[mbateman]

This should really be the top comment.

For anyone that thinks there is actually a problem here, what could the motivation or mechanism behind this "blackout" possibly be? Significant parts of the US media have been reporting pretty well on Snowden for a long time now.

[atlantic]

The media discussion so far has centered around personal issues. Is Snowden a traitor, did he give secrets away to China/Russia, should he be assassinated, how is his girlfriend feeling, what did his father say, does he have a new job, etc. This interview puts the focus back where it should be: have intelligence agencies broken the law, have they taken justice into their own hands, have they been deceiving the executive branch, what balance should be struck between security and privacy, and so on. It also puts a human face on this man, who has never been given a chance to explain his motives.

[srl]

No, this simply isn't true. Watch the front page of any daily newspaper - a large percentage of the articles are about new revelations or stories on the politics of a reform bill, and I have not seen a single one (in the last 4 months or so, when my memory is fresh) talking about Snowden personally.

[fredgrott]

ACCESS..

Journalists depend upon access to government officials to report news on government actions..

No Access to those officials virtually decimates both the Media firm income and the journalists income

[pdkl95]

This is just so much nonsense. What can they do, deny your press-pass?

so what

If the whitehouse denies access like that - cutting off some of their own ability to disseminate propaganda - the journalist can simply write on the subject anyway.

Even better, while other journalists are busy copying down the usual stuff, the "cut off" journalist can run the "government interfering with the Free Press" story. Loudly.

Denying "access" merely changes what the story will be about.

[foobarqux]

You are wrong. It's not the press pass it is access to the "unnamed high ranking official" that "leaks" you stories that sell your paper. Not only do you not have breaking stories you don't even have sourced stories. Imagine if WaPo had to write things like "the NYT is reporting...". That's a death knell.

And what do you complain about? That the government is not leaking you information anymore? That anonymous sources aren't taking your calls?

[ams6110]

There are at least two types of "unnamed high ranking" leakers.

One is deliberately leaking the story line that the administration wants published, but for whatever reason doesn't want to be directly quoted on.

The other is the conscientious leaker, who wants to get the truth out but fears for job/safety if he went "on the record."

The former can be directed to "leak" only to favored media outlets. The latter cannot.

[foobarqux]

And the majority of stories deal with the former.

[pdkl95]

Those "anonymous sources" are included. Such sources will be glad to have important things reported on. Any that would cut you off for reporting the truth or deviating from their "story" are not a source of reliable information anyway.

What will be reported on? In a case like this, the run with the information they have.... from Snowden. If the government decides it doesn't want to tell it's side of the story (officially or unofficially through "sources"), then they let the accusations stand without a challenge.

Oh, and you may remember a time when journalists got their own information ("investigation"), instead of relying on PR offices.

I am constantly amazed how the government (and many big businesses) get away with this obvious bluff. There is simply no way they would withdraw from the public debate.

[foobarqux]

If the interview casts Snowden in a positive light then the government would probably be unhappy to have it highlighted in the media.

The government uses implicit threats of retaliation as deterrence.

[ZenPro]

Source / Proof?

[foobarqux]

For which part? That a sophisticated, powerful entity is opposed to circumstances that will disadvantage them or that they will act to prevent other parties from causing those circumstances from occurring?

[ZenPro]

You never said that. Please don't redirect.

You made an assertion. Back it up.

[foobarqux]

Again, which assertion?

That the government doesn't like Snowden being cast in a favorable light or that it uses mechanisms to deter people from doing so?

A good place to start for the latter is chapter 1.3 of "Manufacturing Consent"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/190262164/Manufacturing-consent

[foobarqux]

And here is quote from Pilger describing a specific admission of media manipulation by a major government:

[A former British official] described how the Foreign Office manipulated a willing media. "We would control access to the foreign secretary as a form of reward to journalists. If they were critical, we would not give them the goodies of trips around the world. We would feed them factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we'd freeze them out."