SodiumBenzoate
Member
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18...n-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/
WaPo says *only* the cellphone metadata program was in the public interest, and nothing else was. Including PRISM:
You can't make this shit up, folks.
edit: stealing from Morrigan Stark's post on page 2:
Washington Post, April 14, 2014 (Pulitzer acceptance):
THREE OF THE FOUR media outlets which received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden – The Guardian, The New York Times and The Intercept – have called for the U.S. government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That’s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest.
But not The Washington Post. In the face of a growing ACLU-and-Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend’s release of the Oliver Stone biopic “Snowden,” the Post editorial page not only argued today in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden — their paper’s own source — stand trial on espionage charges or, as a “second-best solution,” “accept[] a measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.”
WaPo says *only* the cellphone metadata program was in the public interest, and nothing else was. Including PRISM:
In arguing that no public interest was served by exposing PRISM, what did the Post editors forget to mention? That the newspaper which (simultaneous with The Guardian) made the choice to expose the PRISM program by spreading its operational details and top secret manual all over its front page is called . . . . The Washington Post. Then, once they made the choice to do so, they explicitly heralded their exposure of the PRISM program (along with other revelations) when they asked to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
You can't make this shit up, folks.
edit: stealing from Morrigan Stark's post on page 2:
Washington Post, April 14, 2014 (Pulitzer acceptance):
Washington Post, September 17, 2016 (this article):The Post’s coverage of NSA shattered the secrecy of a clandestine government program called PRISM, exposed the NSA’s repeated violations of its own privacy rules and more, bringing to light a discussion about the sometimes uneasy balance between individual privacy and national security.
The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. [...] What higher cause did that serve?