Why the Snowden Leaks Matter: Evidence vs Assumptions

It has been over 7 months since the first excerpts from the Snowden document haul were published in the some mainstream media outlets. Since then, many document excerpts and summaries detailing the tools, capacity and ambition of the NSA (and its collaborators) have been published. As some of you may also know, all of the leaks published to date account for less than 2-3% of what Snowden gave to Greenwald and others- which themselves are a subset of all the documents he took with him in the first place.

So far the reaction from the majority of mainstream media outlets has ranged from condemnation to deliberate ignorance and dismissiveness. While this course of action might have been effective at suppressing information about those leaks in the pre-internet world, we live in a very connected world where non-mainstream media is now far more influential than its mainstream counterpart. But do these leaks matter? and will they have any long-term effects on public policy and perhaps more importantly the perception of people about their governments?

One of the favorite technique of mainstream media ‘journalists’ to try and minimize the impact of each new leak involves saying- “But we already knew that.” But is that really true? To put it another way- is hard and objective evidence about the existence of something really the same as speculative assumptions about its existence? Let us look at a few examples in recent history to try and answer that question.

Let us start by comparing the impact of genocides committed under Hitler to the one(s) committed under Stalin. Why do we hear so much about the former while the later is comparatively obscure, even though more people died in the later. Some say that the notoriety of genocide(s) under Hitler is linked to the fact that Jews were disproportionately represented in the body count- and there is some truth to that statement. However the religious and ethnic identity of the victims is secondary to the main reason we know so much the Nazi genocide.

It comes down to how well each one was documented.

The Holocaust was very well documented- both by its perpetrators and those who eventually stopped it. We have hundreds of thousands of graphic photographs, thousands of hours of movie footage, extensive document archives and a mountain of eyewitness testimony about what really happened during the Holocaust. The same is not true about the genocide(s) under Stalin. While we do have some documents, photographs and eye witness testimony about the events that occurred during those genocides- the total amount of such evidence is a very small fraction of what we have about the Holocaust.

The lack of extensive evidence makes the genocide(s) under Stalin feel substantially less “real” than the very well documented Holocaust- even though more people died in the former.

The “realness” of something we do not have personal knowledge or experience about is directly proportional to the amount of available first, and third, party evidence. This is also why the Armenian Genocide, Japanese war crimes and Mao’s great famine are not as well known as they otherwise would have been.

My point is that definitive evidence of something matters far more than vague assumptions about its existence, especially when such knowledge or information guides an appropriate response.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. February 22, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    yuppers, why do you think the military restricted media access after the Vietnam War…

    Then again, these white morons never expected photography (both film and then digital) to become so inexpensive and widespread. Now add the internet into that mix and suddenly pictures can spread faster than any attempts to stop their spread.

    • Yusef
      February 24, 2014 at 6:27 pm

      The new technology is inexpensive and widespread but nevertheless effectively neutralized by the military morons when it might be used to document mass murder and war crimes. They block physical access to the sites of their crimes. Journalists who do get in are “embedded.” A bit of the horror of civilians being tortured, maimed and murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places has leaked out, but not much at all. ( Abu Graib early on, “trophy” photos of dead farm boys in Afghanistan and so on.) That there is little documentation does– exactly as you say– limit our sense of the suffering to “the people we are helping” in countries we’ve invaded and occupied for so many years.

  2. Fuck Everyone
    February 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    Hold up, ‘white morons’, what has race got to do with this?

    • joesantus
      February 23, 2014 at 8:21 am

      Well, as one o’ the whites, I have to agree with AD. AD doesn’t imply here that only whites are morons (and has made it clear in other posts that he extends “moron” to reds, blacks, yellows, and all other crayons); rather that, in this set of circumstances, it is the white morons who are involved.

  3. webe
    February 23, 2014 at 6:21 am

    911. Amen.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: