The following is excerpted from an article in the Huffington Post that you can read in its entirety by clicking on the link below--
read the entire article here...
It's no surprise the Obama administration, like all administrations, would leak claims that are advantageous. And reporters covering national security and intelligence routinely need to provide anonymity in order to gain a window into the government. But reporters also need to scrutinize claims that officials are only willing to make anonymously about national security, especially at a moment when they clearly bolster the government’s case against the 30-year-old fugitive being tried in the court of public opinion.
In some recent instances, officials have been quoted making what amount to educated guesses about what Chinese and Russian authorities may have done. In others cases, officials have made claims about changing communication patterns while simultaneously declining to provide details on national security grounds.
Anonymous officials this week have told several news organizations -– often using nearly identical language -- that the NSA leaks had prompted members of terrorist groups to change the way they communicate.
It's possible that officials may be proven correct, and that the leaked NSA documents did fall into the hands of foreign governments. But while Snowden provided details of U.S. spying on China and Hong Kong to the South China Morning Post, there's no evidence he has willingly or unwillingly provided all the documents obtained to the Chinese and Russians.
And yet despite the lack of direct evidence, anonymous government claims have carried significant weight in the media this week, influencing the cable news debate and helping to try Snowden in public, long before any actual trial on charges of espionage takes place.
read the entire article here...
It's no surprise the Obama administration, like all administrations, would leak claims that are advantageous. And reporters covering national security and intelligence routinely need to provide anonymity in order to gain a window into the government. But reporters also need to scrutinize claims that officials are only willing to make anonymously about national security, especially at a moment when they clearly bolster the government’s case against the 30-year-old fugitive being tried in the court of public opinion.
In some recent instances, officials have been quoted making what amount to educated guesses about what Chinese and Russian authorities may have done. In others cases, officials have made claims about changing communication patterns while simultaneously declining to provide details on national security grounds.
Anonymous officials this week have told several news organizations -– often using nearly identical language -- that the NSA leaks had prompted members of terrorist groups to change the way they communicate.
It's possible that officials may be proven correct, and that the leaked NSA documents did fall into the hands of foreign governments. But while Snowden provided details of U.S. spying on China and Hong Kong to the South China Morning Post, there's no evidence he has willingly or unwillingly provided all the documents obtained to the Chinese and Russians.
And yet despite the lack of direct evidence, anonymous government claims have carried significant weight in the media this week, influencing the cable news debate and helping to try Snowden in public, long before any actual trial on charges of espionage takes place.
No comments:
Post a Comment