Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Interview with Omidyar about his news venture with Greeenwald, Schahill, and Poitras...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/business/media/an-interview-with-pierre-omidyar.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 Q: You could be putting your time and money into a lot of things. Why news?
A: I’m a technologist by origin and by training, but I’m focused on philanthropy. One of the key areas was taking the lessons from technology and applying them to making the world better. And part of that interest really led me to government transparency and accountability: how do we explain to a broad audience what government is doing?
We’ve lived in Hawaii for about seven years and I saw a gap in coverage as newsrooms were merging — there was a real reduction in reporting capacity and so I felt it was critical to just build a newsroom that is exclusively focused on public affairs. I wanted to get my hands dirty learning what it’s like to work with journalists and editors day in and day out, to see how the sausage is made. Through that experience, I saw firsthand the impact that really good investigative stories have at every level and so this is the next step in a very long journey.
Q: This next step seems focused on secrecy and transparency. What pulled you in that direction?
A: A number of things happened: Even before the Snowden leaks, we saw a number of what I would characterize as missteps by the Justice Department. We saw the Justice Department wiretap the A.P. newsroom. We saw [Fox News reporter James] Rosen being labeled as co-conspirator label in affidavits; we see the many leak prosecutions including the use of the Espionage Act. It alerted me to the fact that even in this great country of ours with this fantastic Constitution, there’s a real pressure against press freedoms that’s going on. Perhaps unintentionally in the hot pursuit of leakers and trying to protect secrets, we are really putting pressure on press freedom here. When you have mass surveillance, it’s impossible to meet the intent of the First Amendment because reporters can’t talk to sources because sources are afraid to talk.
Q: So why not get in the middle of things by buying The Washington Post?
A: In May, we started a deep engagement in the process of looking at buying The Washington Post. Ultimately, I started thinking about other uses of that level of capital. I learned at Civil Beat that a large part of driving the conversation forward is having voices based in expertise as well as passion for the topic. That’s what really drove me to thinking about people like Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill. They are people who are willing to put themselves out there and be transparent about it, not just spouting opinions without any kind of basis. They say, “Look, I know about this stuff. This is how I know about it; here’s what I’ve learned and I’m going to tell you what I think about this.”
A: I’m a technologist by origin and by training, but I’m focused on philanthropy. One of the key areas was taking the lessons from technology and applying them to making the world better. And part of that interest really led me to government transparency and accountability: how do we explain to a broad audience what government is doing?
We’ve lived in Hawaii for about seven years and I saw a gap in coverage as newsrooms were merging — there was a real reduction in reporting capacity and so I felt it was critical to just build a newsroom that is exclusively focused on public affairs. I wanted to get my hands dirty learning what it’s like to work with journalists and editors day in and day out, to see how the sausage is made. Through that experience, I saw firsthand the impact that really good investigative stories have at every level and so this is the next step in a very long journey.
Q: This next step seems focused on secrecy and transparency. What pulled you in that direction?
A: A number of things happened: Even before the Snowden leaks, we saw a number of what I would characterize as missteps by the Justice Department. We saw the Justice Department wiretap the A.P. newsroom. We saw [Fox News reporter James] Rosen being labeled as co-conspirator label in affidavits; we see the many leak prosecutions including the use of the Espionage Act. It alerted me to the fact that even in this great country of ours with this fantastic Constitution, there’s a real pressure against press freedoms that’s going on. Perhaps unintentionally in the hot pursuit of leakers and trying to protect secrets, we are really putting pressure on press freedom here. When you have mass surveillance, it’s impossible to meet the intent of the First Amendment because reporters can’t talk to sources because sources are afraid to talk.
Q: So why not get in the middle of things by buying The Washington Post?
A: In May, we started a deep engagement in the process of looking at buying The Washington Post. Ultimately, I started thinking about other uses of that level of capital. I learned at Civil Beat that a large part of driving the conversation forward is having voices based in expertise as well as passion for the topic. That’s what really drove me to thinking about people like Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill. They are people who are willing to put themselves out there and be transparent about it, not just spouting opinions without any kind of basis. They say, “Look, I know about this stuff. This is how I know about it; here’s what I’ve learned and I’m going to tell you what I think about this.”
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
