-nsa-conducts-
industrial-...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snowden-nsa-conducts-industrial-
espionage-too/)

[http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/german-tv-
snow...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/german-tv-snowden-nsa-
spies-industry-21971023)

[http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-
snowd...](http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-snowdens-
german-tv-interview/)

Just search "ARD snowden" on Google News. Not front page, but not hidden
either.

Giving the interview right around the State of the Union probably didn't help
it get any attention in the US.

~~~
spenvo
These links: a.) lip-service reporting that Snowden was-to-have an interview
or b.) reduced the lengthy talk to an inconsequential soundbite.

The NYT Blog - 3 days late, is it that hard for such a "renowned" journalistic
enterprise?

Wow! Props to the Associated Press for writing about something globally
noteworthy [sarc.] in an article that few cared to carry or - God-forbid -
elaborate upon. (ABC merely picked up the AP story.)

That's the very definition of a pathetic free press.

 _None_ of these links constitute actual coverage or equate to Cable air-time,
where millions of baby boomers develop/refine their world-views.

~~~
wismer
"Yes, but what about..." This is moving the goalposts.

~~~
cinquemb
Media reporting, on "backwater channels" (ie. Not in the 24/7 news cycle like
Beiber's latest hooker or Cyrus' latest thing twerked upon) as far as the
majority of the public is concerned, is now moving the goalposts?

"Yes probable citizen of an affected country, you may or may not have a right
to support Snowden views on the public being informed, but it is too much to
for you to complain when we don't use the powers we have to try to inform,
like how we inform the public of the most mundane of things, instead of trying
to influence public opinion."

~~~
wismer
I'm sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted the headline:

"US Media blacks out snowden interview"

as

"Only US _televised_ news sources either did not report with enough depth on
the interview, did not report on it entirely, or gave a delayed report; the
content of which is not terribly new or substantiated with evidence [1]"

One of these headlines is a short, snappier version that is considered click
bait. All this coming from a source that promotes, among other things, the
alleged (and widely debunked) link between autism/vaccines.

Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab
attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more.

Look, I support Snowden but this isn't journalism. This is hyperbole. Going to
such extremes to "fight the system", to be the counter-weight to whatever
scheming superpower there is, corrupts. So yes, I stand behind my original
accusation that this is "moving the goal-posts". The headline claims US media
blocked out the interview, but I find it rather easy to find US reports on
this bit of news online. So, to re-examine the accusation, it's not true. US
Media did _not_ black out the interview. So what now?

[1] He makes claims that the US spy agencies have been spying on corporations,
but he does not elaborate on it. This is unusual for Snowden as he usually
provides ample evidence to support his assertions. Don't you think that this
would be a bigger deal if he had supplied the evidence to go along with that
interview?

~~~
cinquemb
I feel our differences in opinion are arising from what has actually taken
place (I would agree with your assessment), and the spirit of what has taken
place (which is just as much bending the truth as what you says has taken
place by Swann, but the it does not bend in favor for interests of the general
public). So yes anyone adept can access the information online (the minority
as far as population percentage is concerned, since one has to be more
proactive and seek such information, which is naturally a subset of people who
will take such actions and those who will not combined), but even the least
adept of us (i.e. not actively seeking out such information in this context)
will hear/be aware about nearly everything broadcasted on replay through
traditional channels.

To address [1], in the Snowden interview, he explicitly states that he would
rather leave it up to journalistic indiscretion to see what information about
the topic is to be shared (I don't share that sentiment, so it makes me wonder
too…, but I'm not a factor at all since I do not hold such information, so it
doesn't matter here). Whether the information, of which about 1% has been
released (and has thus far has made some public statements by various
officials, which preceded the press reporting on the various topics in this
subject, voided after reporting [Snowden singles out Obama and Clapper]), is
shared with the public in a timely manor is another question it itself.

> _Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab
> attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more._

I do not think that any news source has a definitive hold on truth, so I think
they all must be scrutinized, not just those that happen to espouse
information upsetting to the status quo and their entrenched interests.

~~~
wismer
Right, I agree to an extent with that assessment. It would, in my mind, be
more agreeable to say that the 24 hr news cycle was negligent and in
dereliction of their duties as members of the free press to not report the
story simply in the scope that it wouldn't generate enough viewers as, say,
the Bieber thing. I don't believe there's complicity between the press and the
US Govt which was (I believe) implied in the article.

But I still hold to the opinion that the coverage by mainstream press did
garner enough attention from most people outside of the Internet. The Boston
Globe, NYT, and the AP, covered the story.

Of course, those sources have a limited audience and I can't prove how many
news outlets bought AP's story because I don't know how.

Edit: News media doesn't hold a monopoly on truth, but this was an
exaggeration that can be easily refuted.

Forgive me for my initial sarcasm. You prove a good point but I don't fully
agree.

~~~
cinquemb
That's fair. At least in our discussion we have shown that the situation is
more nuanced than it appears at first glance because of many of the underlying
facets involved.

In the end, it comes down to actions by individuals or groups of individuals
to make things as they are and how they will be.

Myself, being aware of what more or less has been going on prior the Snowden
leaks from previous wistleblowers and from previous events in history that set
a precedent of the actions individuals/corporations/governments are willing to
take with whatever capabilities available under such perceived or actual
circumstances, I have decided on what role I want to take (and get hate mail
for every day because I guess it's easier to send feedback to a company on
what they're doing as opposed to criticizing one's government for doing the
same thing in the shadows).

------
_stephan
_In addition, the video has been taken down almost immediately every time it’s
posted on YouTube._

AFAIK, the German company that produced the interview didn't sell the
international rights to the German broadcaster, which is also why the original
video is geolocked to Germany. So I'd guess it's this company that's behind
the YouTube takedowns.

~~~
bad_alloc
I found these videos that can be viewed in Germany:

1)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GlYh58cxKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GlYh58cxKY)
(Interview with German translation)

2)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x38jkFlPeg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x38jkFlPeg)
(Interview in English)

Do they work for anybody else?

~~~
dogweather
Nope - doesn't work for me in the U.S.

Can you download it and torrent it?

~~~
pgeorgi
[https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en](https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en)

~~~
zokier
I must say I'm becoming increasingly disappointed about archive.orgs lax
copyright policies. Becoming a treasure trove of pirated material really eats
its legitimacy in my eyes.

~~~
darklajid
I'm having trouble if the ARD (or parts of it) starts dicking around with
copyright restrictions. They receive a huge amount of funding from mandatory
payments of all German households (you can try to avoid that if you're a poor
student or poor, period, but usually you're (supposed to be) paying - by law).

It's really close to a tax to pay for their content, their infrastructure.
Which makes sense in a way for me, I do want broadcasters that don't need to
rely on 'what the masses want' alone to pick their content, ending with Big
Brother and brainless idiotic stuff everywhere.

But there's power and there's responsibility. If you take money from ~every~
citizen/household, then you better release that stuff with a decent license.

~~~
zokier
But the content is freely viewable in Germany, isn't it? Imho that would
easily cover their mandate to the people (who are financing them)

~~~
pgeorgi
For a number of days. I wonder when they will go un-publish this one.

Most things disappear from their websites after 7 days, which is a
"compromise" they worked out with the private media corporations.

~~~
zokier
You can't really fault them for following the restrictions set by past deals

------
ck2
PBS Newshour mentioned the interview on ARD

[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-were-watching-
sunda...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-were-watching-sunday-15/)

but obviously cannot rebroadcast the interview unless ARD gave permission.

AP also mentions it [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/german-tv-snowden-says-
nsa-al...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/german-tv-snowden-says-nsa-also-
spies-industry)

~~~
spenvo
If you click through the Newshour link provided... it's a re-tread (a three
sentences long mention) of the same AP story provided.

The links provided thus far in this thread (of which there are very few):
either a.) are reporting that Snowden was-to-have an interview (not discussing
the content therein) or b.) reduced a substantial interview to an
inconsequential soundbite.

The NYT Blog - a blog post 3 days late.

Major super-duper props to the AP for writing about something globally
noteworthy [sarc., as it's their mission to write about _everything_ ] in an
article that few mainstream sources even carried.

There has been little (if any) meaningful discourse of Snowden's interview in
mainstream US media, and, despite the video copyright entanglements - the
coverage has amounted to what I'd call a "black out." (The article linked to
is shit - as 'rdl' and 'dogcatcher' brought to light - but the point remains
clear.)

All of this, despite the fact that the topic matter of the interview concerns
the future of the internet -- arguably the greatest invention in the history
of man.

~~~
gamblor956
The AP feed is carried by _every major and minor newspaper_ in the country.
The point of the feed is that smaller articles can be written once and
disseminated throughout the country.

Snowden doing _yet another interview_ isn't very newsworthy. He's done
interviews before, and he'll do them again. Based on the transcripts of the
interview (see other posts), there isn't anything _new_ in this interview. All
in all...it's not news and the only reason it even got written about was
because its Snowden.

------
jobu
Occam's Razor - Which is more likely?

1) The US government has persuaded major media outlets CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT,
etc. to bury the interview.

2) The German media company that did the inteview is asking foreign news
outlets for more money than they're willing to pay for the interview (and is
protecting its copyright by having internet copies taken down).

~~~
foobarqux
That isn't how western government influences media in it's own country. Media
know that the US government would be very unhappy about a certain story and
they know that the US government is powerful and has carrots and sticks at its
disposal.

Who is going to poke the bear?

~~~
ams6110
The press seems more than happy to engage in bear-poking as shown with the
prior administration and others in the past. There must be some other
explanation.

~~~
foobarqux
That's a common fallacy.

[http://www.chomsky.info/books/consent02.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/books/consent02.htm)

------
d0ugie
A blackout ordered by the government, huh. Quite an allegation.

But don't forget to consider that rather than the American media, not a small
bunch to corral easily, conspiring at the government's request not to report
on something "juicy," that the media may have simply had things to cover that
they felt were juicier or were perhaps spooked by the incendiary nature of the
interview and engaged in self-censorship. And that it's possible American
media has a different take on what's juicy and what's become old news versus
foreign media.

Also consider that with the Internet it's not easy anymore to effectively
create a media blackout over something not much worse than what's already been
revealed by the media without repercussions. Plenty of hungry journalists
looking to make a heroic name for themselves by defying such an order in the
name of freedom.

Maybe it's true, but it's also pretty far-fetched, don't immediately presume
it's true.

~~~
rtpg
The comment on the copyright stuff also seems to be in play. If MSNBC could
play some good snippets I feel like they would.

There might be some wariness to playing other network's interviews. If I were
Snowden I'd try giving an interview to an American network. Though he would
actually get some real interview questions(the german interview is only
softballs), and would have to defend his position. But I'm sure any news
network would love to get that.

------
rdl
I believe this is due to stupid copyright issues, not anything particular
sinister by the US media. I have approximately zero problem pirating it, so
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151)

~~~
tbarbugli
oh come on!

------
detcader
_It seems clear that the virtual blackout of this insightful interview is yet
another deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth from the view of the
American public. The media has continually attempted to shill the official
government lies about mass domestic surveillance programs, justifying them as
necessary to fight the “War on Terror”, while attempting to painting Mr.
Snowden as a traitor._

Say what you want about the other claims of this article, this is pretty spot-
on and should be the concern of all U.S. citizens (by virtue of, y'know,
citizenship). This person worked for our government, and facilitated the
release of huge amounts of classified information. This is Of Interest to
everyone, whether you love him or hate him.

------
k-mcgrady
Complete made up speculation. I'm in the UK, read & watch the news everyday,
and didn't know this interview was happening. It's also the first time I've
seen it mentioned online. It wasn't promoted properly. Re: YouTube takedowns -
wouldn't it be the producer of the programme taking those videos down? You
make it sound like the USG is removing videos from YouTube.

~~~
csmithuk
The news here in the UK is just as selective. The BBC are the worst believe it
or not.

------
daanlo
With regards to the video not appearing on youtube and many other places. The
recording TV station that holds the rights to the interview (ARD /NRD)
purposefully blocked international visitors from seeing the video through geo
blocking, as they only hold distribution rights in Germany. I assume they
would also force youtube to remove the video if it is uploaded to protect
their copyright.

The details as to why and how are explained in the second half of this article
(unfortunately in German): [http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-
snowden-un...](http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/edward-snowden-und-
die-ard-ein-interview-geht-um-die-welt-oder-nicht-12771773.html)

In short it is a copyright fck-up on behalf of the German TV channel that made
a mistake when transferring the copyright from its subsidiary to itself. The
international distribution right is now stuck somewhere in Nirvana in between
the companies, which is why they aren't able to give/sell the video to other
international TV stations like CNN, for them to show it.

At least this is my legal understanding of the situation. You can use a proxy
like zenmate and see the video here: [http://m.ardmediathek.de/Edward-Snowden-
interview-in-english...](http://m.ardmediathek.de/Edward-Snowden-interview-in-
english?docId=19295624&pageId=13932928)

~~~
blakeja
Thanks daanlo. I understand and appreciate the concern that others have for
this issue, but I wish there was less of a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to
these stories. I feel like there many assumptions being made here, as
responsible citizens we should be doing our own due diligence to verify the
accuracy of articles like this before jumping to conclusions.

That said, we need to keep a sharp eye on the government. No doubt.

------
josh_fyi
It's in the NY Times "Lede" blog now
[http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-
snowd...](http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-snowdens-
german-tv-interview/)

------
maxtheman
The full interview:
[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a1_1390832727](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a1_1390832727)

------
spenvo
Other HNers 'dogwatcher', '_stephan', 'rdl' \- have brought to light related
copyright issues -- which might explain (in part) the lack of coverage on
Cable media stations and have discredited the link. That said, the content of
the interview was substantial and of eminent importance (newsworthy) for all
US citizens.

Print media or long-form web articles on nytimes.com, etc, shouldn't have
concerned themselves with rights to video (see my response to 'nostromo').

I was unaware of the copyright/licensing issues when I made the submission.

------
l33tbro
It's not news because no one cares. You guys all live in a bubble where you
think this is the most important issue in the world right now. Maybe it is.
But, honestly, no one cares.

~~~
mikeash
Then why has it been all over the news? Why has the President of the United
States discussed it publicly on multiple occasions? People obviously do care.

~~~
srl
And the media has been reporting on that, because that's what matters. It's
out of Snowden's hands now, which is why front-page news stories tend to focus
less on him and more on actual policy details, and the politics of a reform
bill.

The media won't report on a Snowden interview, because as bad a state as U.S
journalism is in, they haven't yet stooped so low to confuse celebrity-
stalking with actual journalism, and they know to keep them separate.

------
srl
The reddit comment pavanky links to (by Natedogg213) does a pretty good job
pointing out the fact that this story simply isn't true, and is really just
another case of lazy "mainstream media sux" claims. I'd like to add something
from the other end:

Yes, it's true that this snowden interview wasn't well-reported on. It
certainly wasn't blacked out, or suppressed, or whatever, but editors must not
have considered it front-page material. That's because it /isn't/.

On days when HN collectively has its wits about it, we're lamenting the fact
that too much journalism has focused on Snowden himself, and not enough on the
important stories: what was revealed, how the NSA responded, how
representatives (collectively and individually), and what the likely political
future is for a reform bill. These are stories that give voters important and
interesting information, and they tend to be very well covered. This interview
doesn't reveal interesting new information in these areas.

~~~
foobarqux
Regardless of whether it is front page material in some objective sense, do
you think that if this were a Chinese or Russian dissident it would have
gotten more play?

~~~
srl
No. I've never seen an interview with a Chinese or Russian dissident be
particularly prominent.

~~~
foobarqux
Mikhail Khodorkovsky received fairly prominent coverage recently, as an
example.

------
zeeed
it's available in full on archive.org:

[https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en](https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en)

------
wismer
This website, this source for "investigative journalism" includes a video that
claims that there's a link between autism and vaccines.

[http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-vaccine-court-and-
autism/](http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-vaccine-court-and-autism/)

~~~
meepmorp
Not that I agree with Swann's assertion here, but it should be evaluated on
its own, independent of Swann's history of being a fucking jackass. Having
demonstrably idiotic opinions on one matter doesn't necessarily make a person
wrong on another.

~~~
wismer
True, but it makes me scrutinize it all the more.

~~~
meepmorp
This is a wholly reasonable reaction.

------
MaysonL
[http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-
snowd...](http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/video-from-snowdens-
german-tv-interview/)

josh_fyi and I seem to have had the same search result simultaneously.

~~~
jrockway
I also immediately searched the Times and found this as well :)

The reality is that MSNBC and CNN don't really cover "news", they cover things
that interest the average person. The average person is interested in Justin
Bieber gossip, not about spycraft and governmental overreaching. In that case,
I wouldn't expect MSNBC and CNN to cover this.

If the Times didn't mention it at all, then I was going to be worried. The
truly cynical would point out that this is a blog post rather than an actual
article, but the quality of their blogs are generally very good, so I'm not
going to complain. If you subscribe to the Times and don't read any of the
blogs, you are missing out.

------
zwischenzug
NSA leader lied under oath to Congress.

Why is this not as big as Watergate?

~~~
brightsize
Yes, exactly. The fact seems to have gone down the memory hole as quickly as
it became known. Maybe I shouldn't, but I find it astonishing that the press
has no interest in Clapper's action. Evidently Congress and the "Justice"
system has no interest either. When Roger Clemens was suspected of lying to
Congress about the oh-so-pressing-national-problem of steroid use in baseball,
the feds were all over him and he was tried for perjury. But Clapper? His
testimony was said to be merely "inaccurate".

------
coldcode
Whether or not there is some kind a conspiracy, which doesn't seem credible to
me, the US media could have interviewed Snowden if they wanted to anywhere in
the world he felt safe. But they don't appear to care to since it might make
that network lose access to politicians and government officials and be
branded by rivals as traitors. That's far more likely.

------
thomaszander
For all living in the US, proof the story-teller wrong by linking to this
video on liveleak on their social media and suggesting their friends and
family look at the full 30 minutes interview.

Getting to the truth is about hearing both sides of a story, so anyone not
willing to listen or let others listen to Snowdens story is part of the
problem.

------
throwwit
[http://world.time.com/2014/01/27/snowden-german-tv-
comments/](http://world.time.com/2014/01/27/snowden-german-tv-comments/) isn't
censored as far as I can tell. The "Sorry This video does not exist." is a bit
ominous tho.

------
bachback
democracy now is a great channel. they covered it briefly. they had Glenn
Greenwald and Julian Assange many times in the past.

[http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/28/headlines#1288](http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/28/headlines#1288)

------
kevinpet
If you say:

> The interview has been intentionally blocked from the US public

You need to present some semblance of evidence that that's the case. I will
grant that it's interesting that this hasn't been covered in the US, but this
article is a suspicion being presented as a proven fact.

------
morsch
I submitted a Google translation of the German transcript right after the
broadcast and the original English video shortly after that. The submissions
didn't get a whole lot of upvotes (2 and 5 respectively). I just figured
nobody cared.

The YouTube video is still up and I was told the video was available
internationally, though I did not verify that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7127368](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7127368)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130438)

------
kartikkumar
I find it astounding to think that he's my age. His thoughtfulness and
eloquence in circumstances that are nothing short of movie-like are
incredible. Although this might not have been a hard-hitting interview that
tasked Snowden about the manner and nature of his revelations, what is clear
is that he is a definitely a thinker. As much as everyone has his flaws, I can
only really thank him for attempting to open up our eyes so that we can get a
glimpse of what reality might really be like below the thin veil that perceive
around us.

------
Cowicide
The Land of the Free, Inc. institutes 'Freedom Lite' for an "easier to digest"
corporatist fantasy for public consumption. And, Americans eat it up.

~~~
dade_
Freedom(tm)

------
zimbatm
One thing I think they need to cover is how he got hold of all these documents
as a 3rd party contractor. Was it just available on a shared file server or
did he had to hack into some kind of data store ?

I suspect that most government agencies where already aware of the
capabilities of the NSA, either because they where cooperating or because it's
so easy to get access. If Snowden could do it, how many others did it for
private interests ?

~~~
DelightfulScone
I've mention something like this previously, in light of Obama 'conceding' on
NSA complaints by suggesting the data be stored in private corporate hands.

It is befuddling.

------
gojomo
Are there examples of YouTube excerpts that have been taken down? What has
been the takedown rationale? (Rightsholder-objection? Law-enforcement?)

------
ulfw
That's called "Freedom" I believe.

~~~
interstitial
It's one of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms: freedom from thought, freedom from
knowledge, freedom from privacy, freedom from doubt.

~~~
cyphunk
And perhaps the most important american freedom of all the right to self
selection

------
lovskogen
I hope Facebook Paper doesn't allow these kinds of non-american news sources.
It would totally spoil my reality.

------
ZenoArrow
Why are people focusing on the 'blackout' angle instead of talking about the
content of the interview?

------
joelrunyon
Funny they don't even include it on overall timelines like they have here -
[http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/multimedia/timeline-
ed...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/multimedia/timeline-edward-
snowden-revelations.html)

------
jlgaddis
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:da801929f47900e5d64d20601c5f00001f26bd57&dn=Snowden%5FInterview.mp4

------
bonemachine
Nothing conspiratorial in the fact that the networks (correctly) assess that
the American viewing public would rather watch Mad Men or Game of Thrones than
The Snowden Files, any night of the week.

------
memracom
State-sponsored media. The only kind of media now allowed in the USA.

------
shmerl
What else could one expect from the Orwellian government? This only proves the
point that press in the police state is just a tool of power, not an
independent media by any means.

------
josefresco
What if "the media" found that insistently reporting on the Snowden story
wasn't popular among it's readership?

Much more boring than a conspiracy but plausible IMHO.

------
smoyer
The site is down ... did his server crash under the load, or is the government
getting better at blacking out the media? News at 11:00 (or not).

------
heroh
in other news UK is on the verge of passing legislation tomorrow which will
allow Police to SEIZE Journalist notes/files/etc. WITHOUT ANY due process...
blatant censorship.

If this bill passes there won't be news to blackout.

[http://rt.com/news/freedom-seizure-journalists-
bill-512/](http://rt.com/news/freedom-seizure-journalists-bill-512/)

------
weintrouble
After reading this I need to find a new country mine is broken and I really no
longer desire to attempt to fix it.

------
CryptcWriter
a lot of media seemed to cover this... even if they didn't link to the actual
interview it took me about 2 seconds to find it online...

------
joshfraser
Good interview, terrible blog post.

------
jasonlingx
Will this get blacked out on hacker news as well?

~~~
bananacurve
When it does we will know the lizard people got to pg.

------
DelightfulScone
Well that is interesting. I typically jump to Google News in response to such
accusations to show a thread of stories on the subject 'being blacked out.' In
this case..

Shows some search results:
[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=snowden+interview&oq=snowden+interview)

Clicking on the '73 news sources' link results in blank thread:
[https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dePJixL6H8f9VzMIt-2rs1GZLI9...](https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dePJixL6H8f9VzMIt-2rs1GZLI9BM&q=snowden+interview&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xQvuUsTZOonTqgGu24Bo&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA)

~~~
bpodgursky
I see 5 results. Also, if you click on "sorted by date" rather than "sorted by
relevance, a lot more appear.

~~~
DelightfulScone
Here is a screenshot for the blank results when the sources link is clicked:
[http://imgur.com/63dWPlw](http://imgur.com/63dWPlw)

I don't know what is a tailored result and what is not on sites, specially
Google lately. Add in other quirks and you have an unreliable system of
communication.

~~~
higherpurpose
Why are the results so dramatically different? Is Google's "search bubble"
_that bad_?

------
notastartup
I just googled `ard snowden interview` and all the first page of results,
youtube, vimeo, etc., are all inaccessible as video is not available. I think
I just had a North Korean moment.

------
ninjac0der
This can only be for the betterment of your country, do not resist.

