To make journalism harder, slower, less secure-That’s what the surveillance state is trying to do.

[kpete]

To make journalism harder, slower, less secure
Aug. 26

That’s what the surveillance state is trying to do. It has the means, the will and the latitude to go after journalism the way it went after terrorism. Only a more activist press stands a chance of resisting this.

Without including in the picture an aggressive press that is free to operate without fear or coercion, the surveillance state cannot be made compatible with representative democracy. Even then, it may be impossible.

4. The establishment press is beginning to get it

Barry Eisler concluded his compelling post with this: #

The authorities want you to understand they can do it to you, too. Whether they’ve miscalculated depends on how well they’ve gauged the passivity of the public.

http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2013/08/david-miranda-and-preclusion-of-privacy.html

Making journalism harder, slower and less secure, throwing sand in the gears, is fully within the capacity of the surveillance state. It has the means, the will and the latitude to go after journalism the way it went after terrorism. News stories alone are not going to make it stop. There are signs that the establishment press is beginning to get it. Sharing the work of turning the Snowden documents into news is one. David Carr’s column in today’s New York Times is another. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/business/media/war-on-leaks-is-pitting-journalist-vs-journalist.html?pagewanted=2&pagewanted=all “It is true that Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald are activists with the kind of clearly defined political agendas that would be frowned upon in a traditional newsroom,” Carr wrote. “But they are acting in a more transparent age — they are their own newsrooms in a sense — and their political beliefs haven’t precluded other news organizations from following their leads.”

Only if they can turn a mostly passive public into a more active one can journalists come out ahead in this fight. I know they don’t think of mobilization as their job, and there are good reasons for that, but they didn’t expect editors to be destroying hard drives under the gaze of the authorities, either. Journalism almost has to be brought closer to activism to stand a chance of prevailing in its current struggle with the state.



more:
http://pressthink.org/2013/08/to-make-journalism-harder-slower-less-secure/#comments

[dawg]

1. But why should we allow journalists ...

to print things the government doesn't want us to know?

[villager]

2. Many "Undergrounders" on this very site will vociferously argue that point!

n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. I thought good journalism and activism always went hand-in-hand

Muckraking was always about revealing what the powerful wanted hidden, and the mere act of revelation is subversive. The consequences, in terms of protest, reform, criminal liability or voting out the people behind whatever is revealed are the payoff.
The problem here isn't so much the surveillance state as an executive branch that is out of control. When you get the President of the US able to stop the release of a journalist in Yemen by way of a mere phone call, something is seriously wrong. The problem is what it's been since Truman: warmaking by executive fiat.

[Hydra]

4. Add to that, putting someone in Yemen in jail by phone call

Seeing Anwar Al-Awlaki full story the other day was enlightening.