"So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate?"
"Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history."
That, and government propaganda. Look at CNN's lede:
"Washington (CNN) -- The man who admitted leaking classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs purportedly went online live on Monday to declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed, and said President Barack Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives."
This is textbook propaganda. The news media like CNN may partially be about entertainment, but it is also about propagating the government position, specifically the intelligence agencies positions.
To start with, take a look at that first clause: "The man who admitted leaking classified documents..." The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal. Were CNN to want to cast him in a positive light they could have chosen to write it something like this: "The man who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications..." Instead CNN chose to emphasize the criminal aspect, rather than the civil liberties/anti-democratic aspect.
Next: "... purportedly went online..." The use of the word "purportedly" here is interesting. Why is that questioned? To associate doubt with him. It's subtle, but nevertheless there it is.
Next: "declare the truth would come out even if he is jailed or killed". Out of all the questions which were answered CNN focused on this one because it most easily supports the "egotistical" narrative they are attempting to paint him with. Implication: "He is setting himself up as some kind of martyr! How arrogant!"
Next: "Obama did not fulfill his promises and expanded several 'abusive' national security initiatives." This one is, to me, the most blatant. The scare quotes around "abusive" are of course the most obvious. But look how the frame it: "national security initiatives". Not "domestic spying programs", or "electronic surveillance mechanisms", or something else. After all, no one who calls themselves reasonable can be opposed to national security!
It's subtle, and of course debatable. But it's certainly present. CNN has their own slant, and it is obviously pro-NSA.
Also note that nowhere to they actually link to the Q&A page.
Let's rewrite it, communicate the same information, but make it skeptical towards the NSA:
"Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed widespread secret surveillance of American's electronic communications and online activities, did an online question-and-answer session today, making himself available to provide follow-up answers to questions raised by concerned citizens over the reach and power of the notoriously secretive intelligence agency."
Also, the "..'abusive'.." quotes serve to show a disdain for Snowden's position; "Snowden claims this was 'abusive' - and we know him to be a criminal traitor, if you think the acts of the NSA were abusive, then you clearly are a traitor sympathizer.
I recall the reports of CIA handlers years ago in CNN, clearly they are still there... (I am looking for a link, but so far came up blank)
The former National Security Agency contractor who revealed the U.S. government's top-secret monitoring of Americans' phone and Internet data fought back against his critics on Monday, saying the government's "litany of lies" about the programs compelled him to act.
This: this is why I pay $20/month for NYT, even though I think that a random sampling of articles from Google News (representative publications from around the world) provides more signal to noise.
"The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal." Ignoring any moral aspects, isn't he technically a criminal? This certainly seems more neutral than your suggestion. Calling him a traitor would be out of line, but I do believe it was against the law to do what he did.
It IS only 'purportedly' him; why do you expect CNN to report what it cannot confirm?
The quotes around 'abusive' are suggestive, but it is also how you indicate that the word came from someone other than the author of the article. If you expect neutrality, expect the writer to segregate their words from their subject's.
Your summary is far more emotionally charged and subjective.
He didn't say he wasn't a criminal. He said that out of two pieces of information:
* He violated the law (negative)
* He exposed secret domestic surveillance by the government (positive)
They chose to highlight the negative, rather than the positive.
Purportedly went online on Monday? No. That wasn't the right word to use there.
Of course the abusive quotes can be interpreted that way, but there are other words that could be put in quotes because they too came from other sources. They chose to put 'abusive' in quotes but not 'national security initiatives', for example.
His summary is not emotionally charged at all - he shows how the same information can be worded in ways that highlight the positive or negative aspects. And it is clear what CNN did, to an extreme.
Which summary you find more emotionally charged probably depends on your existing opinion, and how often you consume mainstream news. To me CNN's wording (and, for that matter, all TV news reports) feels like a stream of verbal knives, each word chosen to induce anxiety and put the viewer/reader on edge. Regardless of their veracity, "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.
> * "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.*
Of course it is. CNN competes with 250+ other channels to grab your attention, draw you deeper in, and serve you commercial breaks.
You could claim it's a carefully orchestrated propaganda machine designed to scare people into ceding their rights to the government (of course, such arguments might also designed to scare you). Or you could claim that they need to do this to excite their broad audience and thereby preserve their jobs and paychecks.
You could say the media dug up pictures of his girlfriend in provocative outfits to discredit him among conservative Americans. Or you could acknowledge that they didn't have to do much digging at all, that sex sells, and that the public love personality news (see all the Hollywood "news" shows).
There's a conspiracy lurking around every corner, if you go looking for it.
To me, "purportedly" is the glaring weaselword and is intended to cast aspersions or otherwise impugn the whole 'construct' of Mr. Snowden as illegitimate.
It would be nice if they were at least intellectually honest about it by calling a spade a spade, even if that spade is themselves.
"The following articles presents discussion of the man behind the leaks. We are providing this information to satiate the curiosity of our readers. However, despite the fact that we are providing these stories, we strongly encourage readers to view these articles for what they are, rubbernecking. We strongly urge readers to keep their judgement confined to the facts we know about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and to exercise control so that their opinion of Snowden does not prevent them from forming an objective opinion on government spying programs. etc. etc. etc."
"So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate?"
"Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history."
:(