MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Ben Smith, BuzzFeed, August 23, 2013
The New York Times is in the Snowden game.
The paper — which NSA leaker Edward Snowden deliberately avoided over his fear that it would cooperate with the United States government — is now working with the Guardian on a series of stories based on documents that detail National Security Agency cooperation with its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ.
“In a climate of intense pressure from the UK government, The Guardian decided to bring in a US partner to work on the GCHQ documents provided by Edward Snowden,” Guardian spokeswoman Jennifer Lindenauer said in an email. “We are continuing to work in partnership with the NYT and others to report these stories.”
The London-based newspaper has been under intense British government pressure this summer, its editor, Alan Rusbridger, revealed earlier this week. [....]
The Times’s involvement in the story also brings into sharp relief a second question: Whether carrying classified documents across national borders can be an act of journalism [....]
Comments
from The Guardian's announcement article, 'Guardian Partners with NYT over Snowden GCHQ files':
by artappraiser on Sat, 08/24/2013 - 2:21am
Looks like serious pushback, maybe from UK government sources, on detention of Miranda, the smashed Guardian computer, and countering Rusbridger & Greenwald, in The Independent:
continues at length
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 1:53am
Here is some opinion and analysis using that article as a jumping off point.
http://warincontext.org/2013/08/23/independent-of-gchq/
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 10:43am
I didn't know about that Sengupta op-ed. Woodward's essay is written along the lines of what I initially suspected: the Independent article is the result of pushback from intelligence services, wanting to explain their side of the story for hassling the Guardian and Miranda. But I wonder about that now, taking into consideration the headline of Sengupta's op-ed, which Woodward does not seem to have paid much attention to:
Isn't that basically saying: hey UK government, don't get real stupid now and hassle us now too for publishing this leak, we're trying to do this responsibly and actually it shows your side of things? That op-ed headline certainly doesn't suggest their sources are intel-agency approved. I went back to the original article and it's curious that the sources are kind of muddied and unclear, it's almost like the editors are trying to protect him/her/them, it's really not that clear about how they got this info. And the op-ed article headline suggests to me that the Independent is trying to promote the government being a little more transparent about why they are doing certain things.
Woodward is certainly entitled to have a beef with the intel policy revealed, but I am not so convinced that he should have the beef with The Independent that he is making.
by artappraiser on Sun, 08/25/2013 - 5:31pm
Extensive story on The Guardian's situation--goes on for 9 pages.
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/01/2013 - 1:36am