Guardian US, Washington Post share Pulitzer Prize for coverage of NSA Surv.

[Wilikon]

The Guardian US and the Washington Post are among the winners of a prestigious journalistic Pulitzer award. The newspapers shared the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service Reporting for coverage of NSA surveillance and whistleblower Snowden’s leaks.

[Kiki112]

they deserve it..

we need newspapers that aren't afraid to publish hidden data when they stumble upon them..

[TheIrishman]

Guardian and Washington Post win Pulitzer prize for NSA revelations

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/14/guardian-washington-post-pulitzer-nsa-revelations

<< Pair awarded highest accolade in US journalism, winning Pulitzer prize for public service for stories on NSA surveillance. >>

[Carlton Banks]

they deserve it..

we need newspapers that aren't afraid to publish hidden data when they stumble upon them..

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give the prize to journalists that were trying to publicise NSA surveillance before the Snowden revelations? I mean, before it became fashionable for the corporate media to take the topic on?

[bryant.coleman]

OK. Good. Can they now give an award to Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

[Sithara007]

OK. Good. Can they now give an award to Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

May be. First they should give it to Snowden.

[Carlton Banks]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give the prize to journalists that were trying to publicise NSA surveillance before the Snowden revelations? I mean, before it became fashionable for the corporate media to take the topic on?

You mean before there was evidence?

Snowden's evidence will never be verified. When you think about the nature of the work the intelligence/security agencies do, then Powerpoint presentation files featuring the word "CLASSIFIED" as a header can never be proof of authenticity. I'm not saying they're fake, or a red herring, or that they're real. But believing one possibility over another is entirely blind faith. We have no idea what the authenticity of those documents are, and "someone you trust" vouching for that is not sufficient proof of authenticity.

On the other hand, NSA whistleblowers numbering at least 4 stepped up as early as 2002. Some of them went to visit Snowden in Russia for a press conference/photo opportunity. One that didn't, Russell Tice, had been getting mainstream TV appearances for years, and he claims that he consistently asked to be able to speak of NSA overreach on camera. TV production staff allegedly asked him to not bring those issues up, and instead to respond to the questions he was given. He was not a contractor to NSA like Snowden, he was direct NSA management.

[bryant.coleman]

Snowden's evidence will never be verified.

There is no need to verify his claims. The FBI / NSA have verified it for us. If he was telling BS, then the FBI could have come out with evidence for so, and might have jailed him within days.

On the other hand, just look at what they have done. They tried to eliminate him, and they tried to hide the leaks. That itself proves that Snowden was not lying about his claims.

[Carlton Banks]

Snowden's evidence will never be verified.

There is no need to verify his claims. The FBI / NSA have verified it for us. If he was telling BS, then the FBI could have come out with evidence for so, and might have jailed him within days.

On the other hand, just look at what they have done. They tried to eliminate him, and they tried to hide the leaks. That itself proves that Snowden was not lying about his claims.

Why didn't they warrant the arrest of the previous NSA whistleblowers? Does that somehow prove they were not credible? And if yes, is it just a coincidence that they made every claim Snowden made, and also that they were former NSA employees?

[exocytosis]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give the prize to journalists that were trying to publicise NSA surveillance before the Snowden revelations? I mean, before it became fashionable for the corporate media to take the topic on?

You mean before there was evidence?

Snowden's evidence will never be verified. When you think about the nature of the work the intelligence/security agencies do, then Powerpoint presentation files featuring the word "CLASSIFIED" as a header can never be proof of authenticity. I'm not saying they're fake, or a red herring, or that they're real. But believing one possibility over another is entirely blind faith. We have no idea what the authenticity of those documents are, and "someone you trust" vouching for that is not sufficient proof of authenticity.

On the other hand, NSA whistleblowers numbering at least 4 stepped up as early as 2002. Some of them went to visit Snowden in Russia for a press conference/photo opportunity. One that didn't, Russell Tice, had been getting mainstream TV appearances for years, and he claims that he consistently asked to be able to speak of NSA overreach on camera. TV production staff allegedly asked him to not bring those issues up, and instead to respond to the questions he was given. He was not a contractor to NSA like Snowden, he was direct NSA management.

True.
Also, ECHELON (a far worse program than PRISM) was described in magazine articles as far back as in 1988, maybe even earlier.

[bryant.coleman]

Why didn't they warrant the arrest of the previous NSA whistleblowers?

Perhaps the others were not able to access this much sensitive and classified information.

[exocytosis]

Snowden's evidence will never be verified.

There is no need to verify his claims. The FBI / NSA have verified it for us. If he was telling BS, then the FBI could have come out with evidence for so, and might have jailed him within days.

On the other hand, just look at what they have done. They tried to eliminate him, and they tried to hide the leaks. That itself proves that Snowden was not lying about his claims.

They haven't tried to eliminate him. If they had, then they could've easily taken him out when he was in Hong Kong. According to his first interview, he was situated in a hotel right next to the CIA HQ of that city. They've been eager to make us believe he's the real deal, when in fact he hasn't unveiled anything new. It's in the interest of TPTB to make us believe in Snowden. And to keep him in operation. He can supply the Russians with fake American intelligence. He can try to get authentic intelligence from the Russians, and give this to his CIA superiors. And he can hurt the NSA a bit, thus benefiting the CIA, whom he's currently working for.


http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/matrix-who-is-edward-snowden/

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/spygate/

[Nemo1024]

You mean NSA and CIA have the same kind of rivalry as KGB and GRU?

[dogechode]

True.
Also, ECHELON (a far worse program than PRISM) was described in magazine articles as far back as in 1988, maybe even earlier.

Back in 1988 news didn't get around quite as efficiently as it does now. Now, when something breaks you can have hundreds of millions of people viewing it within a matter of hours.

[Carlton Banks]

they could've easily taken him out when he was in Hong Kong. According to his first interview, he was situated in a hotel right next to the CIA HQ of that city. They've been eager to make us believe he's the real deal, when in fact he hasn't unveiled anything new. It's in the interest of TPTB to make us believe in Snowden.

I find this line of reasoning convincing. So why is it in the interest of the media, the state or the security services to allow Snowden airtime? And to have disallowed it to those whistleblowers from the past?

One reason could be that this is a way to re-mold what the public expects using an intelligence asset that's under their control. The alternative would be to make an explicit announcement "From now on, all emails and phone calls are the property of the state. Well, when we say 'from now on', what we mean is 'since about 5-8 years ago". Being up front wouldn't work out so well, I think we can all agree.

So, instead there's a "brave leaker" to tell us "the truth", while the security agency superiors publicly deny it. This has the advantage that not everyone will believe "the traitor", and the people who believe the depositions of people like Thomas Clapper and Michael Hayden were the least likely to criticise state overreach anyway. Conversely, people that are inclined to question the official line can end up going too far the other way, and believe that Snowden and everything he says is unquestionable, very similar to those who stick to believing everything the alphabet agencies have to say on the matter. Too convoluted? Well: polarising debates, encouraging extremes so people find it hard to compromise their beliefs, that's a real winning strategy when it comes to managing the herd. And you can see examples of where that same basic strategy gets used again and again. Cue the Snowden cheerleaders.

[shogdite]

Well deserved, looking forward to more revelations about our corrupt intelligence agencies

[Carlton Banks]

Expect new Snowden disclosures to be released in the manner of a dripping tap instead of a full blown leak. If the skeptics are to be believed, the order in which the documents are released by Greenwald et al will be exploited for effect.

[exocytosis]

Expect new Snowden disclosures to be released in the manner of a dripping tap instead of a full blown leak. If the skeptics are to be believed, the order in which the documents are released by Greenwald et al will be exploited for effect.

Indeed. Rappoport writes about that here: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-story-the-washington-post-wont-print/

The Post story, and the Post’s refusal to “name the country” is very much like a film teaser or trailer: “We know what country it is but we aren’t saying at this time. Stay tuned. More exciting revelations to follow…and who knows? We might break our code of silence and tell you the name of that blanketed nation! Is it Afghanistan? Iraq? France? England?”

So what’s the real bottom-line op here?

It’s all about keeping the NSA story alive, in order that people know they’re being spied on 24/7. That’s the social engineering aspect. That’s the game.

And in that regard, the slow-drip method of releasing Snowden files is quite useful. It appears to be a smart journalistic strategy, to “keep the issue before the public so that a true debate about government secrecy and spying can take place.”

But the debate isn’t effective. The NSA isn’t being curbed. If one of its channels of snooping is cut back, another one will emerge.

No, the actual op is: keep reminding people they’re being spied on; that will make them more cautious; that will make make them conform in action, speech, and thought.

Also: Check out what Rappoport says about the NSA spying on financial institutions and other companies, to gain trading advantages. Very interesting stuff. It's already well-documented (even by the MSM) that NSA has access to anyone's bank accounts and can manipulate the balances at will. It's also documented that they have been spying (or at least planned to spy) on IMF and various corporations.