Whistleblower or Traitor: Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg and the Power of Media Celebrity

Anthony Moretti, Ph.D.

moretti@rmu.edu

Robert Morris University, Moon Township, PA (USA)

2013 Moscow Readings Conference

Moscow State University,

Moscow, Russian Federation

Snowden and Ellsberg Polarizing figures – hero and villain (but to whom?) Interested in publicizing a (perceived or real)

government mistake Endured the wrath of that government Operated in a different media and political

environment

Daniel Ellsberg RAND Corporation employee who photocopied and then handed over to

multiple news agencies a 7,000-page assessment of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War

TIME magazine: Nearly a day went by before the networks and wire services took note [of the initial set of “Pentagon Papers” published by the New York Times]. The first White House reaction was to refrain from comment so as not to give the series any greater "exposure.“

Democrats: Publication underscored the “deception” taking place in Washington and affecting both parties

Republicans: How dare the New York Times make its own rules about what is national security

Media never offered a “label” for him

Edward Snowden CIA contractor who sent thousands of documents to The

Guardian and other newspapers about NSA surveillance of Americans, and foreign governments

Democratic and Republican politicians: traitor

Sharp criticism directed at journalists, especially Glenn Greenwald

Instant labeling of Snowden by media: whistleblower, source, leaker, implied traitor

40 Years Is a Long Time Explaining the differences in the media and political environment

Corporate Ownership

More media owned by fewer groups

Cutting news staffs; shrinking news holes; declining emphasis on investigative reporting; the “homogenization” of news coverage; demanding ever-higher profits; and emphasizing people/celebrities as newsmakers

1970s: Who Ellsberg is/what makes him tick irrelevant in a national conversation about serious reporting and analysis about serious issues

2010s: A kind-of pop psychology about why Snowden did what he did; how social media reacted to it; drama about deportation/extradition

40 Years Is a Long Time Explaining the differences in the media and political environment

TechnologyFenton: “Speeding it up and spreading it thin” Opinion seeping into news coverageBoczkowski: “A journalist spends more time learning about

other media than ever before, and this information increasingly influences editorial judgments

Carr: an emerging Fifth Estate of leakers, activists and bloggers Mainstream media losing their prestige, audiences 1970s: What is happening here answered by fewer media,

reaching larger audiences and journalism standards clear and enforced

2010s: What is happening here answered by MSM, social media, opinion programs; focus on the individual becomes easy

40 Years Is a Long Time Explaining the differences in the media and political environment

Changing and weakened government policies

FCC and its “public interest” raison d’ etre

Ownership of newspaper/broadcast entity and audience reach

Shaffer and Jordan: “Members of Congress have sponsored legislation aimed at severely limiting – and even stripping – FCC regulators of their power to review acquisitions”

Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York Times in 1971

So What? Should media reporting and analysis be on the actors and their

motivations, or their actions?

If fewer voices are involved in conversation, then which sources enter media discourse?

If a journalist injects himself/herself into an issue, then what industry standards has he/she violated? And who is defining those standards?

In a deregulation modus operandi for government, should we be surprised that lax policies exist in media?