[tkahn6]

> - note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times

1. As of right now, the story is linked to on the front page in the Opinion box since this is an opinion piece and not a news piece. If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy.

2. The story of the NSA surveillance was front page on the NY Times when it broke and for about a week or two after.

3. The Mainstream media has been reporting on this consistently, both on the Snowden drama and the actual substance of his leaks.

It's sad to see both longer-time and newer users running around with this chicken little reddit-level bullshit. The mods seem to be complicit in it so oh well. The upside is that I waste less time here.

[ferdo]

> If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy.

All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism.

> chicken little reddit-level bullshit

It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on.

Perhaps cutting people some slack until 24/7 surveillance becomes the New Normal might be in order?

[hobs]

In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc.

There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

[ferdo]

> Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

There are very few mainstream sources that have a shred of credibility left. I see little qualitative difference between Fox and CNN, for instance. They only differ in style and delivery but their main entrees are still lies and rubberstamped government press releases.

[Volpe]

Yes, but even the choice of facts expresses an opinion.

I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month.

All fact, no opinion?

[tkahn6]

He anticipated this point and explicitly acknowledged there are levels of opinion.

[mcpie]

Nobody is claiming all news is objective. I also think that the constant claims about 'msm' 'ignoring' important stories is annoying, incorrect and in fact distracting from the proper discussion to be had.

There is in fact a very distinct difference between opinion articles and 'proper' news articles. You see, journalism is not a claim to objective truth, but a procedure aimed at achieving a minimum level of validity where it comes to events. When you read a news article, you should (to some extent) be able to trust its contents on the merits of the journalistic method. Whereas with an opinion piece, it's not bound by this procedure. Note - nobody is arguing 'absolute objectivity' here. It's a matter of trust in a procedure. Of course, it's fine to distrust the journalistic method, to not see it as absolute truth, but to deny or entirely dismiss the distinction is annoyingly daft.

Also, afaik, this story is still everywhere. If you want it to remain that way, start working for change - newspapers report on events, not 'the truth'. Make events happen, and it stays in the cycle.

[ferdo]

> I also think that the constant claims about 'msm' 'ignoring' important stories is annoying, incorrect and in fact distracting from the proper discussion to be had.

You're welcome to your opinion.

[dllthomas]

Just because they're all grey doesn't mean there aren't significant differences in the shade.

[jacoblyles]

The Times puts plenty of opinion on the front page. It just does so obliquely. I can't forget their headline for the IRS scandal: "I.R.S. Scandal Gives G.O.P. Issue to Seize On", as if the politicization of the government's taxing power were only regretful to the extent that it might slow down the Democratic Party's policy agenda.

[tkahn6]

As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved.

C'mon man.

[jacoblyles]

Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?

[dkarl]

You'd be surprised how many people follow politics as if it were sports. The politic tactics surrounding the story are an angle that their readers are interested in, and they have real consequences as well. I think you'd have to consider all their coverage of the story as a whole to analyze their slant (which is Democratic, of course.)

[tkahn6]

No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.

[jacoblyles]

That's a headline from Sunday May 12th, which I believe is the first story on it in the Times. The information first came to light at a press conference by Lois Lerner on May 10th and I don't see another NY Times article sandwiched between the dates. The headline did not go unremarked in conservative media[1].

There is no doubt in my mind which team the NY Times is batting for.

[1]http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-n...

[anigbrowl]

Thank you for that interjection of sanity.

[trevelyan]

If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com

The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are sympathetic in tone and focus to the administration. Is anyone really going to characterize them as hard-hitting investigative reporting on the substance of the allegations?

There is no lack of investigative reporting that could be done on this story (most obvious question: did Congress intend to authorize warrantless dragnet surveillance), some of which is happening elsewhere, making it hardly a paranoid leap to point out that NYT coverage has been muted and uncritical at best.

[anigbrowl]

Well, how dare they not put him on the front page as often as you would like. And I suppose because your analysis stops on June 20 I'm supposed to forget any reporting that they did on him in the weeks prior.

[trevelyan]

I would personally prefer they stopped feeding the Snowden soap opera and focused instead on meaningful policy and governance questions, such as:

* did Congress intend to authorize warrantless surveillance when it passed the legislation being used by the NSA to justify its current policies and wrap them in a cloak of legality?

* which of the leaked materials w/r/t NSA surveillance can and should be considered highly-classified? What is the national security justification for keeping these materials out of public view?

* if Snowden was in a position of administrative privilege that gave him access to highly-sensitive materials without reasonable oversight, why was he employed by a private-sector company? What are the implications of this for FOIA requests, administrative costs, government transparency and checks against potential abuse? (seriously... what on earth is B.A. doing in this story?)

* do the stories released by the NSA to justify warrantless surveillance really justify the actions taken in the light of the law? i.e. is stopping a cab driver from sending 8k to Somalia really the sort of urgent and time-sensitive national security concern that should preclude the government from spending a day or two to get a targeted warrant?

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what a reasonable person would conclude on these questions, it seems self-evident that these questions are much more important than most of what the NYT has treated as front-page news on the subject matter.

[tkahn6]

If you want 'critical' reporting, I highly recommend Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck. Pick whichever flavor you want.