The New York Times has rather decisively broken with the Obama administration:

[friendly_iconoclast]

Note especially the last excerpted paragraph...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/23/guardian-news-york-times-partnership/print

Guardian partners with New York Times over Snowden GCHQ files

Some of Edward Snowden cache shared with US paper after 'climate of intense pressure' from UK government

Lisa O'Carroll
theguardian.com, Friday 23 August 2013 18.17 BST


The Guardian has struck a partnership with the New York Times which will give the US paper access to some of the sensitive cache of documents leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The arrangement was made when the Guardian was faced with demands from the UK government to hand over the GCHQ files it had in its possession.

"In a climate of intense pressure from the UK government, the Guardian decided to bring in a US partner to work on the GCHQ documents provided by Edward Snowden. We are working in partnership with the NYT and others to continue reporting these stories," the Guardian said in a statement...

...It is intended that the collaboration with the New York Times will allow the Guardian to continue exposing mass surveillance by putting the Snowden documents on GCHQ beyond government reach. Snowden is aware of the arrangement.

[mike_c]

1. good....

Shine a bright light and watch the cockroaches scurry.

[KittyWampus]

2. The editorial content of your thread title is unfounded.

[Katashi_itto]

3. Sort of like most of your posts?

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Meh. Let the 'cogintive infiltrators' post if they feel like it- we're on to them.

As an aside, I hope this gives Cass Sunstein indigestion.

[Katashi_itto]

14. +100

[dkf]

54. Lol where is this "cognitive infiltrator" stuff coming from.

I like it!

[winter is coming]

72. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3512796

[dkf]

74. Thanks! Found it a bit earlier and I am appalled.

I thought I was beyond the ability to be shocked but I guess I am not.

[winter is coming]

75. It's so Republican... "no, the problem isn't what we're doing, it's how

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

people perceive what we're doing."

[bvar22]

101. Rumsfeld diagnosed the "problem" at AbuGhraib was NOT the Torture,

but that people had taken PICTURES of the Torture.
His remedy:
Forbid cameras!
.
.
.
Problem Solved.

[DirkGently]

106. First rule of Cognitive Infiltratrator Club:

Don't let anyone read about Cass Sunstein's paper on cognitive infiltrators!

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. How so? How do you think this will play in the White House?

[KittyWampus]

13. How do you think the NYTimes was previously joined to the Obama Administration?

After all, they'd have to be joined together for this to create a "break".

[Isoldeblue]

16. :)

[Divernan]

27. The NYTimes "enthusiastically" endorsed O for President in 2012, THAT's HOW!

On October 28, 2012, the New York Times enthusiastically endorsed Obama for re-election - less than a year ago. Their support was O's to lose.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/barack-obama-for-president.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[KittyWampus]

30. Sorry, still no case made they would no longer endorse him.

[Divernan]

38. Issue was "how they were joined", NOT whether they'd endorse him again!

You remind me of that knight in Monty Python:

King Arthur: You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy!
[attempts to get around the Black Knight]
Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass!
King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
King Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
King Arthur: So be it!
[they fight until Arthur cuts off Black Knight's left arm]
King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
King Arthur: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
[they fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur: Victory is mine!
[kneels to pray]
King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!


[King Arthur has just cut the Black Knight's last leg off]
Black Knight: All right, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: [Preparing to leave] Come, Patsy.
[King Arthur and Patsy ride off]
Black Knight: [calling after King Arthur] Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

[KittyWampus]

50. I get the NYTimes daily. There have been MULTIPLE issues/editorials where they found fault w/Obama

and his Administration. So you have no point. At all.

I posted 3 recent editorials… one of which alerted me to the Administration's behavior towards journalists. If I had more time I'd find more editorials from the NYTimes Editorial Board finding fault with Obama to further prove my point…. but you aren't worth it.

[Little Star]

94. ..

[CakeGrrl]

102. The only way to prove it is if he ran again, which he will not.

It's easier to take a speculative position that will be free from confirmation.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Ooh that's gotta

smart.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. It's hard to infiltrate when everyone can see you coming...

[Divernan]

46. I've put most of the cheerleaders on ignore; just left 1 or 2.

Because when you've read the response of one, you've pretty much read them all.

Sort of like those poor canaries in the coal mine; you only need one to let you know what's "in the air" so to speak.

[KittyWampus]

55. So other DU'ers can see how wrong you are- one of the latest NYTimes Editorials criticizing Obama

From the Editorial Board

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=all

EDITORIAL
President Obama’s Dragnet
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: June 6, 2013 1236 Comments

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

[Divernan]

64. You're so upset, you're replying to the wrong post.

Plus you're going in circles. An editorial you quote is re NSA spying & that is the same topic as the NYT publishing the Snowden files. It's all Snowden, don't you understand? The OP's perspective is that NOW the NT has decisively broken with the administration. That's the OP's point of view.
Then in your post 30, you write, "Sorry, still no case made they would no longer endorse him." That implies you believe they WOULD still endorse him. Then you jump to another point of view. In your post # 50, You posit "there have been MULTIPLE issues/editorials where they found fault w/Obama. So are you claiming the NYT had ALREADY broken w/ the Obama administration?

Whatever, let's all get back on point here. The very significant point of this thread is that this move by the New York Times does not bode well for Obama's efforts to paper over the whole matter.

[KittyWampus]

66. My original post was that the TITLE Of the thread was misleading regarding the NYTimes "breaking"

with Obama. Because the NYTimes has been critical of Obama on numerous issues INCLUDING THE NSA.

In my original comment, I made one very simple comment. The OP'er mischaracterized the NYTimes in its support or non-support of Obama and YOU are the one who then brought up their endorsement.

So why did you bother to get involved with my original VALID comment/critique of the thread title?

Whatever, your previous reply indicates all you can do is weasel out of your previous posts rather than just say "sorry". Which isn't that hard, you know. I did it below on this very thread.

[Divernan]

80. I replied to your post 13; we're allowed to reply to down thread posts, you know.

And attempting to get you to follow the order of the discussion is nothing I feel merits an apology.

[pocoloco]

99. Shame on you.....

got his panties in a wad!

[KittyWampus]

57. Too bad I've totally debunked your OP's thread title.

I'd repost the editorial on the NSA Leaks but I'm sure it'd probably be called spamming. See post #52

Here are two more recent Editorials from Editorial Board. The second one highlights my mistake in this thread regarding the Obama Administration's behavior with journalists. It doesn't hurt to admit when I am mistaken. Maybe you can try it:

EDITORIAL
Pardon Rates Remain Low
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: August 21, 2013 103 Comments

Attorney General Eric Holder said many encouraging things in his important speech on the future of sentencing reform, but the most striking thing may have been what he did not say. In all his 4,000 words on America’s “broken” legal system — and particularly on its outlandishly harsh and ineffective sentencing laws — there was not one mention of executive clemency.
Today's Editorials

That power, which the Constitution explicitly grants to the president, has always served as an indispensable check on the injustices of the legal system and as a means of demonstrating forgiveness where it is called for. It was once used freely; presidents issued more than 10,000 grants of clemency between 1885 and 1930 alone. But mercy is a four-letter word in an era when politicians have competed to see who can be toughest on crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/what-happened-to-clemency.html

…………………………...


Another Chilling Leak Investigation
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 21, 2013

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.

The latest reported episode involves James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News. In 2009, Mr. Rosen reported on FoxNews.com that North Korea planned to launch a missile in response to the condemnation of its nuclear tests by the United Nations Security Council. The Justice Department investigated the source of the article and later indicted Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser, on charges of leaking classified information. Mr. Kim pleaded not guilty.

Normally, the inquiry would have ended with Mr. Kim — leak investigations usually focus on the source, not the reporter. But, in this case, federal prosecutors also asked a federal judge for permission to examine Mr. Rosen’s personal e-mails, arguing that “there is probable cause to believe” Mr. Rosen is “an aider and abettor and/or co-

[KittyWampus]

52. The NYTimes has found fault w/Obama & his Admin on numerous issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=all
EDITORIAL
President Obama’s Dragnet
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: June 6, 2013 1236 Comments

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
………………………..

[JDPriestly]

65. This is about freedom of the press and prior restraint, not about the Obama administration or the

Bush administration or what comes next. This is a First Amendment issue that transcends politics. That's what the defenders of the surveillance scheme do not seem to understand. It's a shame, but the attack on the publishing of the Snowden papers is an attack on the freedom of the press.

Reporters should have realized when they allowed their allegiance to truth to be co-opted by the Bush administration's prohibiting the reporting and photographing of the coffins returning from Iraq that the freedom of the press was about to end. They mutely and subserviently accepted censorship then.

But the treatment of Snowden and Greenwald, and the threats against them have crossed a line as Obama himself said about unspeakably criminal weapons.

Silencing the press, prohibiting them from publishing secrets they already have, secrets that cannot be taken from them, secrets that the press feels obliged to publish, secrets that are no longer secret because some person of conscience decided to whisper them to the world, that silencing is going much too far.

[KittyWampus]

69. Your post is a total non sequitor to my very short, simple post about the thread title.

The NYTimes has been critical of the Obama Administration already. On multiple issues INCLUDING the NSA and Freedom of the Press.

[Divernan]

81. It's spelled "non sequitur".

Normally, I don't bother to correct spelling, but since in your post 12 above, you did so (incorrectly at that), I expect you demand the same degree of perfection from yourself that you do of others when it comes to spelling. You're welcome.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. Not surprising.

With this administrations all out attack on journalists.

[KittyWampus]

12. care to document "this admistrations (sic) all out attack on journalists"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. It's rare to see such devotion these days...

[mindwalker_i]

18. Not rare enough

I swear there are people who nit pick every little thing, like saying they don't know the flight a seat number of the 9/11 dudes so they couldn't do anything.

[burnodo]

76. catawompus

1. Off-center; askew; awry.
2. Positioned diagonally; cater-cornered.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. ....

Ask James Rosen or Ann Compton.

[KittyWampus]

63. You are right. Thanks for the correction! I apologize.

[Fearless]

22. .

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. BTW.

I spelled "administration" right. You can look, I never edited my post. Nice attempt to discredit me though.

[George II]

51. Maybe, but you spelled " administration's " incorrectly

[ForgoTheConsequence]

67. Thanks professor!

By the way, you forgot the period at the end of your sentence.

[Javaman]

70. Zing!

[George II]

84. It was the subject of a post, no period necessary

[Union Scribe]

88. Maybe, but you don't need spaces inside quotes. nt

[deurbano]

48. "Obama’s War on Journalists" (Slate)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/obama_s_justice_department_holder_s_leak_investigations_are_outrageous_and.html

<<Obama’s War on Journalists
His administration’s leak investigations are outrageous and unprecedented.
By Emily Bazelon May 14, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he doesn’t want the Obama administration’s leak prosecutions “to be his legacy.” But he has also trumpeted the cases—six and counting—in response to criticism from Senate Republicans. “We have tried more leak cases—brought more leak cases during the course of this administration than any other administration,” Holder said before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year.

This shouldn’t be a source of pride, even the fake point-scoring kind. In light of the Justice Department’s outrageously broad grab of the phone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press, the administration’s unprecedented criminalizing of leaks has become embarrassing. This is not what Obama’s supporters thought they were getting. Obama the candidate strongly supported civil liberties and protections for whistle-blowers. Obama the president risks making government intrusion into the investigative work of the press a galling part of his legacy....>>

[KittyWampus]

62. Thanks, I was wrong!

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Good. More exposure is definitely better.

[uponit7771]

7. lol....reported by the stoker the gaurdian...ok

[sabrina 1]

56. It won't be the first time. The NYT, the Guardian, La Monde, Der Spiegel joined with Wikleaks

to publish those leaks also.

And with the assault on Journalists everywhere now, it looks like rather than playing it safe, both the Guardian and The Times realize they need to stand up NOW, not be afraid but rather join forces all over the world and let them know that the Press cannot be intimidated into silence.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

60. Actually, it's arbitrage of press freedom laws, as it were.

We have "no prior restraint" as settled case law here, which is not the case in the UK. That's what the Guardian is getting away from by handing this stuff over to the NYT.
We also, of course, have the First Amendment, which is the basis for "no prior restraint". The UK has no such thing.

[sabrina 1]

71. Yes, but what I am saying is, people were concerned, and articles have been written about how OUR

press have become frightened to do their jobs due to what has been happening to Orgs like Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald (targeted for a smear campaign for writing about BOA, revealed when Anonymous exposed the emails of HB Gary, a private Security contractor.

Then there is the latest from Diane Feinstein calling for a law to 'define journalism' which would exclude many independent journalists, bloggers etc. That is pretty chilling.

The NYT hasn't always demonstrated great courage during this period, since the Bush years, of attacks on the press every time they DO publish controversial stories.

I did not think they would cooperate with the Guardian. So I am glad to see them doing so rather than being too fearful to get involved. I'm sure a lot of pressure will be applied to them to not do so, as has happened in the past.

I hope that they will provide the courage for other news organizations to do the same.

[Eleanors38]

68. Interesting. If we are moving toward some kind of corporate world order...

...it makes sense to have news media begin to have a communal response with necessary backup. This is doubly necessary as the landscape for news reporting and dissemination is shifting beneath our feet. I like the response immediately below your post as well.

[sabrina 1]

73. Yes, I am actually pleasantly surprised the NYT has come forward to support the Guardian. They

haven't always been willing to buck the Power Structure.

Maybe seeing what happened at the Guardian, the UK Govt demanding that the Guardian destroy its computers, the detention of Miranda, Greenwald's partner, the attacks on Wikileaks etc, all of this has be a wake up call for News Orgs. And the ONLY way to combat these assaults on journalists is for ALL of them to join forces and refuse to back down and publish only what the Government approves of. Because that is where we are headed. See Feinstein latest attempt to reign in everyone who she doesn't think deserves to be called a 'journalist'. That is pretty chilling, for the Government to exclude every journalist to whom they do not give their stamp of approval, from the protections afforded to the Press.

[cui bono]

86. Oh, because The Guardian is not a credible source.

[NealK]

91. :facepalm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Good, more sunlight on the roaches is valuable.

[Faryn Balyncd]

10. It's about time. The press has been asleep on the watch.

[Safetykitten]

11. Maybe we will have nice things.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. UPDATE: Buzzfeed is confirming this, with more details:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/new-york-times-guardian-snowden

"New York Times And Guardian Will Publish More Snowden Revelations"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023521076

Looks like there will be a series of stories in the Times and Guardian

[heaven05]

19. so what!

the NYT sided with bush on the run up and execution of a war on the Iraqi people. A war based on lies. Fuck the New York Times!!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. If they've seen the light, and are once again the NY Times that published...

...the Pentagon Papers- I say good on them.

[starroute]

23. The Times always defends the interests of the establishment

If they're defying the Obama administration, it means they believe the NSA scandal threatens those interests in some way. Perhaps it's the threat of the IT industry packing up and leaving the US because they can't guarantee their customers the privacy they demand. Perhaps corporations in general would rather not have the government looking over their shoulder.

Whatever the specifics, there's no need to suddenly conclude the Times are the good guys. They aren't. But they do have their own assessment of what will enable the US to prosper in the long term -- and that apparently includes taking the security state down a peg.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. +1. They cooperated with Bush for the same reason.

[cali]

39. No, actually it doesn't. It has a history of publishing editiorials across a pretty broad

spectrum.

People say exactly what you're saying every blessed time the NYT publishes an editorial they agree with.

[starroute]

78. Editorials are a cheap way of scoring points

You have to look at what the paper actually does and what policies they actually push.

For example, I lost my faith in the Times over the Vietnam War -- both their coverage of the war itself and their persistent distortion of anti-war demonstrations. Here's an article by Edward Hermann that lays out some of the details, in particular the way in which the Times did its best to reduce a powerful wave of opposition to US imperialism to a series of inside-the-Beltway quibbles over tactics.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/AllNewsFit3_Herman.html

In his Without Fear Or Favor, Harrison Salisbury acknowledged that in 1962 the Times was "deeply and consistently" supportive of the war policy. He also admitted that the paper was taken in by the Johnson administration's lies on the 1964 Bay of Tonkin incident that impelled Congress to give Johnson a blank check to make war. Salisbury claims, however, that in 1965 the Times began to question the war and moved into an increasingly oppositional stance, culminating in the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

While there is some truth in Salisbury's portrayal, it is misleading in important respects. For one thing, from 1954 to the present, the Times never abandoned the framework and language of apologetics, according to which the U.S. was resisting somebody else's aggression and protecting "South Vietnam." ... Furthermore, although from 1965 onward the Times was willing to publish more information that put the war in a less favorable light, it never broke from its heavy dependence on official sources or its reluctance to check out official lies or explore the damage being wrought by the U.S. war machine. In contrast with its eager pursuit of refugees from the Khmer Rouge after April 1975, the paper rarely sought out testimony from the millions of Vietnamese refugees from U.S. bombing and chemical war-fare. In its opinion columns as well, the new openness was towards those commentators who accepted the premises of the war and would limit their criticisms to its tactical problems and costs to us. From beginning to end, those who criticized the war as aggression and immoral at its root were excluded from the debate. ...

The Times was not only not "adversarial" during the Vietnam War, it was for a long time a war promoter. As antiwar feeling grew and encompassed an increasing proportion of the elite, the Times provided more information and allowed more criticism within prescribed limits (a tragic error, despite the best of intentions, because of unwinnability and excessive costs-to us). But even then it continued to provide support for the war by accepting the official ideological framework, by frequent uncritical transmissions of official propaganda, by providing very limited and often misleading information on government intentions and the damage being inflicted on Vietnam, and by excluding fundamental criticism. It is one of the major fallacies about the war that antiwar critics were given media access-those that opposed the war on principle were excluded from the Times, and the antiwar movement and the "sixties" have always been treated with hostility by the paper.

[closeupready]

41. Astute observations here, IMO. +100.

[starroute]

79. When Wikileaks released the diplomatic cables, I checked all the papers involved

I was struck by the extent to which the Times cited just certain cables -- particularly those which involved charges against Iran -- as if they were new and exciting revelations that supported existing administration policies. You had to turn to The Guardian or Der Spiegel to learn that the great bulk of the cables were actually embarrassing to the US.

Here's the Times coverage: "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Here's an early Guardian story: "US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis

Here's Der Spiegel: "251,000 State Department documents, many of them secret embassy reports from around the world, show how the US seeks to safeguard its influence around the world. It is nothing short of a political meltdown for US foreign policy."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-us-diplomatic-leaks-a-superpower-s-view-of-the-world-a-731580.html

[Divernan]

82. The Guardian and Der Spiegel are my daily go-to news sources.

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R

[OldEurope]

28. That is not news to me,

I read this at the beginning of this affair in my favorite newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung (from Munich, Germany) , which is also part of this arrangement.

[99th_Monkey]

29. It's totally ironic how Palast, Greenwald, et. al went to the UK & The Guardian originally

to be able to report safely from outside the USA-journalistic-dead-zone under GW Bush ...
and now this.

So the worm turns.

[truebluegreen]

32. Good!

It would be outstanding if the Paper of Record decided--belatedly or not--to uphold journalistic standards.

It would also be a considerable shock to me, but I'm willing to hope for the best.

[99th_Monkey]

35. Like I often say

ANY fucking thing can happen, at pretty much ANY time. And that's a two-edged sword:
i.e. it could be a change for good OR for ill. In this case it would appear that it's change
for good, thank goodness. (crosses fingers)

[truebluegreen]

37. Right there with you.

[joshcryer]

92. The Guardian is in collusion with the UK government.

Who would've thought. They have to give the files to the NYT to get the data out there.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Good? Google: CIA Operation Mockingbird New York Times

"Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s. Organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles in the 1950s, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became head of CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
...
"Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great; "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

They say that Operation Mockingbird has been discontinued.

Other sites will provide more information.

[msanthrope]

61. Indeed. nt

[totodeinhere]

34. I have maintained for some time that this isn't about the Obama Administration.

The surveillance state was alive and well long before Barack Obama took office and it looks like it will be around for a long time after he leaves office. Am I disappointed that the president has not taken decisive action on this issue? Yes, I am very disappointed. But this issue is bigger than whoever occupies the Oval Office. So I don't think that what the New York Times is doing in any way indicates a "break" with the administration. I'm sure that their editorial content will often support the administration in many areas as it should.

[99th_Monkey]

42. The sad fact remains, that Obama IS POTUS NOW.

He took his oath of office, so THIS IS HIS FIGHT TO FIGHT, and it's sorely testing his
metal, i.e. so far it's not looking very hopeful that he'll really step up to the fight.

Now granted, this is likely due to him "loving his family very much" and not wanting
to complicate their lives with the drama and trauma of him being "taken out" by the
Dark Side... but still .. that doesn't let him off the hook. He's POTUS, period.

THIS^IS^WHAT^IS^HAPPENING^IMHO

[Oilwellian]

36. I hope they don't share the entire Snowden cache with the Times

It seems the powers that be are desperate to find out what Snowden exposed and I would not be surprised if the Times shared whatever they get from the Guardian with those same powers. They lost my trust in the run up to the Iraq war. I'm glad to see from the comment above that a German newspaper is also involved.

The more newspapers involved, each with portions of the Snowden cache, the better chance we peons have of learning the truth. No newspaper should have the entire cache. Snowden was smart to have the Guardian delve out the master copy.

[Catherina]

95. No they won't. Greenwald clarified "only to a limited class of Snowden documents, not all"

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 16h

Note that the Guardian/NYT partnership applies only to a limited class of Snowden documents, not all http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/23/guardian-news-york-times-partnership …

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/371011752571330561

[quinnox]

40. This is wonderful, but kinda surprises me, I would have expected the Washington Post

instead. They have been doing some good reporting and been on top of this NSA spying issue.

[closeupready]

43. Historically one of the best media outlets, they compromised

their journalistic integrity during the GWB administration in numerous ways, as most of us here on DU know.

I think that they realized that that was short-term thinking, and harmed their reputation, so now they are trying to again be the voice of the opposition.

I think it's great that they are attempting to refurbish their street cred. This alone won't do it, but it's a good first step.

[WillyT]

44. HUGE K & R !!!

;donkey:

[George II]

47. I wonder if the New York Times knows about this?

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Buzzfeed has more details

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/new-york-times-guardian-snowden

[George II]

98. Almost 24 hours later, still no word from the NY Times? Or have I missed it?

[LordGlenconner]

49. Amazing the transition

From cheerleading the country into war (and all sorts of malfeasance associated with that) to where they are now.

Why it seems like just yesterday that Judith Miller was whispering sweet nothings into Scooter Libby's ear.

[BeyondGeography]

53. Does this mean Maureen Dowd is going to stop lionizing Obama?

If so, I hope she gets to keep her government car.

[Kelvin Mace]

58. Wouldn't that rather depend

on how much information from The Guardian flows back to the White House courtesy of the Vichy patriotic "journalists"?

This is NOT the NYT of yore that published The Pentagon Papers, this is the NYT that collaborated with BushCo to wage illegal war in Iraq and help cover up war crimes.

[spin]

59. The news media, the watchdog of our liberty, has a duty to bark loudly ...

when and if our government oversteps its authority.

[snot]

100. I do wish they'd bark as loudly when there's a Republican in charge.

[spin]

105. If they had we might not have got mired in Iraq. (n/t)

[Yo_Mama]

83. You make it sound like they'd been dating for years

I just think on this issue the country as a whole has quietly broken with the establishment, and that means that to the extent that Obama supports the NSA establishment, the country has broken from him.

It's not that we are running and screaming in the streets, it's just that the country as a whole when it learns about where we've gone tends to conclude that we have strayed far off any valid path.

And reporters just can't go with any gag rule. No sane person can. Reporters have to report, the free press has to exist. There's a reason it's in the First Amendment.

This is not a revolution - it's an evolution. It was always doomed to happen when people found out what was actually being done. That's why the clamp-down on all this just keeps getting more and more extreme.

If you asked the NYT, I am sure the editorial board would explain that they are right where they have always been, and that they feel it is the federal government which started stepping out on them.

[cui bono]

85. It will be interesting to see which NYT reporters are going to be completely villified now.

Even if they were applauded just an hour before any of their articles about the NSA and Snowden come out.

[blackspade]

87. An interesting development

K&R!

[Phlem]

89. K&R!

-p

[blkmusclmachine]

90. The NYT, not the sharpest tool in the box, that's for sure.

'bout damn time!!!

[treestar]

96. LOL

Tell that to the right wingers.

I can't even quote an article from the NYT with my righties without them dismissing it as a liberal rag.

And why would a newspaper be in with or breaking with any administration?

[colbertforpresident]

97. Lockstep

please folks, no matter what this administration does we must stay lockstep with our support!

[Pterodactyl]

103. I don't feel any great loyalty to either one, so if they don't play well together, whatevs.

[gulliver]

104. I guess NYT will be up for sale soon.

Wapo circling the drain shortly after Guardian collaboration... News is going to be as dead as restaurants serving nutritious meals.