In the latest New Yorker, Ryan Lizza writes on “State of Deception: Why won’t the President rein in the intelligence community?” Which would be an interesting topic. Alas Lizza says little about it. Instead he summarizes the history of NSA spying on US citizens, supported via misleading statements and tortured legal interpretations, and talks the most about one Senator Ron Wyden’s heroic fight against the NSA.
Nationally prominent left-wing politicians who oppose the NSA are in reality pretty scarce. So they find who they can, however weak his actual opposition or record may be.
Everyone is probably aware that a federal judge held that NSA's data-collection methods are unconstitutional. The suit was brought by a conservative, but only liberal Democrats are quoted in this Politico piece. ( http://www.politico.com/sto... )
Does the Tea Party choose to make less noise about the NSA than the liberals or is the Politico article biased in the manner you suggest? (Serious question.)
Just because Wyden give a lot of input doesn't mean that he's responsible for the errors. Journalists do have a habit of changing facts here and there to fit the narrative better.
the fact that Wyden didn't get enough support to pass laws does not make him less of a fighter against the NSA
True, but the fact that he originally supported the Patriot Act and disapproves of Snowden (who accomplished more) does make him less of a fighter against the NSA.
What I find amusing in this story (if Robin will excuse me) is that Wyden succeeded in his superficial attack on surveillance using guilt by association. He made surveillance "look bad" by associating it with something (apparently) more unsavory: prediction markets.
If anyone has hypocritical, opportunist positions on surveillance-related questions, it's Rand Paul. (See http://www.salon.com/2013/0... )
Examples:
Paul said that he supports monitoring foreign exchange students from the Middle East: “I do want them going after, for example, let’s say we have a 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East — I want to know where they are, how long they’ve been here, if they’ve overstayed their welcome, whether they’re in school.”
AND
He said that he might support imprisoning people who attend “radical” speeches: “You might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.”
Paul's inconsistencies generally derive from the kind of arrogant American national chauvinism Robin (and I'd suppose you) deride.
(Why pick a ruling-class politician, when they're all unprincipled? I agree with Robin's choice of Snowden. But would he condescend to defend the "yucky prole" Bradley Manning?)
Wyden isn't more obscure than Paul. They have the same rank, the only reason Paul is more well known is because of his cookiness. Also, Paul is a known critic of excessive spying, but the story of who is actually doing tedious political work (committees, digging up reports, writing bills, etc...) may be more complicated. Nonetheless you're right that Paul's stances on other subjects make many journalists uncomfortable with him.
Why write an entire feature on an obscure Senator> Why not write about Rand Paul, a much larger national figure and more vociferous spying critic? Why not write about the Tea Party's hatred for the NSA, a major faction of the Republican party constituting dozens of lawmakers?
Here's my guess. Those types of people represent "yucky proles" from places like Tennessee and Nebraska. Wyden is basically a real life version of the SWPL Mayor from Portlandia. Most of the good progressives who write from the New Yorker are indeed rightly outraged about the NSA.
But they don't exactly want to devote dozens of pages to someone that they'd be embarrassed to bring to a DC cocktail party. Snowden certainly doesn't fit the bill. The man is a Ron Paul supporter for God's sakes! That's only two steps removed from genuinely racist ideologies!
Nationally prominent left-wing politicians who oppose the NSA are in reality pretty scarce. So they find who they can, however weak his actual opposition or record may be. ("Yes, I was for spying, but mark my words I wanted it sunset-ed") And as the NSA programs crumble under their outrageous overreach, as they inevitability will, what Moldbug calls "The Cathedral" re-writes the historical narrative to make sure the "right kind" of people get the credit.
I'm sorry but the "errors" here seem minor (as if it's somehow hugely important that TIA was a test program that had not yet been chosen to be used by the NSA, while they certainly had the intention, why else would they want it developed?) and the fact that Wyden didn't get enough support to pass laws does not make him less of a fighter against the NSA (you don't have to win to be a fighter). I get the feeling Robin is just pissed because futures markets were attacked here.
This article seems pretty close to your interpretation: Wyden wanted to get rid of Poindexter; he succeeded. friv 2
Nationally prominent left-wing politicians who oppose the NSA are in reality pretty scarce. So they find who they can, however weak his actual opposition or record may be.
Everyone is probably aware that a federal judge held that NSA's data-collection methods are unconstitutional. The suit was brought by a conservative, but only liberal Democrats are quoted in this Politico piece. ( http://www.politico.com/sto... )
Does the Tea Party choose to make less noise about the NSA than the liberals or is the Politico article biased in the manner you suggest? (Serious question.)
Just because Wyden give a lot of input doesn't mean that he's responsible for the errors. Journalists do have a habit of changing facts here and there to fit the narrative better.
Man, I don't know how to break this to you, but Aaron Swartz is not going to be the next president of anything.
WITHDRAWN.
The part you find amusing is probably the part that got Robin angry enough to write the above piece.
the fact that Wyden didn't get enough support to pass laws does not make him less of a fighter against the NSA
True, but the fact that he originally supported the Patriot Act and disapproves of Snowden (who accomplished more) does make him less of a fighter against the NSA.
What I find amusing in this story (if Robin will excuse me) is that Wyden succeeded in his superficial attack on surveillance using guilt by association. He made surveillance "look bad" by associating it with something (apparently) more unsavory: prediction markets.
If anyone has hypocritical, opportunist positions on surveillance-related questions, it's Rand Paul. (See http://www.salon.com/2013/0... )
Examples:
Paul said that he supports monitoring foreign exchange students from the Middle East: “I do want them going after, for example, let’s say we have a 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East — I want to know where they are, how long they’ve been here, if they’ve overstayed their welcome, whether they’re in school.”
AND
He said that he might support imprisoning people who attend “radical” speeches: “You might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after. They should be deported or put in prison.”
Paul's inconsistencies generally derive from the kind of arrogant American national chauvinism Robin (and I'd suppose you) deride.
(Why pick a ruling-class politician, when they're all unprincipled? I agree with Robin's choice of Snowden. But would he condescend to defend the "yucky prole" Bradley Manning?)
Wyden isn't more obscure than Paul. They have the same rank, the only reason Paul is more well known is because of his cookiness. Also, Paul is a known critic of excessive spying, but the story of who is actually doing tedious political work (committees, digging up reports, writing bills, etc...) may be more complicated. Nonetheless you're right that Paul's stances on other subjects make many journalists uncomfortable with him.
This article seems pretty close to your interpretation: Wyden wanted to get rid of Poindexter; he succeeded.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Wyden will ever be celebrated for his role in stopping COICA/SOPA/PIPA. He's anything but obscure.
Why write an entire feature on an obscure Senator> Why not write about Rand Paul, a much larger national figure and more vociferous spying critic? Why not write about the Tea Party's hatred for the NSA, a major faction of the Republican party constituting dozens of lawmakers?
Here's my guess. Those types of people represent "yucky proles" from places like Tennessee and Nebraska. Wyden is basically a real life version of the SWPL Mayor from Portlandia. Most of the good progressives who write from the New Yorker are indeed rightly outraged about the NSA.
But they don't exactly want to devote dozens of pages to someone that they'd be embarrassed to bring to a DC cocktail party. Snowden certainly doesn't fit the bill. The man is a Ron Paul supporter for God's sakes! That's only two steps removed from genuinely racist ideologies!
Nationally prominent left-wing politicians who oppose the NSA are in reality pretty scarce. So they find who they can, however weak his actual opposition or record may be. ("Yes, I was for spying, but mark my words I wanted it sunset-ed") And as the NSA programs crumble under their outrageous overreach, as they inevitability will, what Moldbug calls "The Cathedral" re-writes the historical narrative to make sure the "right kind" of people get the credit.
I'm sorry but the "errors" here seem minor (as if it's somehow hugely important that TIA was a test program that had not yet been chosen to be used by the NSA, while they certainly had the intention, why else would they want it developed?) and the fact that Wyden didn't get enough support to pass laws does not make him less of a fighter against the NSA (you don't have to win to be a fighter). I get the feeling Robin is just pissed because futures markets were attacked here.
Not to say you're mistaken about the facts, but I doubt this particular article has a higher rate of errors than others.
We all notice the factual errors in articles about subjects we know about - and miss the equal number of errors in articles on other subjects.