Chinese authorities conduct unannounced 'inspections' of Bloomberg News bureaus(finance.fortune.cnn.com)
finance.fortune.cnn.com
Chinese authorities conduct unannounced 'inspections' of Bloomberg News bureaus
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/02/chinese-authorities-conduct-unannounced-inspections-of-bloomberg-news-bureaus/
4 comments
It's an easy reaction to immediately condemn China, but is the US any different with the AP and Fox News (naming James Rosen as a co-conspirator) Phone Tapping, and NSA everything?
1) Yes, yes it very much freaking is
2) That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the story
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
2) That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the story
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
James Rosen was involved (not charged) in a criminal investigation about the leak of counter-proliferation intelligence from a US nuclear weapons lab. I can understand where people are coming from when they suggest that leaks about NSA surveillance do more good than harm. I cannot understand that mentality about our efforts to stop places like North Korea from selling nuclear weapons to random countries around the world.
He was named as a co-conspirator, that's about as involved as you can get other than being charged.
The Rosen case wasn't political; leaked nuclear intelligence is extraordinarily serious, and the DOJ would have been incompetent not to vigorously investigate it. The China/Bloomberg drama, on the other hand, is entirely political. That is the distinction I am attempting to draw.
This is an outright display of displeasure from the government, designed to intimidate. While I don't endorse the activities of the US gov't that you mention, they're not meant for this sort of blatant intimidation (or else they wouldn't be so secretive about them).
They are far more effective at private intimidation or blackmail, which the target has every incentive to keep quiet. For instance, NSA monitoring of porn habits.
Is this speculation or do you have a source?
Yes, as someone who has worked at a couple of U.S. journalism outlets, I would say there's a big difference between between the Risen-type of prosecutions and "inspections" by the local officials.
One outright difference is the potential for prior review. James Risen, AFAIK, entered his current legal situation quite a time after the publishing of his story...and this seems to pretty much always be the case with journalism that ends up on in a courtroom. If the NSA had been using its full wiretapping powers to "inspect" Risen, a well known national affairs reporter, then it would've not gotten to the probe stage, or to the publication stage.
Risen of course is facing an intrusive probe, but that is ostensibly part of a post-publication investigation to root out the leakers who are ostensibly breaking laws.
What is happening to Bloomberg, and what purportedly happens to typical Chinese news outlets, is a preventive, chilling action...and while you may argue that the thought of being targeted in a prosecutor's probe can be just as chilling...I'd argue that it's the frequency and the seeming arbitrariness of drop-in inspections is what makes the difference.
And so why doesn't the NSA or even just the local police station doing occasional inspections? Because even if that were legal (which it probably isn't), the public penalty for such actions is so high that most U.S. agencies seem content to duke it out post-publication. I don't know how things are exactly in China, but I think you have to accept that not all intrusions on journalists' work are equal out of principle.
Note: there's obviously selection bias at work here...presumably, we don't hear about the journalism projects that are killed pre-publication, and we only know about the ones like Risen who sneaked their stories through. But I have to seriously doubt there's a significant number of secretly squelched stories, because again, the risk of an agency doing so is that it blows up in their faces, a la Barbara Streisand.
One outright difference is the potential for prior review. James Risen, AFAIK, entered his current legal situation quite a time after the publishing of his story...and this seems to pretty much always be the case with journalism that ends up on in a courtroom. If the NSA had been using its full wiretapping powers to "inspect" Risen, a well known national affairs reporter, then it would've not gotten to the probe stage, or to the publication stage.
Risen of course is facing an intrusive probe, but that is ostensibly part of a post-publication investigation to root out the leakers who are ostensibly breaking laws.
What is happening to Bloomberg, and what purportedly happens to typical Chinese news outlets, is a preventive, chilling action...and while you may argue that the thought of being targeted in a prosecutor's probe can be just as chilling...I'd argue that it's the frequency and the seeming arbitrariness of drop-in inspections is what makes the difference.
And so why doesn't the NSA or even just the local police station doing occasional inspections? Because even if that were legal (which it probably isn't), the public penalty for such actions is so high that most U.S. agencies seem content to duke it out post-publication. I don't know how things are exactly in China, but I think you have to accept that not all intrusions on journalists' work are equal out of principle.
Note: there's obviously selection bias at work here...presumably, we don't hear about the journalism projects that are killed pre-publication, and we only know about the ones like Risen who sneaked their stories through. But I have to seriously doubt there's a significant number of secretly squelched stories, because again, the risk of an agency doing so is that it blows up in their faces, a la Barbara Streisand.
Do you seriously think that something like the NSA leak could happen in China? :D
Possibly but the consequences for the leaker and the newspapers publishing it would be much much more severe.
I doubt that any Chinese based news source would publish in the way that the NYT and the Guardian have - it would be effectively committing corporate suicide as it would be shut down
I doubt that any Chinese based news source would publish in the way that the NYT and the Guardian have - it would be effectively committing corporate suicide as it would be shut down
mmmmh have you check the chinese constitution, or chinese laws ?
yep.
yep.
trust but verify !
so these "journalists" sold souls to devil to be able to report on devil and at the end of the day devil will get their souls anyway and they won't get any reporting done too. Not to have a cake and not to eat it too -- one would like to say!
Journalists are there to report. These guys are in trouble because they forgot about it what their jobs are all about.
Journalists are there to report. These guys are in trouble because they forgot about it what their jobs are all about.