Sometimes the Lamestream Media seem overly complicit with political leadership. It’s not their job, so they should really stop it! The power, money, fame, just aren’t worth it. Hey, are you still reading?
Lately there have been lame analyses of the situation with the NSA in the wake of the Snowden disclosures. Fussing about the FISA court, to be particular.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the past few months, it’s that the NSA, by their own admission blatantly ignores the direction of the FISA court. The NSA is rampantly out-of-control, operating in a no-man’s land of their own creation that is lawless and without bounds (other than funding, of course, which doesn’t seem to be much of a limitation at present).
So it is that you don’t have to stay too far on top of this story for it to be obvious that the Lamestream is either totally incompetent or complicit. Which is it? What are we to believe under the circumstances.
In today’s New York Times blog Public Editor’s Journal, in a piece entitled “Guardian Story on Israel and N.S.A. Is Not ‘Surprising’ Enough to Cover“, Margaret Sullivan mentions that it was “good to see The Times getting more fully involved” [in the stories related to the Snowden NSA disclosures]. See also Decision to Publish Against Government Request Was ‘Not a Particularly Anguished One’.
In today’s piece, Sullivan relates how she exchanged email with Managing Editor, Dean Baquet asking why the times wasn’t covering the story about NSA’s connection with Israel. Baquet responded, she says, “I didn’t think it was a significant or surprising story”, and “I think the more energy we put into chasing the small ones, the less time we have to break our own. Not to mention cover the turmoil in Syria.”
Ms. Sullivan then asked her editor “… was this essentially a question of reporting resources?” to which Baquet responded “I’d say resources and news judgment”.
That news judgment practically puts Baquet in bed with the NSA, particularly considering the interest of Times readership in matters involving Israel.
But I digress by citing an example. The point here is that the NSA has, by its’ own admission, and as documented by itself in the Snowden disclosures, made clear that they seem themselves as above the law. They have no intention of abiding by the dictates of the FISA court, the Congress, Senate, or White House. In addition, the NSA clearly has gone to some length to spread disinformation about what they’re doing, as well as the scope of what they do.
With so much disinformation and false information swirling around, it would seem prudent to stick to what’s in the NSA’s own documentation, disclosed by Snowden. We can safely assume that, as with any large organization, those documents have been watered down and sanitized, and the truth is probably far worse than even the leaked documents suggest.