Inside the Guardian and the Snowden Leaks

An anonymous reader writes "An interesting and thoughtful article in the New Yorker about the inner workings of the Guardian newspaper. It explains a lot about why the Snowden files ended up there and not elsewhere. Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right. An illustrative quote about Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor: 'He has a really useful piece of equipment that most editors don't have, which is a spinal column.' I would encourage everyone to read this, and if you support the type of journalism the Guardian has been engaging in, think about buying a subscription. The article also talks about the financial side of the newspaper business, and real journalism is not going to happen unless somebody pays for it."

Comments

Reference Newspapers

[bob_super]

Dear slashdotters, The Guardian is quickly becoming one of my preferred references. Can you help me broaden my horizons by naming other good newspapers? (English/French/Spanish language only sorry)

Re:Reference Newspapers

[ShanghaiBill]

http://www.economist.com/

I second this. The journalists at The Economist are mostly British, although most subscribers are American. It is very entertaining to read news about America from an outsider's perspective, especially about typical American issues, like our dysfunctional health care system, guns, abortion, etc.

As for American news magazines, like Time or Newsweek, I wouldn't even use them to line my parakeet's cage, for fear that I would end up with a retarded parakeet.

Re:Reference Newspapers

[HornWumpus]

The issue we're discussing is the edits and editorials that wikileaks added to the video.

They are not an unbiased source. If they edited it, it can't be trusted.

Re:Reference Newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to read The Economist regularly, and also had a print subscription for a year too.

As an Indian, let me tell you this: The Economist doesn't have "outsider's perspective". Although that is how it is marketed (and is received in most of the Europe). It is a British publication. And, as any avid non-European reader can tell you, it is vapid anti-China. You should take that seriously because it is coming out of an Indian's mouth.

I guess it looks more balanced than most American publishers because the British politics is simply more liberal than American politics. The Economist has historically been pro-"free market" and has historically supported wars in middle-east for that end, the latest being the war in Syria. It has always been pro-DRM, anti-Wikileaks, anti-nationalistic for every country but anti-EU when it comes to Britain.

I got hooked to it for the same marketing reason that you are giving, and got other people hooked too. But the bias is so strong and obvious to non-Europeans like me that I had to stop my subscription. I still read it, though sparingly, but increasingly find it less intellectual and more predictable. My friends are still reading it regularly but they also acknowledge the vapid anti-China and pro-British slant.

Re:Erm, ok...

[girlintraining]

ObDisclaimer: I happen to like the Guardian.

So? You can be biased and still do good journalism.

That is the third-most stupid thing I have read on slashdot this week; And this week has been particularly harsh on my brain meats. While the literal definition of journalism, "the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television," does not include mention of the ethics of journalism, I expect people to have a grasp on it. As you do not, I shall now dispense a brief explanation of why it's so important.

Democracy can only function well with an educated populace. You simply can't vote the most capable candidate into office unless you know the issues, and that means knowing facts. Not interpretation of them. Not skewed versions of them. Not partial lists of them. You need to know everything about it, or you're not making an informed decision, you're making a decision based on propaganda and lies. When your audience is millions of Americans, your voice carries a lot of power. With great power comes great responsibility. And anyone who passes off their own biases as fact is not a supporter of Democracy and I do not want them on my team.

In fact, I'd say it's impossible not to be biased. Everyone is biased, it's human nature. Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

Your argument is that because we can't be perfect at something, we shouldn't even try. This is such a classic mistake we've given it a formal name: The Nirvana Fallacy. And yes martha, there is a wikipedia on it.

Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.

The institution of science does a pretty good job of limiting the effects of bias. Oh yes, you can point out the problems. Oh yes, they're very real. But compared to say... Fox News, they're doing a pretty good job. There's a reason scientists have been alternately revered and burned a the stake throughout history -- it's because of their stubborn devotion to the truth regardless of religious or political preference. And that stubborn devotion has catapulted forward all of humanity from banging rocks together to make fire and foraging for food, and sleeping in caves, to all the modern conveniences you have before you.

So I see your nilhism and perfectionism and raise you... rationality. Your move, Internet.

Re:Blogosphere vs. Old Media

[ErichTheRed]

obDisclaimer: I have a left wing bias to say the least. But that's not important for this post since it applies to both sides equally.

You do have to admit that Drudge, the Huffington Post and all the others serve as echo chambers for extreme viewpoints. The conservative side gets bombarded with anti-liberal stories day in and day out, and doesn't have to listen to any other opinion if they don't want to. Same thing happens on the liberal side. You wouldn't have heard Walter Cronkite on CBS news during the Vietnam War talking about "godless baby killers" or something like that, but I could definitely see a more targeted media organization, or let's face it, some dude with a blog, saying something like this. There's no consequences for the blogger dude, and the media outlets will be rewarded for offering this as entertaining fare to their audience.

Personally, I have some very conservative relatives who, while very smart, don't get exposed to differing viewpoints on issues. And when you hear something catchy that you agree with, then repeat it to your friends, then have those same friends amplify your beliefs, you do end up with a very polarized population. Both liberal and conservative talk show hosts know this and use it to their advantage. Suddenly all those people on both sides go out and elect officials that share their polarized opinions of the world, and a sensible debate over healthcare policy turns into a protracted fight that neither side will give ground on. So, talking with people like this for me feels like I'm Rob Reiner ("Meathead") from All in the Family. Yeah, Meathead was a pinko-liberal commie but his character was reasonable compared with Archie...

I don't know, maybe people were more reasonable back in the day when we were fighting a cold war with an adversary who could wipe us out if they were having a bad day.

Re:Erm, ok...

[fritsd]

girlintraining, you sound like a scientist to me.

So see it this way then: you conflate bias and variance, which is a big no-no in experimentation:

• The Guardian: noticeable left-wing bias, low variance signal
• De Volkskrant: slight left-wing bias, moderate variance signal
• BBC: slight right-wing bias, moderate variance signal
• NRC Handelsblad: noticeable right-wing bias, low variance signal
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: strong right-wing bias, low variance signal
• Elsevier Magazine: strong right-wing bias, high variance signal

I don't dare to comment on others because I haven't read them often enough. The idea is that you can subtract or add YOUR perception of known bias to calibrate a signal to approximate what you think the real value is, but with high variance the signal is just too noisy to bother.

I have never seen more than soundbytes of Fox News, but is it true that a reporter had to claim that he was legally insane, in order to continue to spew lies without being called on it? I.E. "everybody knows its only entertainment, we don't claim to produce real news". That's just ... odd.. why don't they call it Fox Entertainment then. Truth in advertising.

Re:false diversity

[Yomers]

BBC and Fox often present the same message different ways. For example on foreign wars - BBC shows some children in caves, children are suffering - cold, hungry, afraid of bombings by pro-government forces and want to return to normal life. After successful campaign children miraculously disappear - like in Libya, where anarchy currently is so widespread that PM was recently kidnapped. But evil dictator is dead, so children must be ok now, sure :) Fox message is just like "He is an enemy of US, we will destroy him!" - more straightforward, less sickening.

I remember how those "think of the children" news are made - I was around 15 y.o. in Moscow, it was around 1992, presumably Japanese news channel (there was russian producer who told us that) filmed as as "Russian punks". They told us to come to building in our block that was scheduled for demolition, generously gave us each 2 packs of marlboro and some vodka, somebody brought a guitar. So we were to sing russian punk songs while drinking vodka from a bottle and smoking cigarettes, all this with broken windows and overall mess of a building scheduled for demolition as a background. I do not know if it was shown or not, if shown we could be orphans of war near dwelling, half destroyed by government aviation in Chechnya, or where it was needed at the moment.