This is seriously the weirdest part of this story so far. Why is it news that this guy, who clearly has resigned, is being "fired"? And why was his precise salary released? Why is it being reported on? Why does it matter that he did, or did not, finish high school?
It feels like some kind of desperate attempt to disparage him. As if someone hopes it will sound like he's a disgruntled former employee that was fired. Or that he was some low level hack of an employee.
And yet no one is disputing that he worked for our spy agencies for the better part of a decade, or that he had a job that would tend to give him significant access. No one is disputing anything he's said at all, as far as I can tell. This shit is irrelevant.
I was going to say that looking at it through a more cynical lens it's to discredit him, but I'm not sure such a lens is required. The difference in reported income, the firing, the criminal investigation, and his job being re-listed as a junior level position are tools to do this. The reason for this smearing could be a PR stunt to shore up investors' confidence (and therefore the stock price), or it could be character assassination and to make casual readers think this was a low-level employee with problems telling the truth and holding down a job.
The article that's linked half way through paints Booz Allen as a wonderful, benevolent employer that was gracious enough to hire someone without formal credentials (in this job climate, no less!). It's most certainly to bolster its reputation on Wall Street and also to make people think Snowden was an ungrateful chump for giving up such a cushy position.
I've seen it reported in other articles, but I didn't see mention in this article about him not finishing HS. Was this original article edited?
Booz took zero risks hiring this guy. Zero chances at all. He has a TS/SCI clearance combined with whatever bullshit IT security certs gov't contracts demand, which means he is a guaranteed revenue source.
The risk that was taken was giving him a TS clearance at all. I don't agree with or like it, but the clearance process is supposed to eliminate people who don't like authority or the socially approved path. Somebody who drops out of high school despite being intelligent is clearly not someone who fits these criteria.
This is called the twenty-four hour news cycle. People want to hear more about this story, but there is nothing more that anyone knows. So we dive into the human element, speculate as to "why", and so on. People keep clicking the ads, so it must be what they want. (We read it, right?)
I don't think so. Let's say that media became subscription-sponsored instead. You have a subscription to the New York Times and your friend has a subscription to Fox News. She says, "hey, did you hear that gossipy gossip about the NSA" and you say, "no, the NYT isn't reporting anything about that". Then you cancel your subscription to the Times and switch to Fox.
But under a subscription model, the best set of stories wins, not the best set of clickbait headlines.
So if people want the gossip, then yes, subscriptions would still have quality problems. But if people want good information, then the publisher would not profit from serving crappy content under an enticing headline.
Do you doubt that people mostly want the gossip? I was about to say that people don't really know the difference between "good information" about current events, and gossip. After thinking about how to word that, though, it occurred to me that maybe there really isn't a difference.
ironically I, as someone who holds pieces of papers from some of the most highly esteemed institutions of education in this country and others, listening to Snowden speak for 30 seconds and digesting the implication of his actions has easily convinced me that he is a man of greater intellect, integrity and courage than myself or many of my similarly degree-equipped classmates.
the lack of a degree makes his star shine even brighter for me.
You, sir, are a true intellectual. I agree with you. I suspect a lot of the journalistic sniping is due to the fact that the writers invested heavily in pieces of paper, and years later have a significantly lower salary. Their bitterness and envy shapes their thoughts.
Booz Allen added Snowden's salary in the revised press release announcing his firing. Strange. Here's the text of the current version of the press release dated 6/11:
Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. Snowden, who had a salary at the rate of $122,000, was terminated June 10, 2013 for violations of the firm’s code of ethics and firm policy. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.
Here is an earlier (original?) version of the same press release dated 6/9:
Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, has been an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii.
News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm.
We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.
"This individual", notice the hideous language "we do not want to have anything to do with this... OK not going to insult him just depersonalize him". Might as well have said "this object". Not even Mr. or jus "he."
It maybe a simple matter of releasing details that everyone is clamoring for and yelling about. BAH's main interest in this matter is diverting blame for the leak away from their organization. They are not really interested in Snowden. They'd rather he be ignored than attacked.
> This is seriously the weirdest part of this story so far. Why is it news that this guy, who clearly has resigned, is being "fired"? And why was his precise salary released? Why is it being reported on? Why does it matter that he did, or did not, finish high school?
It's called "character attack" to discredit the source. Same happened to Assange.
I don't think it's an attack for Booz Allen to release the numbers to clear up a lie he (Snowden) made in an interview in which he was referencing the company.
Imagine that you're an employee for the company with a degree and a decade of experience or even a shareholder. Now you read that your employer was paying some low-level contractor 200k/yr in Hawaii. As an exec at Booz Allen, why wouldn't you try to minimize your damage?
We're playing a game of truths and realities. It's embarrassing to company to have this happen. It's more embarrassing and painful if the employee that made it happen was grossly overcompensated in the eyes of shareholders.
Keep in mind that Booz Allen and the NSA are different entities. Booz Allen is (rationally) defending its own assets.
Once you take into account a ~30% annual bonus (normal for BAH), a company car, and relocation expenses - all of which you can be sure he had, as they're also de rigeur for NGO contractors, that $200k figure is about right.
CNN has been focusing on trashing this guy since his identity first came to light. Their reporting has also been quick to minimize the extent and importance of this scandal. Partisan reporting at its finest - they are going to be the last ones on Obama's sinking ship.
For the record, I watched Fox News while eating lunch yesterday, and bounced between it and MSNBC. Fox was much, much worse about attacking Snowden. They brought in an FBI profiler who sat there and pretended to know what kind of personality Snowden has. She basically painted him as an attention whore. Then the Fox reporter made fun of his girlfriend for being rather "hippyish" and enrolling in circus classes, and asked leading questions that were clearly heading down the path of "this guy is a fruitcake liberal."
The fact that he donated money to Rand Paul was ignored, naturally.
Oddly enough, MSNBC was actually criticizing Obama, and running a story comparing him to George W. Bush.
Calling CNN partisan is absurd. They're not. They are biased, of course, but to their corporate sponsors.
Just thought I'd pop your factless bubble with an anecdote that completely destroys it. The "liberal media" bullshit is just that: bullshit. Journalists who are classically trained tend to be liberal because of their college background, but are tempered by both age and the "journalistic ethic" drilled in to them. "Conservative" media isn't really ideologically conservative. They instead play to an elderly reader/viewer base that hates change and resents a country that isn't as white, Christian or rural as it used to be. Hence the fact that John Boehner is on TV calling Snowden a traitor, while the ACTUAL Conservatives who have a true ideology call him a hero.
Another thing I noticed is that every Onion story related to the scandal has been pro-NSA (today I learned pro-NSA humor exists). It reminded me of the recent gun control debates in which every Onion story related to that was pro gun control. I'm not saying they're part of a larger concerted effort to sway public opinion, but it does make me question their integrity as a comedic organization.
Pro-gun control? You don't remember the one with the gorillas, I think it was, advocating for gorilla control and with people complaining that the keeping of gorillas in public was a Constitutional right, and even if a few people in stores get savaged by gorillas occasionally, that was a small price to pay for freedom?
Um, that one was extremely pro gun control. Read it again. "Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack". This is making fun of people who buy guns in the aftermath of shootings, and who seek the preservation of 2nd amendment rights. It argues (by analogy) that such people are silly to fight for such antiquated rights, and that there would be complete chaos if everyone owned a gun.
Are you trying to say that it's inherently silly to question the integrity of a comedic organization?
If so, I'd disagree with you, as many people use comedy as a means to make a point, political and otherwise. I think the success of Jon Stewart and Colbert point to the fact that valid points can be made with comedy.
While I don't think "comedic organizations" are (or should be) held to the same standard as journalistic ones, GP has a valid point about bias, even in comedic reporting.
"Are you trying to say that it's inherently silly to question the integrity of a comedic organization?"
Yes. Jon Stewart has scoffed, in more than one interview, at the notion that he be held to any standards whatsoever, other than the standard of being funny.
"a valid point about bias"
I respectfully disagree. I see nothing wrong with any sort or degree of bias from the Onion, Daily Show, or any other "comedic organization".
A couple things: 1. Today there was an anti-NSA article ("NSA Assures Americans That PRISM 2.0 Will Be Way More Invasive"), which kind of invalidates my point. 2. "Comedic organization" was the best term I could come up with; I know it sounds a bit ridiculous. :-)
I was surprised when I opened the CNN app on Monday, not a single story was about this issue, yet the BBC app had 3 in the top stories. Reminds me of the articles going around comparing media in Turkey to that outside of it during the protests...
It's pretty well-known that CNN works with governments, especially the US government, whenever they're asked to. Former CNN reporters have outed them on this.
but you can bet that if CNN broke the story and he went to them with the documents they would be praising him ..
i've noticed a few outlets that are usually progressive have been leaning anti-Snowden, and I can't help but feel that it is because of a professional jealousy.
>It feels like some kind of desperate attempt to disparage him.
Not desperate at all; the tactic is wildly successful. Just look at what happened with Wikileak's work with its editor Assange and source Manning. The same tactics will come up against the Guardian with journalist Greenwald and source Snowden. The situations are similar in enough ways.
He claimed to be earning $200,000 in his statements to The Guardian — his intention, presumably, to emphasise the extent of the sacrifice he has made in releasing these documents.
A side-effect of that revelation is that Booz Allen Hamilton have been reported on in a decidedly unfavourable light, as the greedy contractors in cahoots with the US government to bleed the taxpayer dry.
Booz Allen Hamilton obviously want to counter that notion, so have produced a much lower, slightly more reasonable, figure for his salary.
As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. The figure Snowden gave is probably rounded up for simplicity, and the figure BAH provided is probably excluding parts of his compensation package.
If his salary is over $100,000 then he is probably "earning" over $200,000 for his employer. Also, as others have pointed out, your salary is significantly less than what you actually get paid.
It seems likely that Booz Allen has other contractors still working on NSA projects besides Snowden. There's a certain amount of damage control they need to do if they want to keep their client happy and keep the contracts coming.
This was probably true when you wrote it eight hours ago, but in the past hour someone who should know[0] was interviewed on NPR, and said that there is no way that Snowden had the abilities and access that he claimed in an interview. She strongly disputed his claim that he had been able to "wiretap" anyone at will, sitting at his desk.
[0] A professor of something like national security studies, who worked for intelligence agencies for years before academia.
"Mr Snowden's employer, defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, said on Tuesday it had fired the 29-year-old infrastructure analyst for violating its ethics code."
I was thinking before, how in the hell is a sys admin contractor making $200k/year??? Especially in Hawaii. $122k seems about right. Regardless, this does seem to cast some doubt about Snowden's character. Why lie? It seems like such a trivial point.
At any rate, I really hope the ad hominen attacks don't sway public opinion about the gravity of the overall message: even though the messenger may be disingenuous, the government has already admitted to mass spying. 4th amendment rights are being disregarded.
edit:
Ok, I'm seeing all kinds of conjecturing. I know a lot of people who work as civilian IT contractors in Hawaii. I grew up there; I used to work there at Square USA; my uncle is a retired military officer who is now working for Northrop Grumman as a civilian IT contractor in Hawaii. There is NO way any civilian IT contractor is making that kind of dough in Hawaii even working tons of overtime. When my uncle was working as a civilian IT contractor in Korea back during the dot com boom, he was telling me that most of his employees were making $125k. However, most of that was tax free. So, they were making money hand over fist. Since then, he's said that salaries have stagnated and even gone down. He's a programmer and an Oracle DBA; and nowadays, he's not making more than 100k. I personally don't know anyone who is making $200k in IT. Even my friend at Goldman Sachs who has a masters degree in comp sci from Cornell is only making $125k without bonuses. And he said the bonuses are only 10%. So, really guys, the $200k is most likely baloney. I'm not buying that. But, regardless, it's a moot point. The government is screwing us over; they've already admitted to it in so much words.
> how in the hell is a sys admin contractor making $200k/year???
Bonuses for special projects. Stock options. Relocation reimbursements.
Also given that BAH is also the bad guy they will try to discredit him as much as possible (he lied is a first strike) to divert the attention from their own incompetence.
*">I was thinking before, how in the hell is a sys admin contractor making $200k/year???"
That's not a stretch in my experience.
Unless there's something particular about a Hawaii assignment that depresses rates, I'd say your circle of friends and associates just isn't a very representative of Government IT contracting as a whole.
Since you updated your post after I replied, I wanted to add:
> I personally don't know anyone who is making $200k in IT.
I personally know many people that make 200k in IT. Your friend at Goldman Sachs is getting fucked. He should apply somewhere else and see what they offer him and how Goldman counters.
Um... isn't releasing his salary (bear in mind he works in the private sector for a private contractor and wasn't a government or public sector employee) a violation of privacy laws? I love the level of irony of every layer of this story. It gets more comical by the day.
This seems like it would be obvious. Did we really need an article for this? After the gov yanks your network access and security clearance, you aren't much help. Bigger news would be that Booz Allen gets fired.
ETA: Though I doubt the gov would fire Booz Allen. That's probably too much expertise to replace and leaks can happen anywhere. I assume they would work together to find ways to tighten up.
BAH is pretty damn big in DMV (DC,MD,VA). The government would be hard pressed to fire them outright. And this is nothing to them, sliding a few campaign contribution checks to a few congress critters will make sure they'll still be on every bid.
before somebody jumps down his throat for saying he had a salary of $200k a year, the original part of the article is as follows:
> He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves.
The $200k part isn't in quotes, so it is possible that the writer mixed up a statement on what he previously earned, what he earned in total in the last year, or something else.
The point of that part of the story was to set out just how much he was leaving behind, no doubt he had a comfortable life.
I wouldn't read too much in the discrepancy between what Booz say his salary was and what it was states as in The Guardian - except that it is a bit weird for a former employer to include in a statement about a person being fired what their salary was.
They likely only mentioned it because $200k was mentioned in the original article, a further attempt to discredit although a soft one.
Why are people focusing so much on the salary? Besides, for all we know that 122k is his base salary he got serious bonuses, stock options, etc and so he valued his annual earnings at close to 200k.
It feels like some kind of desperate attempt to disparage him. As if someone hopes it will sound like he's a disgruntled former employee that was fired. Or that he was some low level hack of an employee.
And yet no one is disputing that he worked for our spy agencies for the better part of a decade, or that he had a job that would tend to give him significant access. No one is disputing anything he's said at all, as far as I can tell. This shit is irrelevant.