Slashdot Mirror
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."
They say "real journalism" but in my experience, the "real journalists" never really seem to get most things accurate. Every time I've been aware of the events behind a particular story (in some cases, being involved in the story) the "journalists" always seem to miss important details or flat out have some details wrong (for example, a plane crash one of my classmates was involved in, it was reported that all passengers died when in fact there was a survivor.)
The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is.
That's complete and utter bollox. Typical yank, firing off their gob when they know nothing about the subject or any have relevant experience. Twat!
He has a really useful piece of equipment that most editors don't have, which is a spinal column.
The only thing keeping him (and about anyone handling those files) vertical is the lack of will to break any support - or a willingness to stand against those who support betraying this country (hint: Snowden did, Clapper didn't).
Snowden betrayed the country and others (such as the Guardian) only wish to aid/abet his actions. The only valid action is to make the consequences of aiding/abetting him to be certain peril.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They also "produced" the film "Collateral Damage" by editing out anything that did not support their non-objective analysis. The full version of the video was released later but by then the unquestioning masses had already firmed up their opinion on the whole matter and were not particularly interested in seeing anything that might not agree with their particular line of thought. The release of the edited video by Wikileaks was the first glaring sign that despite all the bullshit about just setting anonymously submitted information free to the masses it was no more than another political action group looking to use the data to drive a political agenda.
Lies of omission, lack of context, and sentence structure is how you construct biased propaganda and the creators can honestly claim there were no outright factual discrepancies in the published article. This type of news reporting is done by all sides on any issue. The truth is being lost and the Internet has turned into the ultimate tool for spreading misinformation in record time. As for the Guardian all you need to do is visit their reader comment talkbacks and you will see how their non-objective articles has turned 90% of it's readers into non-questioning drones patting each other on the back for having the same great insight to worldly issues. I believe the technical term is echo chamber.