Inside the Guardian and the Snowden Leaks 239
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting and thoughtful article in the New Yorker about the inner workings of the Guardian newspaper. It explains a lot about why the Snowden files ended up there and not elsewhere. Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right. An illustrative quote about Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor: 'He has a really useful piece of equipment that most editors don't have, which is a spinal column.' I would encourage everyone to read this, and if you support the type of journalism the Guardian has been engaging in, think about buying a subscription. The article also talks about the financial side of the newspaper business, and real journalism is not going to happen unless somebody pays for it."
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I would recommend reading diverse viewpoints. I read fox news, huffington post, bbc & al jazeera on a daily basis. I buy the atlantic and the economist. Then the daily show & the onion :)
Re:Don't be naive. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Guardian is a hard-left medium that has proven itself to be anti-American over the decades.
Your point being?
Oh right, you think america should be given respect for free instead of earning it through deed like everyone else has to.
Re:Don't be naive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
So? You can be biased and still do good journalism. In fact, I'd say it's impossible not to be biased. Everyone is biased, it's human nature. Organizations can go some way to mitigating that bias but you'll never remove it entirely.
Modern journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you expect from journalism?
As long as a story about Lindsay Lohans latest rehab draws ten times as much readers as some background article about the NSA spying capabilities while being less risky at the same time, the development is clear.
Do you really expect someone to risk the ire of that organisation that can dig (or make) up your dirtiest secrets in order to get less readers? You have to be an idealist or crazy (or preferably both) to do so.
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's where you biffed it. The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is. But you tend not to see biases towards things you agree with as clearly as things you disagree with, so I forgive your temporary bout of insanity in making that statement. Maybe they got this one instance right, maybe not. An entire slashdot thread has been created just so we can scream at, er, I mean, debate, the veracity of that statement. But... the Guardian is biased. Sorry man.
You don't have to be a post-modernist to agree that all media (hell, everyon) is biased. However, I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.economist.com/ [economist.com]
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
4 Points
1) Diversity is good, but... You must keep in mind that is not sufficient reason to read a source. A 'diversity' of falsehoods is worthless.
2) You can't read everything. Choose the areas that mean the most to you (international affairs, economics, national or local politics, etc) and try to find 2-3 sources that seem to do good work in those areas.
3) Be aware who is paying the bills. The consumers/adverisers in typical newspapers? Purely advertisers as in television/online reporting? Government in state funded broadcasting? I don't believe reporters will bend their views to match the person paying the bills. Instead reporters with unsympathetic views will often not get hired in the first place (probably not a lot of leftwingers in Fox or rightwingers on MSNBC). I'd strongly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent [wikipedia.org] for more information.
4) Let your choices evolve. The editors today may not be the editors tomorrow. Companies get bought out, new ones arise. How much longer will the Guardian's editor remain?
My recommendations:
The guardian [theguardian.com] -- You already have your reasons. I think their dissimenating the NSA leaks and wikileaks info when no one else would [gawker.com] is justification enough.
al jazeera [aljazeera.com] -- Particularly foreign viewpoint, high quality.
Democracy Now [democracynow.org] -- Not the best quality but clearly believe what they say and is run off donations. Also provides an American (important to me as I am one) viewpoint on things.
Their are others I think are probably good and have seen other posters mention already but I'm not experienced enough with them to know.
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad it's only an opinion because there is no evidence to suggest this is true. One can use the Boston bombing as a classic example of how the blogosphere got it completely wrong. Same with Sandy Hook, to use just two examples.
The reason why blogs appear to be more accurate is because they generally cater to one specific area whereas those in the industry cover just about everything and need to put that information in a form digestible to the masses. Even though they may have a reporter dedicated to an area, that one person has to cover the gamut of the subject which isn't easy under any circumstance. When you're on a deadline, it is much more difficult.
Unless someone is on the scene, recording things as they happen then write about it in an unbiased manner (or as unbiased as they can be by not using terms such as "pigs", "gestapo" and so on), their reporting will be significantly less accurate than those who do this for a living. Further, and as previously mentioned, they need to put concepts and ideas into neat and compact sound bites for people to understand.
That said, and to use a tired quote, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Same with the blogosphere.
Blogosphere vs. Old Media (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the side effects of the rise of the blogging hordes is the death of traditional journalism. Even if old media is biased one way or another, the decent newspapers of record have some respect for journalistic integrity. Reporting on a government corruption scandal is very different from reporting on the latest iPhone over at Engadget or the endless stream of celebrity garbage "news." Seeking out the real story from actual, verifiable sources rather than a blogger posting their own opinion as fact is the difference. While I'm sure some bloggers are journalists in the traditional sense, not all are, and blogs are even more sensitive to producing content that makes people click than newspapers are.
Some people may cite this as anti-progress, but look at media prior to the Internet, in fact, before cable TV. There were only 3 network news sources, and a few newspapers of record producing content. Now there's tons of media outlets, thousands of random bloggers, and an increasing trend of the medial outlets crowdsourcing content from their readers (CNN iReport, etc. etc.) Having so many choices means that opinions are more diverse, but conversely it also means that it narrows people's viewpoints. Conservatives are Fox News fans, but they're also fans of even more conservative bloggers. It makes liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative, and that leads to situations like we're in today with Congress and the Tea Party faction. You would never have something like this in the 50s/60s simply because the population didn't have enough customized hot-button content to whip them into whatever polarized frenzy they're into.
Traditional journalism does need to return to media, but as the submitter states, you have to pay for it, and integrity doesn't pay the bills like the latest unverified rumor from a friend of a friend of Lindsey Lohan...
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it is fair to compare the bias of the Guardian with the bias of Fox News. There are degrees.
I gotta say, they're just as biased as Fox News, just differently biased since they are from a different country with a different political landscape. If you're looking for less-biased news from the UK, the gold standard example is the BBC. And once you've seen good reporting, then it should be pretty obvious that The Guardian is heavily biased.
The problem with the BBC is that their abhorrence for bias can lead to excessive caution.
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is.
No. Fox News is far more unbalanced. The Guardian is middle left from a european point of view and Fox News would be far right. And there is one other point. You can be biased and write smart stuff. One of them does, the other...?
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
The so called "bloggosphere" tends to be more accurate in my opinion.
Exactly. They seem more "accurate" to you because the ones you visit share your views.
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC is great, but they are just as biased as any news outfit. Their bias tends to be toward a sort of civilized middle-of-the-road establishment view, but it's a mistake to think that that is not a bias.
The Financial Times (Score:5, Insightful)
Their focus is mostly financial, but I really enjoy their world news reporting. Whenever I pick up a "normal" paper here, even (especially?) one of the "big" ones, it seems that they're trying to sell me an extreme viewpoint - and maybe some male enhancement products to go with it - rather than actually impart any information. The FT is much more reporting like I remember it used to be. Maybe because they actually charge enough for their paper to cover their costs.
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if Snowden had gone to the New York TImes? (Score:5, Insightful)
The NTY has been riding the work of Woodward and Bernstein since Watergate. That was a long time ago, and now they are in the pocket of intrenched special interests, just like the rest of US journalism.
It's a sad day when no major new organization in the US can be counted on to stand up to external pressure, whether it be economic or political. It ironic that a newspaper in the UK is doing the heavy lifting in this case, since there is no constitutional protection of the press in England, and there is in the US.
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you didn't. As for Ak-47's, those were explicitly allowed by the occupational forces - was Bush not merciful - for personal defense.
Which means that if a SWAT team saw a licensed permit holder walking down a street in America, and opened fire with automatic weapons, you'd support that, right? And then also fired upon anyone who tried to rescue the wounded, right? Right?
Re:Reference Newspapers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The NYT would be reporting it if Bush were Pres (Score:3, Insightful)
Like that time with the Iraq war and the cheerleading?
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has an opinion but reporters are to report the news.
"Reporters reporting the news" is hardly immune to bias:
1. What is considered "the news" anyways? I think we can agree that "Planes Flown Into World Trade Center" is news, and "Area Man Posts Cat Video" is not, but how about "50 People Protest" versus "Double Homicide On Fleet St" versus "10 Brokers Convicted of Mortgage Fraud"?
2. Who do you talk to in order to understand the news story in question? For example, in discussions on Syria's chemical weapons, does your report mostly contain information from (a) the White House, (b) US Congressional opposition leadership, (c) the Kremlin, (d) the UN, (e) Bashar al-Assad's government, (f) Syrian rebels, (g) the Israeli government, etc, etc.
3. Who's information do you believe, if there is disagreement about something? Which sources do you challenge aggressively and which sources do you treat as fairly impartial observers? For example, on an economics story, do you accept a government report as truth if there's a competing report by another group, especially if that group has a political ax to grind?
4. Even if you've perfectly balanced issues 1, 2, and 3, what comes first in your report and what becomes the headline? For example, on 9/12/2001, many headlines in the US read "America Attacked", which was true but conveys a somewhat different story than "18 Terrorists Attack World Trade Center and Pentagon".
Re:Erm, ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be biased and still do good journalism.
If you are aware of your bias and tell your reader, you are an excellent journalist.
If you are aware of your bias and do not tell about them, you are a propagandist
If you are unaware of your bias, you are a terrible journalist
If you do not have bias, you are not a human person