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

[Tyler Durden]

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 <jya at cryptome.net>
>To: cypherpunks at 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.