Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 12:43 AM Jun 2013

When power seduces, transparency is discarded

17 June 2013

When power seduces, transparency is discarded
Scott Burchill

Edward Snowden is accused of reckless criminality, treachery, and being uneducated, writes Scott Burchill. Why do we find such hostility to transparency in the mainstream media?

...

As Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story in The Guardian explains, "there is nobody who political officials and their supine media class hate more than those who meaningfully dissent from their institutional orthodoxies and shine light on what they do. The hatred for such individuals is boundless."

Snowden is accused of reckless criminality, treachery, and being uneducated, his belief in the need for greater transparency of public surveillance by intelligence agencies cited as evidence of some mental disturbance.

...

There is remarkably little hostility to selective leaks by incontinent governments, which represent the overwhelming majority of media disclosures. Bob Woodward in The Washington Post is widely regaled as a hero of investigative journalism when he turns authorised leaks from inside the Beltway into best-selling books. No secret grand juries are empanelled for him as they appear to have been for the head of WikiLeaks. Woodward adheres strictly to the rules of Washington's playbook: leaks are fine provided they are on the terms set by the powerful.

Snowden's primary failure, like that of Manning and Assange before him, is that he was not sufficiently indoctrinated to trust the state. For this lack of fidelity he must be punished and stigmatised by faithful servants of the state who know better - people who can be trusted with knowledge that confers power and influence.

...

Dr Scott Burchill is a senior lecturer at Deakin University's School of International & Political Studies

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4757632.html

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When power seduces, transparency is discarded (Original Post) Catherina Jun 2013 OP
Reality, simply put, Newest Reality Jun 2013 #1
No, Snowden's primary failure is that he's a duplicitous dbag and an agent for China. Maybe people okaawhatever Jun 2013 #2
actually, though I value Bernstein, I myself never liked Woodward...and not to mention graham4anything Jun 2013 #3

Newest Reality

(12,712 posts)
1. Reality, simply put,
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:00 AM
Jun 2013

is what you can get away with.

When you take that explicitly and consider the double entendre involved, it really dose suffice as a definition in the human realm.

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
2. No, Snowden's primary failure is that he's a duplicitous dbag and an agent for China. Maybe people
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:06 AM
Jun 2013

regard Woodward and Bernstein differently because their primary interest was telling the truth to the American people. Snowden's is to reveal America's secrets to the Chinese at the EXPENSE of the American people.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
3. actually, though I value Bernstein, I myself never liked Woodward...and not to mention
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 04:23 AM
Jun 2013

It always struck me as odd that only Woodward was involved with the mole who might have actually given info that wasn't
correct, but the bread crumbs deep throat led Woodward to, just happened to be the ones that end up being reported.

Why wasn't Bernstein part of it? Because it is quite possible, the great Bernstein would have delved into more of the story than
the dupe Woodward did.

And it didn't come out til recently that Watergate really was about Nixon hiding the info that he sabatoged LBJ's peace talks.

So that in essence, Watergate made that knowledge remain hidden.

And of course, with what Nixon did in 1968, was to keep the war from ending for another 6 years.

Without Nixon and the gang of thugs he had, LBJ would have ended the war in 1968.

So, NO Woodward is NOT a hero to me. (and Woodward in my opinion, works against the democratic party and always had IMHO.)
(and I bet Ford knew it, and that is why Ford pardoned Nixon wrongly.)

BTW-all media is rightwing. Mainstream is major league, altmedia is minor league, but it is all the same, as any alt media writer
is just receving a smaller paycheck than a mainstream media, but there is not one alt media writer that wouldn't instantly want
to trade paychecks with Bob Woodward, who for some reason embeds himself in every single administration and like Tom Brokaw,
on MSNBC, just happens to be theone given more airtime than anyone else to slant the story.

So this article loses me right from the word Woodward. because, NO I do not value anything he says and never did.
Bernstein is a different story, and I listen to him(though I don't follow his every breathe and make up my own mind as to the story itself).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»When power seduces, trans...