These charts show how the Edward Snowden story is overwhelming the NSA story(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
These charts show how the Edward Snowden story is overwhelming the NSA story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/03/how-ed-snowden-became-a-bigger-story-than-nsa-spying-in-two-charts/
45 comments
> And who can blame them? Personal stories are easy to identify with and easy to understand.
The problem with putting a human face on such a story is exactly the problem described, though. I call it "The Gallant Knight effect", though that is a made up term because I don't know the correct one. It's an anti-individualistic effect that occurs when people identify a particular person as exceptional and, in doing so, erase the individual faces of every other relevant actor. This is the same effect that centralizes so much power on the chief executive. It's similar to the Bystander Effect, but I'm talking about a systemic problem rather than a situational one[1]. By shunting responsibility, you also shunt agency.
It's an excuse to carry on with your own life because someone else is doing the real work. Worse, it is an excuse to hide in the tavern, peering out the window, while the gunslingers are out on the street, which is what a decent percentage of HNers are doing by resorting to silver bullet security solutions.
Putting someone in shiny armor and sending him out after the Grail means that the rest of us can continue to be serfs. That's not to say it'd be any different if Snowden hadn't disclosed himself, though: indeed, we'd probably be spending an inordinate amount of effort trying to figure out who it was. Someone would have guessed that it was Satoshi Nakamoto by now.
[1] Clicking around Wikipedia, I notice stuff like "diffusion of responsibility", "social loafing" and "deindividuation" that I would also put down as close but not quite because they are limited to talking about groups smaller than, say, a million.
[2] I talk about it more here: https://plus.google.com/113476531580617567600/posts/btX9T4ku... It's worth pointing out that this post predates the leaks.
The problem with putting a human face on such a story is exactly the problem described, though. I call it "The Gallant Knight effect", though that is a made up term because I don't know the correct one. It's an anti-individualistic effect that occurs when people identify a particular person as exceptional and, in doing so, erase the individual faces of every other relevant actor. This is the same effect that centralizes so much power on the chief executive. It's similar to the Bystander Effect, but I'm talking about a systemic problem rather than a situational one[1]. By shunting responsibility, you also shunt agency.
It's an excuse to carry on with your own life because someone else is doing the real work. Worse, it is an excuse to hide in the tavern, peering out the window, while the gunslingers are out on the street, which is what a decent percentage of HNers are doing by resorting to silver bullet security solutions.
Putting someone in shiny armor and sending him out after the Grail means that the rest of us can continue to be serfs. That's not to say it'd be any different if Snowden hadn't disclosed himself, though: indeed, we'd probably be spending an inordinate amount of effort trying to figure out who it was. Someone would have guessed that it was Satoshi Nakamoto by now.
[1] Clicking around Wikipedia, I notice stuff like "diffusion of responsibility", "social loafing" and "deindividuation" that I would also put down as close but not quite because they are limited to talking about groups smaller than, say, a million.
[2] I talk about it more here: https://plus.google.com/113476531580617567600/posts/btX9T4ku... It's worth pointing out that this post predates the leaks.
There's nothing particularly unexpected by this, is there?
You see a big spike for "NSA" and "Prism" initially, then "Snowden" gradually takes over.
People consuming information about the NSA leak learned everything available during the first week. There is nothing new to be learned there.
Snowden's whereabouts are, however, an ongoing saga. As a result, I, like many others interested in this, are searching for Snowden news which is constantly changing.
It's encouraging so many are searching for Snowden. No one would be interested if they didn't already understand the context.
You see a big spike for "NSA" and "Prism" initially, then "Snowden" gradually takes over.
People consuming information about the NSA leak learned everything available during the first week. There is nothing new to be learned there.
Snowden's whereabouts are, however, an ongoing saga. As a result, I, like many others interested in this, are searching for Snowden news which is constantly changing.
It's encouraging so many are searching for Snowden. No one would be interested if they didn't already understand the context.
Apparently WaPo's key demo is imbeciles.
>You can play around with the graph here, and the trends don’t change substantially if you try “NSA” instead of “National Security Agency” or look at how the whole world is searching rather than just Americans.
Oh yeah? What if you combine the two?
Further, Brad Plumer, you may want to put yourself in the position of someone doing a Google search before you announce what people are trying to find info on. If I search NSA, what happens? I get results that don't have anything to do with the PRISM story. Same goes for the word 'prism'. 'Snowden', on the other hand, will bring me exactly what I need, so that's what I'm going to search for. Or don't they teach you how to Google at the Post?
I'll stop there. Anybody with half a brain could think of another dozen mundane ways to call Brad Plumer stupid. Except, of course, for Blad Plumer, who is stupid.
>You can play around with the graph here, and the trends don’t change substantially if you try “NSA” instead of “National Security Agency” or look at how the whole world is searching rather than just Americans.
Oh yeah? What if you combine the two?
Further, Brad Plumer, you may want to put yourself in the position of someone doing a Google search before you announce what people are trying to find info on. If I search NSA, what happens? I get results that don't have anything to do with the PRISM story. Same goes for the word 'prism'. 'Snowden', on the other hand, will bring me exactly what I need, so that's what I'm going to search for. Or don't they teach you how to Google at the Post?
I'll stop there. Anybody with half a brain could think of another dozen mundane ways to call Brad Plumer stupid. Except, of course, for Blad Plumer, who is stupid.
The name calling ("imbecile", "stupid") is unnecessary.
When writers get on soapboxes, they open themselves up to this category of response. Mere question-asking ("Is there a disparity? If so, why?") on Brad's part would be one thing, but his article is accusatory; he condescends to everyone but himself. And if he were right, again, that would be different, but he's not. He's just being a dick. Fuck him.
The name calling is also unwelcome on HN, per local norms of civility and the site guidelines:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
No, you're being a dick. Fuck you.
There, see how helpful and constructive that was? Or rather wasn't?
That's why such comments are in no way whatsoever welcome on HN.
There, see how helpful and constructive that was? Or rather wasn't?
That's why such comments are in no way whatsoever welcome on HN.
[deleted]
Mainstream media fails to communicate vast totalitarian conspiracy; English speaking world remains uninformed, indifferent.
Why should we believe that "the Snowden story" is actually detracting from the NSA story?
That makes about as much sense as saying Deep Throat and the book "All the President's Men" detracted from the Watergate story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President's_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)#Contro...
That makes about as much sense as saying Deep Throat and the book "All the President's Men" detracted from the Watergate story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President's_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)#Contro...
This is simply shows how users interact with search engines. If I want to visit the NSA homepage and learn what wonderful people they are I'll search for "NSA", if I want to find out the last clusterfk to hit the NSA I'll type in "Snowden".
In some ways I wonder if he (and the impact that he wanted his leak to have) would be better off if he just turned himself in.
If the media insists that the story be about him, at least it won't be this Hollywood style, "where in the world is Edward Snowden" drama. Perhaps it can instead be about why this man is being prosecuted, and whether he should be.
It's an outside chance, but at least it gets us closer to the real story if it goes that route. If nothing else, at least the mundane day to day details of legal proceedings are less exciting than this global pursuit. And, perhaps in those details, as the government begins to make its case, we can learn more and have questions again raised about what the government is doing.
If the media insists that the story be about him, at least it won't be this Hollywood style, "where in the world is Edward Snowden" drama. Perhaps it can instead be about why this man is being prosecuted, and whether he should be.
It's an outside chance, but at least it gets us closer to the real story if it goes that route. If nothing else, at least the mundane day to day details of legal proceedings are less exciting than this global pursuit. And, perhaps in those details, as the government begins to make its case, we can learn more and have questions again raised about what the government is doing.
What's interesting is how this all should have been entirely predictable to Snowden. He's an American, he knows what Jerry Springer is. He said right from the beginning that he didn't want this to be about him, so why has he let the circus go on so long?
Did he think that the press focuses on human-interest stories because they don't sell or drive pageviews? He's giving the media so much to drive stories on, and all about Snowden and Assange and Wikileaks and asylum... but not about the big bad NSA. But so be it, I'm sure his current padded cell must be more comfortable.
Did he think that the press focuses on human-interest stories because they don't sell or drive pageviews? He's giving the media so much to drive stories on, and all about Snowden and Assange and Wikileaks and asylum... but not about the big bad NSA. But so be it, I'm sure his current padded cell must be more comfortable.
On the flip side, if Snowden didn't put a human face to this controversy, it's likely that the NSA leak would never have received the kind of publicity it has now.
True, but he could have put a human face on it right at the beginning and then dropped himself off at a courthouse like a certain other famous leaker-to-media of classified data.
And quite likely never been seen or heard from again like Manning.
Only a fool would fight secret courts and secret interpretations of laws by "dropping himself off at a courthouse".
Only a fool would fight secret courts and secret interpretations of laws by "dropping himself off at a courthouse".
> And quite likely never been seen or heard from again like Manning.
That's not what happened to Manning at all though. While in Quantico he was nearly continuously in the news... it wasn't until he was transferred to Ft. Leavenworth that the news toned down about him.
Nowadays Manning's trial has resulted in updates almost every other day in the news, if you've bothered to check.
> Only a fool would fight secret courts and secret interpretations of laws by "dropping himself off at a courthouse".
Not every day I see people on HN call Daniel Ellsberg a fool.
That's not what happened to Manning at all though. While in Quantico he was nearly continuously in the news... it wasn't until he was transferred to Ft. Leavenworth that the news toned down about him.
Nowadays Manning's trial has resulted in updates almost every other day in the news, if you've bothered to check.
> Only a fool would fight secret courts and secret interpretations of laws by "dropping himself off at a courthouse".
Not every day I see people on HN call Daniel Ellsberg a fool.
Yes, Manning was in the news. No, you did not hear any statements from him, unless you read the court martial transcript that was made by the reporter who smuggled in the tape recorder against the court rules of security.
Ellsberg wasn't fighting secret courts and secret interpretations of law.
Ellsberg wasn't fighting secret courts and secret interpretations of law.
> Ellsberg wasn't fighting secret courts and secret interpretations of law.
Indeed, he was fighting something even worse: a secret conspiracy spanning multiple Presidencies to help force a nation's involvement in war.
Nixon took the unprecedented step of suing to stop the publication of the newspapers that were going to print the Pentagon Papers, even though the topics described didn't even occur on his watch.
What Ellsberg was dealing in was far more serious, and yet he turned out OK when he turned himself in.
Indeed, he was fighting something even worse: a secret conspiracy spanning multiple Presidencies to help force a nation's involvement in war.
Nixon took the unprecedented step of suing to stop the publication of the newspapers that were going to print the Pentagon Papers, even though the topics described didn't even occur on his watch.
What Ellsberg was dealing in was far more serious, and yet he turned out OK when he turned himself in.
I don't dispute that what Ellsberg did was brave and ultimately the system worked. But it literally took having the Supreme Court rule in his favor and the President thrown out of office (a once ever in 237 years event).
Snowden's situation is different, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who also appoints the judges to the secret FISA court Snowden has exposed. It's little surprise he didn't throw himself upon their mercy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-rober...
Snowden's situation is different, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who also appoints the judges to the secret FISA court Snowden has exposed. It's little surprise he didn't throw himself upon their mercy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-rober...
The Supreme Court did rule in favor of Ellsberg, it ruled in favor of the New York Times, and later in favor of the Congressman who added the Pentagon Papers to the Congressional Record.
Likewise Nixon had nothing to do it. He didn't even lift a finger against Ellsberg until Kissinger convinced him that he had to do so for the integrity of his Office. And even if Nixon really was pushing for it, judicial cases don't reset upon a President leaving office.
Ellsberg's case was thrown out on a technicality, as I recall, not due to any forebearance on the part of the Executive branch.
> Snowden's situation is different, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who also appoints the judges to the secret FISA court Snowden has exposed. It's little surprise he didn't throw himself upon their mercy.
I wasn't aware that Roberts counted for all 9 votes now.
Likewise Nixon had nothing to do it. He didn't even lift a finger against Ellsberg until Kissinger convinced him that he had to do so for the integrity of his Office. And even if Nixon really was pushing for it, judicial cases don't reset upon a President leaving office.
Ellsberg's case was thrown out on a technicality, as I recall, not due to any forebearance on the part of the Executive branch.
> Snowden's situation is different, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who also appoints the judges to the secret FISA court Snowden has exposed. It's little surprise he didn't throw himself upon their mercy.
I wasn't aware that Roberts counted for all 9 votes now.
Looks like Ellsberg himself has now said it better than I could:
"Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-l...
"Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-l...
I think that the has screwed up in regard to his own safety, possibly because of bad advice from the Wikileaks people. I'm certain that he didn't plan to be stranded in a transit hall in Moscow. In regards to the news he has held a quite low profile himself recently.
You seem to believe that Snowden can control the media.
In fact I claim the opposite; Snowden cannot control the media, and should have predicted its inevitable reaction to the input he has been feeding it.
Ah, and were he not to have done so, are we so sure the NSA bits and pieces would be dominating the headlines, or might those have drifted into the background regardless? Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.
Last time I checked Greenwald is not an idiot. The ongoing leaks have come without any interaction by Snowden at all, if I'm understanding him correctly. If anything he keeps stealing the thunder of WaPo, Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc.
Media is controlling him, not like mathematical control of direct or inverse relations but more of a sublte control.
Snowden is important because it's a way to humanize the issues with the NSA. He's a sympathetic character.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is classic journalism. People are wired to consume stories about other people. Collections of facts and abstract concepts appeal to hackers, engineers and analytical types, who are in the minority as most people can't stomach that kind of information.
Journalists always add a face to a story, and Snowden is that face. I'd say it's actually kind of encouraging because it means the message has been tailored for the mainstream and/or mainstream readers are interested.
Journalists always add a face to a story, and Snowden is that face. I'd say it's actually kind of encouraging because it means the message has been tailored for the mainstream and/or mainstream readers are interested.
This crisis management technique is employed by politicians while running their campaign, is it really that surprising that it persists when former campaign staff gets government titles?
1) Move the limelight away from the story and onto the opponent.
2) Dig out some questionable behavior from the past, or coin a term that portrays everyday common behavior in a negative light, e.g. if someone changed their opinions about anything, they're now a "flip-flopper".
3) Profit.
1) Move the limelight away from the story and onto the opponent.
2) Dig out some questionable behavior from the past, or coin a term that portrays everyday common behavior in a negative light, e.g. if someone changed their opinions about anything, they're now a "flip-flopper".
3) Profit.
This article doesn't consider an aggregate like "nsa + national security agency." Plotting the two terms combined shows the Snowden story isn't clouding out the NSA searches.
For people who might suggest plotting "edward snowden + snowden," the graph doesn't change at all, for obvious reasons.
For people who might suggest plotting "edward snowden + snowden," the graph doesn't change at all, for obvious reasons.
It really doesn't help that Snowden himself keeps asking for attention. He broke the story, gave away the docs, and still checks in every week so we all don't forget about him. I still think his leak was at least in part motivated by selfish reasons.
So you're living in the terminal of an international airport. The most powerful government in the world is trying to shut you up by throwing you in prison probably for the rest of your life. Every other spy in the world wants to recover what's encrypted on your laptops, so you sleep with them as your pillow.
You have a legal advisor from Wikileaks, and the Russians will probably keep you from being killed where you are, but not much else in the way of tangible support. International press are phoning your media relations consultant, Julian Assange, around the clock begging to know if there are any updates which they might possibly write about.
And folks on the Internet and the press at home call you a selfish narcissist if you open your mouth once a week.
You have a legal advisor from Wikileaks, and the Russians will probably keep you from being killed where you are, but not much else in the way of tangible support. International press are phoning your media relations consultant, Julian Assange, around the clock begging to know if there are any updates which they might possibly write about.
And folks on the Internet and the press at home call you a selfish narcissist if you open your mouth once a week.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think people are interested in Snowden because people are curious to see what happens to someone who so brazenly defies a democratic government in the name of democracy.
I disagree with the chart. The search terms don't make sense.
I'm sure these are mostly disjoint groups of users and not evidence of hypocrisy, but clearly even many hackers have great interest in the personal story of Mr. Snowden. And who can blame them? Personal stories are easy to identify with and easy to understand.
Now the story is about the stories, which is even further removed from the point at hand. And I am commenting about the story being about the stories, so I don't claim any moral high ground either. Just an observation, though.