FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
If the New York Times is going to call Edward Snowden’s documents “stolen,” then journalists frequently receive “stolen” records from sources and use them as the basis for stories—as the Times itself has done with documents released by Snowden.
That CSIS would promote the expansion of the military and surveillance state is predictable, since that’s who pays its bills; what the Times revealed was a specific, rather direct example of this, using heretofore secret documents.
It is not until the 20th paragraph of the 21-paragraph article, on page A13 in the print edition, that the New York Times reveals a crucial point of clarification: Clinton “campaign officials acknowledge that they have no evidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to tilt the election to Donald Trump.
“There is a sad and deep record of companies and the government making very poor decisions of how to treat the information of vulnerable people.”
Whether we are being watched by private companies or by law enforcement and the state, our guest says, not everyone is watched equally.
“What the government is seeking in this case goes far beyond the power that they’ve ever had in prior criminal investigations and will impact all kinds of criminal cases going forward.”
The FBI is demanding that Apple help it access the iPhone of San Bernardino attacker Syed Rizwan Farook. Why are privacy and civil rights advocates so alarmed by this case?
Elite journalists all too often have a tendency to identify not with those who expose official secrets but with those who persecute those who expose them
Glenn Greenwald traces the transmission of a demonstrably false claim from nameless “intelligence and military officials” to a front-page piece in the New York Times to other journalists gleefully retweeting and reprinting the false claim as fact.
60 Minutes’ interview with FBI chief James Comey was essentially an ad for the FBI, absent any critical scrutiny or questioning.
People sometimes talk about privacy like it’s a single thing that people want more or less of, when it’s really a number of different things that people put different values on.
A new study has some outlets saying that social media inhibit debate. You want to compare Twitter’s record to the corporate media on that score?
Greenwald called the NPR report “a pure and indisputable case of journalistic malpractice and deceit.” It’s hard to say he doesn’t have a point.
The main debate about Snowden boiled down to one side saying he’s a traitor and the other side saying he should come home and do prison time, perhaps as a lesson to children.
Before NBC aired its Edward Snowden special, its evening newscast presented a lengthy report presenting the case against the NSA whistleblower.
The TV networks fail to note US hypocrisy in Chinese spying indictments. Climate change is missing from California fire reports. And NBC’s “real people” are remarkably white and conservative.
US TV networks played up the FBI’s economic espionage charges against China–without mentioning that the NSA does something very similar.
This week: ABC talks about a “raging debate” over Edward Snowden. They must mean the one that’s not on their show. Plus: The New York Times takes a long time to correct a story about Palestinian teen’s imaginary brass knuckles, and ABC‘s Jonathan Karl has the wrong response to Marco Rubio’s climate nonsense. Watch:
The New York Times announced that Jill Abramson, who has the top editorial job there of executive editor, is being replaced by current managing editor Dean Baquet. Whether Baquet will be good for investigative reporting at the Times remains to be seen.
Glenn Greenwald’s new book tells the Snowden story–and takes aim at the corporate media.
