Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Demystified: Can the Government See My Junk?
An anonymous reader writes Comedian and journalist John Oliver set out to understand US Government surveillance in advance of the June 2015 expiration of section 215 of the Patriot Act. What resulted was a humorous but exceptionally journalistic interview of Edward Snowden which distilled the issues down in a (NSFW) way everyone can understand. Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
The alternative is to what? Take a 'high ground' approach where you're ignored by the populace at large? Rule #1 of effective speaking is to talk to your audience. If you can't be willing to meet people even half way, you'll never convince them to take action.
Bye!
I think the "dick pics" line actually really works well. If you think about it from the perspective of the average person, a lot of people buy the NSA's statements that they don't care about the communications of most Americans and that PRISM is necessary to maintain security. After all, a lot of people post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter where anyone can see it.
One of the articles I read on this mentioned that even people who support or don't care about the NSA suddenly cared when they realized that the NSA can see the things they don't post on Facebook (nude pics, sexting, etc).
If framing the NSA's data collection programs as "dick pics" makes more people understand, then I'm all for it.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues
I don't think that the interview was, in the end, very critical of Snowden. If anything, I think he came across as someone who, whether or not you agree with his decisions, had the best interests of the general public at heart. If anything, it made me feel very sorry for Snowden, especially when he had to watch video of people who didn't understand what he had done.
And I'd agree that it's the media's job to make the whole thing easily digestible, which is exactly what I think Oliver was doing in reducing the issue to "dick pics". He forced Snowden to explain the different programs in terms of "dick pics" because he knew that, otherwise, people wouldn't really understand or appreciate Snowden's explanations.
Just because someone you admire was challenged by the interviewer doesn't mean it isn't worth a watch. He didn't criticize Snowden for "complex descriptions", he criticized him for ducking the questions and responsibility. That is a journalist's raison d'etre. That fact that you clearly didn't understand what you were listening to is why folks like Oliver have to "dumb it down"... and I guess he didn't do it enough for you.
I think John Oliver did an excellent job of educating Snowden on how to speak. I think it's something that many people her on slashdot struggle with. Put it in layman's terms. As John Oliver pointed out to Snowden... most people don't get what you are saying. All the geeks do... and are rightfully freaked-out/outraged by it ...but most regular people don't. But mention how the current programs captures all your 'dick pics'... and people start to get it. Hopefully this will help him in the future with how he communicates this with the American public ...and hopefully enough of the American public will be freaked out about it and push for roll-back/limits on these things.
Actually Oliver was doing something very valuable with his interruptions. Forcing Snowden to refrain from technobabble that the general public would not get. Forcing Snowden to be more effective at his self appointed task, to put in the extra effort necessary to phrase things so the general public could understand.
I think the "dick pics" line actually really works well. If you think about it from the perspective of the average person, a lot of people buy the NSA's statements that they don't care about the communications of most Americans and that PRISM is necessary to maintain security. After all, a lot of people post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter where anyone can see it.
One of the articles I read on this mentioned that even people who support or don't care about the NSA suddenly cared when they realized that the NSA can see the things they don't post on Facebook (nude pics, sexting, etc).
If framing the NSA's data collection programs as "dick pics" makes more people understand, then I'm all for it.
Do not confuse apathy with stupidity.
The government is monitoring every single path that innocent civilians are taking to communicate these days, under the guise of national security, which is not only unethical, but also illegal under our Constitution.
Do I really need to re-word that simple shit to the point where the pre-school kid gets it? Anyone with a 4th grade education understands.
Oliver is a master of taking a terrible, boring and critically important subject and making it palatable. Net Neutrality, predatory lending--we've seen people cover these topics for years and get no traction. But John Oliver keeps us watching for the whole thing.
I find it sad that nobody knew who he was to begin with. I do, and I live in Canada. I think it's a really important piece of news. But then again, I'm a nerd, and I'm bombarded with this information, relatively speaking. I guarantee my non-geek friends only have the most meagre understanding of who he is.
Snowden's information is important, and he has the right idea of what should be done with it. But John Oliver is one of the best ways to communicate the information. He managed to get Snowden to summarise things into really relatable chunks of data--it was brilliant.
You think he'd have a soapbox in prison? I rather think not. He'd be in solitary and that would be that.
You think if he came back home he'd get a soapbox? He'd get a show trial with the spin machine in the media cranked up to 11.
The only question is whether they'd break him like they did Manning (Edward becomes Edwina), lock him away for life, or find an excuse to execute him under the Espionage Act.
Adding-
As with much comedy today, it is a sad commentary that comedy is more informed and can better deconstruct the issues. Hell, there was more actual journalism in the comedy bit than has been in most media accounts of Snowden.
That irreverence was the tone is to be expected. It's comedy. But that itself implicates most media as being near worthless when something done for laughs has more weight than the 24/7 news cycle, who have constitutional protections I might add, and whose job it is to cover this in the first place.
The problem is that a lot of people buy the whole "I have nothing to hide" line of crap. "Oh, I don't care if they read my email, I have nothing to hide." You're not going to nearly as much traction by convincing them of the principle that it shouldn't matter, that the government could abuse this someday, as you will by pointing out that, yes, they DO have something they want to keep private, even from the government, and provoking a visceral reaction on those grounds.
Bottom line, it's not just a way to get them to understand, it's a way to get them to care about it because it impacts their otherwise blissfully ignorant lives.