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

[John Young]

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.