What happened to the Snowden archive
This meticulous investigation delves into why major media outlets abruptly ceased publishing documents from the Edward Snowden archive, despite the vast majority remaining unseen. It unearths a tangled web of conflicting explanations, alleged government pressures, and internal disputes among journalists, raising profound questions about media independence and the public's right to information. The HN community is abuzz, debating whether this signifies journalistic failure, state-sponsored suppression, or simply public apathy to once-explosive revelations.
The Lowdown
The article meticulously traces the curious cessation of document publications from the Edward Snowden archive by various prominent media outlets. Despite the archive containing hundreds of thousands of documents, less than 1% has ever seen the light of day, and all major reporting ceased by mid-2019. The piece scrutinizes the shifting and often contradictory reasons provided by the involved journalists and institutions, suggesting a complex interplay of internal politics, external pressures, and financial considerations behind this informational blackout.
- Initial Dissemination and Security: Snowden distributed the archive gradually to journalists like Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, and Barton Gellman, advocating for multiple copies to prevent a single point of failure. These journalists often established stringent security protocols, including air-gapped computers and secure facilities.
- The Guardian's Early Halt: The Guardian, receiving tens of thousands of documents, published only about 30 of its 58,000 files before stopping in February 2014. This followed UK government pressure, D-notices, and the symbolic destruction of hard drives in their London office. Reasons cited later included
The Gossip
Journalistic Jilting & Disinformation Debates
Commenters fiercely debate the underlying reasons why journalistic outlets abandoned the Snowden archive. Some suggest a societal 'ambivalence' or a shift in the 'Overton window,' where once-shocking surveillance revelations are now normalized. Others point to potential implied threats or the chilling 'Assange example' as a deterrent for journalists. There's also pointed discussion regarding Glenn Greenwald's career trajectory, with some accusing him of a 'sharp turn towards the right-wing fringe,' while others defend his consistent civil libertarian and anti-war stance, irrespective of his chosen media platforms.
The Russian Refuge & Snowden's Sincerity
Snowden's presence in Russia is a recurring point of contention. Critics express skepticism, suggesting he might have 'balked' at exposing Russian secrets, questioning his initial motivations. However, a strong counter-argument highlights that the US government revoked Snowden's passport, effectively stranding him in Russia and making his refuge there a consequence of US actions rather than a deliberate choice to align with the country. The discussion also touches on whether Snowden ever had access to Russian intelligence documents in the first place.
Unseen Secrets & Public's Apathy
Commenters lament the lack of sustained public outrage following major disclosures, drawing parallels to the 'Epstein files.' Many believe that authorities simply 'wait it out,' as public interest wanes and attention shifts. There's a pervasive sense that the most significant and damaging information remains deliberately withheld or is downplayed, and that the public has become 'desensitised' to scandals, hindering the pursuit of further revelations regardless of their profound implications.