Re: Cringely bored by illegal NSA taps, doesn't think it really matters

John Young wrote... "Still, until revealed otherwise, the current NY Times is not as closely allied to national authority as it has been in the past, when its reporters worked closely with intelligence agencies, its managing editors were more often warhawks, and it treated independence of journalists as grounds for dismissal." Eh. I'm not so sure. The Times doesn't want to get caught behind the times, so to speak, if this whole anti-Bush/anti-war thing really breaks out mainstream. Meanwhile, they've published commentary that exceeds even some of the crazier right-wing pronouncements. -TD

From: John Young To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: Re: Cringely bored by illegal NSA taps, doesn't think it really matters Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:48:07 -0800

Cringely and others of similar ostentatious shallow interest are following the pattern of previous revelations about wiretapping in the national interest. "Not about me," is what they are saying, "so why should I care, and why is everyone getting so worked up about stuff which has been long known."

And then take a whack at the latest source by claiming, "what fools are they to not have known this stuff has been always with us."

This is a standard ploy for watering down revelations that cut to the bone. Much used by intelligence agencies when caught with their hands in the private affairs of those who fund their payrolls.

What is not usually admitted is what is different about the latest revelation, as Cringely says, nothing new has been revealed. Here he shows his own ignorance, and covers that up by reciting hoary precedents that are indeed well known.

This pretense of knowledgeability sufficient to discount the latest revelation of what has gone further than before is pure disinformation, and is actually meant to save the reputation of the Cringelys for not being able to distinguish what is new is what is old. There is also the likelihood that this failure is deliberate, a practice of reputable reporters gone stale and too lazy to dig beyond what their favorite insiders tell them.

Reputations are traps, the more reputation the greater the trap. Believe no spokesperson or reporter who speaks with authority to compensate for telling the truth unvarnished.

To be sure, the NY Times has not yet told the full story of how it came by the NSA poop, what has not yet been reported, what leads were not pursued, who else the publisher and managing editor met with besides Bush before and after the story was published.

And there remains a question about the credibility of the Times for its pre-war reporting of inaccuracies, its early patriotic stance, its being beat repeatedly on intelligence affairs and the Iraq war by Sy Hersh and other reporters not dominated by Wall Street and advertisers.

Still, until revealed otherwise, the current NY Times is not as closely allied to national authority as it has been in the past, when its reporters worked closely with intelligence agencies, its managing editors were more often warhawks, and it treated independence of journalists as grounds for dismissal.

The Times has a ways to go to get back to being a trustworthy source on national security, and that is likely to require more independence than it can financially afford. A lesson the telecomms would like to share: even as they whine about serving the demands of the authorities, they are doing great selling global and domestic services to their "tormentors." Having it both ways is the capitalist agenda: publicly defying government, sucking its bountiful teats.

Google is a prime candidate for that, batteries of apologists ready to spread the honest truth.