Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of against their masters. That's why "identity politics" has become so resurgent in recent years, as the class divide has sharpened and the middle-class has withered. As long as people are polarized and can be pitted against each other on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sexuality, they aren't united against the oligarchs. Its the same exact strategy used by prison guards to maintain control of the prisons. Pit the blacks against the whites against the hispanics and the prison guards can observe safely from the walls. The guards only face a threat from the prisoners when they are united against those who keep them in bondage.
Snowden represents the greatest threat in that regards. If you support Snowden's actions, you are explicitly acknowledging not only that the law is dog shit, but that Snowden was justified in breaking it because of how incredibly repressive the government is. He represents the ultimate repudiation of the system that runs the entire country and most of the world. The corporate media is the voice of this system.
I suggest June 10th, if that's the day Snowden left his job. We simply whistle, in every street from Washington to Baghdad, including in Europe.
Edit: Got 9 upvotes from this comment, sounds like there is traction.
According to this timeline it would be 20th May
However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all corporate news organizations (npr, washington post) are propaganda services (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those). Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).
In 'Manufacturing Consent' Chomsky outlines 5 ways in which the media are systematically biased, and end up acting as propaganda machines despite being staffed with honest and well-meaning journalists. It's a very well known model (although certainly controversial).
This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.
does anyone really believe the media is independant in 2016?
- You should use the most effective word, not the most satisfying word.
- You won't push anybody away by telling the truth, you push people away by being too emotional and appearing unreliable (e.g. exhibiting all-or-nothing thinking, and using emotionally-charged language that impedes logic)
- Lots of people trust the media (~40%) .
NPR and the Washington Post are certainly propaganda services.
> (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those)
I'm not suggesting that everyone who works for a corporate news organization is engaged in some sort of grand conspiracy, taking money to consciously do the bidding of the evil oligarchs (though some are). It seems clear that most of them are just as oblivious to their complicity in the degradation of society as the factory worker who collects a paycheck assembling bombs and missiles. Awareness and critical thinking are not attributes that are nurtured and encouraged in modern society. From the time you can crawl, you are conditioned to shuffle around at the signaling of a bell and efficiently absorb and regurgitate the Washington/Wall Street narrative (in public schools and elsewhere). Failure to do so as a child results in, at best, disciplinary action and bad grades. The less fortunate are subjected to the forced ingestion of psychotropic drugs that permanently alter the brain chemistry of developing children.
> Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).
Reporters are not hired by corporate media outlets because of their zeal for truth and their refusal to stop turning over rocks to discover inconvenient truths - quite the opposite. Reporters are hired for their ability and willingness to absorb and regurgitate conventional corporate wisdom. They are hired for their penchant not to turn over any rock that they aren't supposed to turn over.
A reporter that doesn't parrot the Washington/Wall Street narrative soon finds himself without a job. Why do you think Seymour Hersch, an investigative reporter with an incredibly impressive resume stretching back 50 years, has to publish in the London Review of Books? Why do you think establishment reporters from every corporate outlet came out of the woodwork to attack him when he started publishing well-sourced, investigative articles that clashed with the Washington/Wall Street narrative?
To quote Upton Sinclar: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Do you honestly believe this? How do you think an article like this gets written? Do you think that there is some secret puppet master that dictated the talking points of this article or that every journalist including the one who wrote this article is in on some huge conspiracy? Are those options really more likely that some journalists simple have different opinions than you?
They say, 'You are one of those conspiracy theorists. You think there's a headquarters and they get together at the Bohemian Grove and run the United States.'
Well, they DO get together at the Bohemian Grove and do a lot of picking of Secretaries of State, anyway.
But they don't have to conspire. They all think alike.
It goes back to the way we're raised, the schools we went to -- after all, I'm a reluctant member of this group. You don't have to give orders to the editor of The New York Times. He is in place because he will respond to a crisis the way you want him to, as will the President, as will the head of the Chase Manhattan Bank."
It isn't limited to Australia, the Murdoch press tried to pull the same thing last US federal election:
If you don't think the press exists to control the narritave then you're naive.
"In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies" 
Media outlets just act in their owners' best interest (which is to eliminate competition and preserve status quo), that's all.
This has been one of the annoying side effects of Snowden. Suddenly one conspiracy theory proved to be true, so now some people think that any conspiracy theory has a chance to be true. Soon we end up with people suggesting that tens of thousands of journalists in American are hand picked by the "masters" solely to "disseminate propaganda".
Perhaps the concept of an analogy is alien to your world, so I'll try to make it simpler for you. If you hire someone whose views are well known to write for you, you have a pretty good idea of knowing what you are going to get without having to offer specific instructions. If you hire Robert Kagan to write a foreign policy column in your newspaper, you don't have to send him a secret message urging him to back an invasion. He already backs every invasion. Understand?
As far as your vapid conjecture about conspiracy theories go, the media is literally littered with writers who have either been directly paid, or who stand to gain (financially and otherwise) for endorsing certain positions. These are not conspiracies, its standard practice.
Whether these media pundits are paid by the White House to endorse their policies:
Or secretly instructing retired military "analysts" on news networks on how to shape the narrative:
And when you don't parrot the party line, they get rid of you, like they did to Phil Donahue when he was critical of the Iraq invasion:
Or when government officials limit press access to only those reporters who are willing to offer the official narrative:
In short, you are delusional or woefully under informed if you don't think that the media narrative is controlled and shaped by the powerful interests that run this country.
Obviously not. But if those journalists have different opinions than executive management on important issues, like Phil Donahue opposing invading Iraq on MSNBC, then they'll be fired.
So Snowden should come home, be robbed of a chance of justice, be robbed of his voice and his freedom, to prove... what, that the NSA was right all along?
You forgot the war liars/criminals Bush, Rice and Powell.
I consider Snowden's case a mixed bag depending on which leaks we're talking about. Yet, locking him away for damage to national security without giving the rest life imprisonment doesn't begin to be justice.
But you'll be godwin'd if you compare them out loud.
Edit: Am I being downvoted for expressing my knowledge of the situation? If you think I am wrong, say so. Try to educate me. Downvoting for disagreeing does nothing. When he testified about yellowcake uranium, I thought he believed the reports to be true.
There's also a link in there to a section of Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack claiming Powell knowingly altered evidence for his UN presentation.
(disclaimer: anarcho-capitalist living in Canada. I have no stake in the game.)
This isn't indirect suffering like 'your laptop was probably built by crying workers', but a clear, direct chain of events.
But I don't know what he knew.
The issue has been brought up many times, with no positive change, because there was no massive dump of incredibly embarrassing evidence. All those hoping for some kind of Obama surprise turn around in the unprecedented level of whistleblower prosecution: you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
What the government was doing (and still is) is inappropriate and illegal. Can't Holder understand or accept the fact that this is why Snowden chose the option that he did? Of course, were matters of law are concerned, I'm not sure Holder is a good source - he after all, let the biggest heist in the civilized world go without consequence to those involved.
I also think this line "America's interest" is thrown around a lot. Are we talking the interest of Americans? Or interests of the American government? It seems more and more now the two are at odds with each other...
Politics likes to treat the notion of the state as interchangeable with its people, and although I don't think the US is alone in this, it certainly seems to have made an art out of it at times.
I agree with Holder on this. Snowden should get a ticker tape parade, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, and the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Susanna Luchenko: [to Sheridan after his forces free Earth]
Half of Earth Force wants to give you a kiss on the cheek and the
Medal of Honor. The other half wants you taken out and shot. As a
politician you learn how to compromise - which by all rights means
I should give you the Medal of Honor then have you shot.
While I can sympathize with the fact that he was probably under a tremendous amount of stress at the time, that probably led to this unfortunate decision, a whistleblower like Snowden simply shouldn't have placed so much blind trust in the media. Letting this slide without any consequences would set a dangerous precedent, regardless of how well the ends justified the means in this case.
Do you think that Al-Qaeda is a greater threat to national security than a spy agency run amok? Justifying prosecution with such logic... it reminds me of the story about the burglar suing the home owner because he injured himself while illegally on the property.
Most definitely not. And I'm not sure how you could have gotten that impression if you actually read my posts instead of taking that single statement out of context.
For the record, I applaud Snowden for his revelation of the NSA's overreach. I just happen to also believe that he could have handled the leak in a much more responsible and defensible manner by carefully reviewing each document that he leaked to ensure they were relevant to the case he was making, and redact any non-relevant sensitive information that could be damaging to national security, instead of just dumping thousands of documents that he never read and delegating to the media what should have been his own responsibility as a whistleblower.
He definitely deserves much praise for his bravery and for sparking the resulting conversation about privacy and government overreach, but we shouldn't let that blind us from the potential dangers of the approach he took.
We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access. Whatever potential good end a kindly king can apply state secrets is far outweighed by the potential abuses (a great imagination isn't required, lots of historical examples exist).
The thousands of documents that he didn't even read (or even try to redact) before he handed them off.
> We aren't going to agree though, as I believe that he should have dumped it all - unrestricted public access.
You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree.
This is the last official statement AFAIK and the language is surprisingly sanguine. http://time.com/3974713/white-house-edward-snowden-petition/
Manning volunteered for the military and gave up some rights as a result. He then distributed data that put lives in danger because he didn't think to clean it up.
Snowden was a private citizen, one who felt his country was not going down the right path. He took time to hatch a plan and release data that he believed wouldn't risk the lives of others.
Snowden deserves a medal not prison.
So, operations blown, tactics exposed, and foreigners having our data on foreign operations. Yes, he burned the shit out of U.S. operations on top of his domestic whistleblowing which I applaud. An example of someone who didn't burn us would be Binney who, knowing all kinds of capabilities, just leaked specific programs and data that were unconstitutional and a threat to citizens' rights.
Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald are American citizens?
Poitras is pretty clearly not a fan of the US military, but I don't think she's been declared an "enemy combatant". Calling her an "enemy" of the military is disingenuous. The US military does plenty of horrific and inexcusable things, and criticizing those who commit clear war crimes does not make someone an "enemy".
Yeah, she's an enemy of the U.S. military for sure. If you need balance, she's not the person to trust for review and reveal. On other hand, if it's domestic stuff... the actual whistleblowing... she's one of best people to handle it because she won't shut up. Just got to do some redactions before turning it over to reduce damage. She and Greenwald did the one's I'd have been concerned about on domestic leaks, mainly protecting the workers. So, that wasn't a problem.
Both signed strict non-disclosure agreements to work for the US government. Both gave up rights.
In one way, Snowden served more voluntarily than Manning did, because Snowden could quit but Manning had to fulfill the enlistment term. Had Manning walked off the job exactly like Snowden did, he could easily have been court-martialed just for that, especially as Manning was working in a war zone.
Every time someone decides that someone they disagree with isn't trying to do the right thing (at least according to their own judgement), a kitten dies. Also, every time a public official does change their mind about something but gets punished for it by being accused of "flip-flopping", 2 kittens die. Those two things plus money in politics are my personal top 3 reasons for why we can't have nice things (and/or kittens) in US politics.
It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party and guarantee a Trump victory.
It's like the opposite of McCain/Obama in 2008. Trump is the "Hope" candidate, and Clinton is the "dear god, don't let her in the office" candidate.
If anything, it would probably unite the liberal base, But Clinton is a "centrist"; She's trying to win over republicans with her pro-war agenda. She isn't confident in the liberal base being large enough to win an election.
Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
Donald Trump would literally hang Snowden:
“I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said, Politico reported.
Trump frequently changes his mind though. That's what I was getting at. When he does this his supporters praise him as pragmatic.
You have got to remember that:
He isn't really a typical diehard conservative. It isn't about the specifics of what he says. It's about him feeling he's doing right by America, that is what his supporters are keying into that allows him to circumvent contradictions that would sink another candidate.
Of course you could be right. But if he is all about Make America Great Again it's hard to see how he accomplishes this objective economically without Silicon Valley's backing. SV won't support a president that kills Snowden. Not under any circumstances. He has to know this because he's making a kind of bet against globalization in favour of technology. That falls apart without SV.
On the other hand he could juxtapose SV with the lack of jobs in manufacturing. In that scenario of protectionism and anti technology animus things will get very bad for everybody high and low.
“When you just asked the question about Snowden, I will tell you right from the beginning, I said he was a spy and we should get him back,” Trump said. “And if Russia respected our country, they would have sent him back immediately, but he was a spy. It didn't take me a long time to figure that one out.”
Trump thinks he's a Russian spy who should be hanged for treason.
So, if you're a CIA asset, and then you leak NSA data from the private sector, are you still a CIA asset, or are you a defector and "former spy"?
So don't say you weren't warned if Trump actually does follow through on some of this stuff. There's no real downside to taking him at his word.
> Now that time has passed both factions agree it was all inevitable, case of when and not if. That leaves Snowden hanging there as an awkward reminder.
I hope you're right. I am currently thinking about a decidedly unscientific research where they showed "The Colbert Report" to very conservative people (college students? I don't remember the specifics) who had never seen the show before and they thought the persona was real. This is in context with people like the host of NPR's Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me coming on air to say that he might have been living inside a bubble because we got blindsided by Trump's ascendancy.
This is unrelated but I am afraid I might be projecting my own positions and opinions on the candidates. Things like: "Of course, Trump never said bar citizens from entry based on religion". and "Of course, Bernie Sanders understands the issue of wage gap is more nuanced than can be explained in 140 characters https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/736649251799732224 "