News

Liberal MSNBC host says Snowden thinks he’s in a Spielberg movie and Greenwald is a ‘jerk’

Did you hear Edward Snowden’s inspiring speech the other day in Moscow airport? Another example from him of what it means for a citizen to commit himself to principles. Snowden explained why he had abandoned a home in “paradise” for a life on the run, in the name of the people’s right to know:

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

And did you hear the White House saying he’s a propagandist? For what– democracy? Jay Carney:

I would simply say that providing a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden runs counter to the Russian government’s previous declarations of Russia’s neutrality

You’d think that the duty of people of conscience with a platform in the west is to give support to Ed Snowden. If you agree that this spying program needed to be exposed, rather than deliberated in secret– that as Snowden says, below, justice must be seen to be done — then you must give him support, now, when he needs it most to keep speaking out.

But here is Melissa Harris-Perry at MSNBC urging Snowden to return to the United States, where she promises he will be treated well in prison. Because his case has become a distraction. She dares to question his altruism, this man who sacrificed so much. Her Tom Hanks link is to the Spielberg film, The Terminal. The MSNBC anchor penned a letter to Snowden: 

And maybe your intentions were completely altruistic–it’s not that you wanted attention, but that you wanted us, the public, to know just how much information our government has about us. That is something worth talking about. But by engaging in this Tom Hanks-worthy, border-jumping drama through some of the world’s most totalitarian states, you’re making yourself the story.

We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.

But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is. We could at least be talking about whether the Obama administration is right that your leak jeopardized national security. But we’re not talking about that, Ed.

As if Snowden wanted this ordeal he is in the midst of; as if Snowden did not consciously make himself a fugitive in order to call attention to abuses.

More from Snowden’s opening statement in Moscow airport the other day, saying that the most essential principle of justice is that it must be seen to be done. Yes and none of this would have been seen except for him.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

Thanks to Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, who says that Melissa Harris-Perry’s statement makes him “despair for America.”

49 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I agree with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad who says Melissa Harris-Perry’s statement is worthy of despair for America. She’s the offspring of a black father and white mother brought up in Mormonism. She has no clue that Snowden reflects the highest values of American morals and ethics. She, like so many anti-white spokes folks today, merely work for themselves to become part of the 1% elite. The dead at Gettysburg mean nothing to her because they are nearly all white dead.

Microsoft NBC is part of Microsoft who send the NSA whatever they need.
Microsoft. Your potential, our passion .

I thought that this interview was pretty good.

The Weapons of Mass Distraction
Across the world – Greece, Spain, Brazil, Egypt – citizens are turning angrily to their governments to demand economic fair play and equality. But here in America, with few exceptions, the streets and airwaves remain relatively silent. In a country as rich and powerful as America, why is there so little outcry about the ever-increasing, deliberate divide between the very wealthy and everyone else?
Media scholar Marty Kaplan points to a number of forces keeping these issues and affected citizens in the dark – especially our well-fed appetite for media distraction.
“We have unemployment and hunger and crumbling infrastructure and a tax system out of whack and a corrupt political system – why are we not taking to the streets?” Kaplan asks Bill. “I suspect among your viewers, there are people who are outraged and want to be at the barricades. The problem is that we have been taught to be helpless and jaded rather than to feel that we are empowered and can make a difference.”
An award-winning columnist and head of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, Kaplan also talks about the appropriate role of journalists as advocates for truth.
PBS – Bill Moyers & Company
Host Bill Moyers interviews Marty Kaplan
July 12, 2013
http://billmoyers.com/segment/marty-kaplan-on-the-weapons-of-mass-distraction
Transcript:
http://billmoyers.com/wp-content/themes/billmoyers/transcript-print.php?post=35312
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Kaplan
(Vimeo Flash Video)
http://vimeo.com/70162196

RE: “We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.” ~ Melissa Harris-Perry

MY COMMENT: Yes, “we” theoretically could be, but undoubtedly “we” would not be (no matter what Snowden did). At least, “we” wouldn’t be talking about it in the mainstream/corporate media! It (the constitutional issue) just isn’t sexy enough for the advertisers. It doesn’t have a high enough “Q Score” to be considered “newsworthy” by the mainstream/corporate media.
And, if it doesn’t bleed . . .

FROM WIKIPEDIA [Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]:

[EXCERPTS] “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, is an analysis of the news media, arguing that the mass media of the United States “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”.[1] . . .

Editorial bias: five filters
Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:
Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”.[4] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”[5]
Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[5]
Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror”, as the major social control mechanism.[6][7] . . .

SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

Its obvious that our media celebrities all serve the same masters, formatting thier collusion with the state in a manner that reaches out to both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t matter if you’re Sean Hannity, or Melissa Harris-Perry, your message is scripted for appeal and indoctrination, rather than to inform. Fox News, or MSNBC, the goal is to divide us along partisan lines by offering seemingly different viewpoints, while pursuing the same agenda. While we bicker amongst ourselves along this contrived and media nurtured illusion of partisan differences, the maggots in Washington DC expand thier tentacles of power beyond our best interests. Really, these media whores are almost, if not actually, worse than their political pimps. The Fourth Estate died long ago, and all thats left is a rotten carcass, which those such as Melissa Harris-Perry feed upon.