Media reporting, on "backwater channels" (ie. Not in the 24/7 news cycle like Beiber's latest hooker or Cyrus' latest thing twerked upon) as far as the majority of the public is concerned, is now moving the goalposts?
"Yes probable citizen of an affected country, you may or may not have a right to support Snowden views on the public being informed, but it is too much to for you to complain when we don't use the powers we have to try to inform, like how we inform the public of the most mundane of things, instead of trying to influence public opinion."
"Only US _televised_ news sources either did not report with enough depth on the interview, did not report on it entirely, or gave a delayed report; the content of which is not terribly new or substantiated with evidence [1]"
One of these headlines is a short, snappier version that is considered click bait. All this coming from a source that promotes, among other things, the alleged (and widely debunked) link between autism/vaccines.
Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more.
Look, I support Snowden but this isn't journalism. This is hyperbole. Going to such extremes to "fight the system", to be the counter-weight to whatever scheming superpower there is, corrupts. So yes, I stand behind my original accusation that this is "moving the goal-posts". The headline claims US media blocked out the interview, but I find it rather easy to find US reports on this bit of news online. So, to re-examine the accusation, it's not true. US Media did _not_ black out the interview. So what now?
[1] He makes claims that the US spy agencies have been spying on corporations, but he does not elaborate on it. This is unusual for Snowden as he usually provides ample evidence to support his assertions. Don't you think that this would be a bigger deal if he had supplied the evidence to go along with that interview?
I feel our differences in opinion are arising from what has actually taken place (I would agree with your assessment), and the spirit of what has taken place (which is just as much bending the truth as what you says has taken place by Swann, but the it does not bend in favor for interests of the general public). So yes anyone adept can access the information online (the minority as far as population percentage is concerned, since one has to be more proactive and seek such information, which is naturally a subset of people who will take such actions and those who will not combined), but even the least adept of us (i.e. not actively seeking out such information in this context) will hear/be aware about nearly everything broadcasted on replay through traditional channels.
To address [1], in the Snowden interview, he explicitly states that he would rather leave it up to journalistic indiscretion to see what information about the topic is to be shared (I don't share that sentiment, so it makes me wonder too…, but I'm not a factor at all since I do not hold such information, so it doesn't matter here). Whether the information, of which about 1% has been released (and has thus far has made some public statements by various officials, which preceded the press reporting on the various topics in this subject, voided after reporting [Snowden singles out Obama and Clapper]), is shared with the public in a timely manor is another question it itself.
>Color me skeptical, but when a news source bends the truth in order to grab attention, I tend to scrutinize it all the more.
I do not think that any news source has a definitive hold on truth, so I think they all must be scrutinized, not just those that happen to espouse information upsetting to the status quo and their entrenched interests.
Right, I agree to an extent with that assessment. It would, in my mind, be more agreeable to say that the 24 hr news cycle was negligent and in dereliction of their duties as members of the free press to not report the story simply in the scope that it wouldn't generate enough viewers as, say, the Bieber thing. I don't believe there's complicity between the press and the US Govt which was (I believe) implied in the article.
But I still hold to the opinion that the coverage by mainstream press did garner enough attention from most people outside of the Internet. The Boston Globe, NYT, and the AP, covered the story.
Of course, those sources have a limited audience and I can't prove how many news outlets bought AP's story because I don't know how.
Edit: News media doesn't hold a monopoly on truth, but this was an exaggeration that can be easily refuted.
Forgive me for my initial sarcasm. You prove a good point but I don't fully agree.
That's fair. At least in our discussion we have shown that the situation is more nuanced than it appears at first glance because of many of the underlying facets involved.
In the end, it comes down to actions by individuals or groups of individuals to make things as they are and how they will be.
Myself, being aware of what more or less has been going on prior the Snowden leaks from previous wistleblowers and from previous events in history that set a precedent of the actions individuals/corporations/governments are willing to take with whatever capabilities available under such perceived or actual circumstances, I have decided on what role I want to take (and get hate mail for every day because I guess it's easier to send feedback to a company on what they're doing as opposed to criticizing one's government for doing the same thing in the shadows).
"Yes probable citizen of an affected country, you may or may not have a right to support Snowden views on the public being informed, but it is too much to for you to complain when we don't use the powers we have to try to inform, like how we inform the public of the most mundane of things, instead of trying to influence public opinion."