Ecuador's the perfect place for Snowden.

[pnwmom]

Of course he wants to spend the rest of his life there, since he's so concerned with freedom and transparency.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-ecuador-snowden-asylum-20130624,0,570296.story

Even as journalists spent much of Monday chasing the whereabouts of Edward Snowden, officials in Ecuador announced they were reviewing the former National Security Agency contractor’s request for asylum.

Snowden’s choice of country to call home struck me as rich with irony. If his decision to leak top-secret information about the NSA program was born out of concerns for the state of democracy in the United States, then his decision to seek refuge in Ecuador is odder still.

After all, Ecuador just approved one of the harshest media laws in the region. Critics say the new laws will probably prompt many private broadcasters and websites to shut down for fear of being prosecuted. Under the sweeping new rules, websites are now liable for reader comments, unless the online outlets create a system for monitoring comments and registering readers. And the new law allows the government to impose sanctions and fines against media outlets that "omit facts" or fail to provide "balanced reports."

As the Committee to Protect Journalists' Carlos Lauria told the Miami Herald in a statement: “The law not only undermines journalists’ ability to report critically but threatens the right of citizens to be informed about sensitive issue."

[msanthrope]

1. Here's an article on the wikileaks/ecuador/belarus link...

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/20129410312450511

[quinnox]

2. Why Ecuador Is a Good Asylum Destination for Edward Snowden

But the foreign minister also made some "reflections" on this case, which will sound like music to Snowden's ears.

"The government of Ecuador puts principles above [political and commercial] interests," Patiño said. "In this case human rights principles."

"We would have to ask ourselves who has betrayed who, [in the Snowden case]" Patiño continued. "Did [Snowden] betray the interests of humanity, or did he betray the interests of certain political elites, in a certain country."

1. Ecuador is already protecting Julian Assange

2. Ecuador has weak extradition treaties with the U.S.

3. The Government of Ecuador profits politically from having Snowden around

Unlike Iceland, the Ecuadorean government has a proven record of saying no to U.S interests, so it is much more likely to tell the U.S. government to take a hike when it asks for Snowden's extradition.

President Rafael Correa has backed environmental lawsuits, against Chevron for example, that accuse the U.S. company of polluting large swathes of the Amazon rainforest.

"Correa wants international recognition, [as a defender of human rights]," Sanchez said. "This also allows him to show [domestically] that he is not a lackey of the U.S. like previous presidents of Ecuador."

4. President Correa will be around for a while

From Snowdens perspective, the political situation in Ecuador provides another important bonus. President Correa was just re-elected this year and has four years left in his current term. If Correa pushes for a law that allows for an unlimited number of re-elections like Chavez did in Venezuela, he could also be around for more than that.

Snowden will probably be safe in Ecuador while Correa is at the helm.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ecuador-good-asylum-destination-edward-snowden/story?id=19476802#.Uck3K9hLGSo

My comment - Go Snowden!

[pnwmom]

16. So Snowden really doesn't care about freedom of information at all, right?

Because Ecuador's one of the worst places in the Americas for someone who does care.

[quinnox]

21. there are very few countries willing to stand up to the United States, the number one power in

the world. Apparently, Ecuador is one of them. Snowden can't exactly pick and choose. Most countries are lapdogs of the U.S. and would arrest him and turn him over.

[mhatrw]

26. Because they passed a fairness doctrine?

Everything we read in the USA about Latin American leaders is tinged by our corporate media Monroe Doctrine.

[pnwmom]

32. Yeah, right. A fairness doctrine that lets the state prosecute

if they don't like content or if "reputations are destroyed."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-ecuador-snowden-asylum-20130624,0,570296.story

Critics say the new laws will probably prompt many private broadcasters and websites to shut down for fear of being prosecuted. Under the sweeping new rules, websites are now liable for reader comments, unless the online outlets create a system for monitoring comments and registering readers. And the new law allows the government to impose sanctions and fines against media outlets that "omit facts" or fail to provide "balanced reports."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3089504

Another innovation is the prohibition of “media lynching”. This is understood as “the dissemination of information that is expressly and recurrently designed to destroy the reputation of a natural person or legal entity or to impinge on their public credibility”.

[mhatrw]

40. Howard Dean & Edward Muskie say Hi!

[reorg]

30. I think you are confused

Snowden's leaks were about the unconstitutional secret surveillance programs in the US. They had nothing to do with what you call "freedom of information", i.e. freedom of media monopolies to propagandize the masses. They were about telling the truth. That is exactly what the new media law in Ecuador is about.

I'm sure he'll feel very much at home there. It's not just a beautiful country, with diverse regions and climates, nice little places and big cities, he will find all kinds of well educated and progressive people with whom he can mingle and share his thoughts.

[pnwmom]

37. I think you are confused. Snowden has spoken about not being able to live in a country

that wasn't free. Freedom of the press is an essential freedom. And the new laws will apply to computer bloggers just as much as the "media monopolies."

You also don't seem to be aware that Snowden's leaks only began with surveillance programs inside the US (which no court has judged to be unconstitutional), and which were debated and passed in the Patriot's Act.

All of his leaks since then have instead been related to the collection of FOREIGN intelligence, which the vast majority of Americans support.

[mhatrw]

42. The USA is not in any position to lecture anyone about freedom of the press.

http://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/corporate-media-ownership/

Corporate Media Ownership

The Project Censored team researched the board members of 10 major media organizations from newspaper to television to radio. Of these ten organizations, we found there are 118 people who sit on 288 different American and international corporate boards proving a close on-going interlock between big media and corporate America. We found media directors who also were former Senators or Representatives in the House such as Sam Nunn (Disney) and William Cohen (Viacom). Board members served at the FCC such as William Kennard (New York Times) and Dennis FitzSimmons (Tribune Company) showing revolving door relationships with big media and U.S. government officials.

These ten big media organizations are the main source of news for most Americans. Their corporate ties require us to continually scrutinize the quality of their news for bias. Disney owns ABC so we wonder how the board of Disney reacts to negative news about their board of directors friends such as Halliburton or Boeing. We see board members with connections to Ford, Kraft, and Kimberly-Clark who employ tens of thousands of Americans. Is it possible that the U.S. workforce receives only the corporate news private companies want them to hear? Do we collectively realize that working people in the U.S. have longer hours, lower pay and fewer benefits than their foreign counterparts? If these companies control the media, they control the dissemination of news turning the First Amendment on its head by protecting corporate interests over people.

[pnwmom]

46. Ours is much freer than Ecuadors.

No one here is prosecuted for what they say on blogs or in comments sections of papers. No newspaper gets charged for not having state-approved coverage.

And no one here gets charged for trying to destroy someone's reputation -- or a significant fraction of DU would be facing charges for vitriol against Obama.

[mhatrw]

54. Yeah, we just get put on terrorist watch lists.

Read the CPJ's criticisms. They can't name a single journalist (much less blogger) behind bars in Ecuador. You are simply looking for some reason to trash Snowden and it's a huge fucking reach.

Study Ecuador's history and then get back to me on why they might not enjoy the same level of "freedom" that you can allow the little people when all major media outlets spew the same corporate approved lines.

Do I personally agree with any restrictions on individual speech? No.

But, seriously, we are in no position to throw any stones. Our "freedom of the press" has brainwashed nearly half the electorate into believing that all their problems are caused by welfare queens and gays.

[pnwmom]

57. Are you on one? I know lots of people who blog and no one who's had any trouble

with being on a watch list.

The law in Ecuador only got passed in January. Give it time.

[mhatrw]

62. I don't know. Am I?

Will you get thrown in jail next to Bradley Manning if you reveal that classified information?

[pnwmom]

63. Unless you never fly you would know. n/t

[cprise]

64. Its funny how you brandish "essential freedom" then cozy up to the PATRIOT Act.

Also, Ecuador's press law says that libel is a two-way street for every person and legal entity. No more corporate echo chamber! In addition, media corps get protection under that law, too. They just can't behave like purveyors of 'infotainment'.

And don't tell me government has no place judging the activities of the media; Ascertaining applicable facts and motives are what courts specialize in.

[pnwmom]

79. There is no "protection" and no promotion of free speech in laws that let the state determine

appropriate content in the media.

[reorg]

77. Ecuador has a free press

and now they even have something what your country once had, a "fairness doctrine" which you abandoned.

Well, yes, collecting vast amounts of personal data is not compatible with the constitutional protection of privacy. The constitutional courts in other countries have already found that to be the case. The US is obviously a little late in the game here, the "war on terror" hysteria having played a role, perhaps it's also because the public is not so well informed, after all? Give it time. Even misinformed Americans might learn.

I couldn't care less if "the vast majority of Americans support" the collection of my personal communication data. It's still against the law in my country. And I'm not yet ready to buy it that they do. Such arrogance just seems unfathomable to me. But, I guess, you'd like it if they do.

[pnwmom]

81. "Your country"? What country are you a citizen of? Their fairness doctrine is a farce

that lets the state determine content of the news.

[reorg]

84. the new media law in Ecuador explicitly forbids censorship

and "the state" has no role whatsoever in "determining content of the news".

It establishes certain rules of fairness in reporting, protection of minors and so forth, which can be enforced through decisions of the (elected) oversight committee.

I suggest you read the actual text of the law instead of parroting and reinterpreting the predictable slanders by the US and Ecuadorian private media (both of which are mostly in the hands of larger conglomerates who do in fact have an interest and the power to "determine the content of the news&quot .

Since you asked - what, don't you believe me? LOL - I am a citizen of Germany, which is apparently one of those countries where the snooping by the NSA is most intrusive:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

Despite the fact that, following complaints by tens of thousands of citizens, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has determined that storing metadata (yes, even metadata) for other purposes than billing is a particularly grave violation of the German Grundgesetz (constitution).

[HiPointDem]

3. there seems to be some difference of opinion about ecuador's media law.

In an atmosphere of festive social mobilisation, the National Assembly of Ecuador adopted the Organic Communications Law on June 14, mandated by the 2008 Constitution. It has taken more than four years for the law to come to light. The law is part of a new democratising trend with respect to communications that is taking shape across Latin America. The most significant antecedent for this is Argentina’s Audiovisual Media Law.

The law implies “recognising the enormous value and the importance of freedom of expression formulated in international instruments of human rights”. But also, Andino said, it adds “a series of opportunities and services in order for that freedom to really exist for everyone, so that it ceases to be a privilege enjoyed only by those better situated in our society”.

The law prohibits previously existing censorship measures. But it also emphasises ultimate media liability for content they publish; and it defends the rights of press workers, with employment security.

The law redistributes existing radio frequencies. It sets aside 33% for private media, 33% for public media and 34% for community media (to be applied gradually). (This is the key point for which the majority private broadcasters are up in arms).

It also eliminates monopolies in audiovisual media. This means that any individual or legal entity can own no more than one main radio station frequency concession in AM, one in FM and one in television. Also, in line with the results of the Radio Frequencies Audit, undertaken three years ago, those airwave frequencies that were assigned illegally or whose beneficiaries have not complied with the law, will be given back to the State. This will free-up frequencies for other sectors.

These clauses incorporate the key proposals made by advocates of democratising communication. This includes clauses designed to encourage cultural production, such as the 60% of daily programming that is now required to consist of nationally-produced contents.Of this, 10% must come from independent producers. There is a minimum quota in musical programs of 50% music produced, composed or performed in Ecuador, complying with payment of royalties.

Among the innovations in the final version of the law,is the obligation for private advertisers to allocate at least 10% of their annual advertising budget to media with local or regional coverage. This is designed to ensure media with a smaller broadcast range or lower print run, and those located in rural areas, may share in advertising income.

In regards to workers' rights, the new law stipulates that the hiring of workers in national media conform to “criteria of equity and equality between men and women, inter-cultural representation, equality of opportunity for disabled persons and intergenerational participation”. It also obliges the media to provide economic, technical and material resources for their employees for the adequate exercise of their journalistic tasks.

Another innovation is the prohibition of “media lynching”. This is understood as “the dissemination of information that is expressly and recurrently designed to destroy the reputation of a natural person or legal entity or to impinge on their public credibility”.

The adoption of the law is not the end of the process, but a starting point. There is already an opposition offensive underway nationally and internationally, by big business media, who refer to it as a “gag law”. There are possible legal challenges.

[Abridged from Alainet. Translated by Jordan Bishop.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54362

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Post does not follow preconceived narrative. Does not compute.

[reorg]

15. OMG, they promote fairness in the media!

What a terrible concept. They don't want media monoplies. They don't want propaganda channels. They are planning to sanction deception and lies. Harsh!

[msongs]

4. maybe there it will be more difficult for "the US" to murder him using a drone nt

[Cha]

6. It is perfect if you're a hypocrite. But, libertarians only care about their rights..

Ron Paul, the candidate, Snowden donated to didn't stand up for African Americans or GLBTs.

Ecuador: Pres. Correa says he won't allow marriage or adoption rights for gays and will veto any gender identity laws

•He denied his government was pushing for marriage equality and highlighted the constitutional ban he once called unnecessary saying that no other type of partnership could ever be considered a marriage except for that between a man and a woman.

•He acknowledged there were current efforts in the national assembly to pass a gender identity law but mocked the legislator introducing the bill and promised to veto the bill if it ever reached his desk.

The shock and disappointment among leading Ecuadorian LGBT rights advocates was palpable on the social networks and many took to Twitter to demand an explanation from Correa on the eve of his inauguration.

http://blabbeando.blogspot.com/2013/05/ecuador-no-to-marriage-equality-no-to.html?spref=tw …

Ecuador better watch out.. and keep their classified docs out of his reach.. unless, Snowden just wanted to spy on the US and doesn't care wtf other countries do.

[quinnox]

8. One explanation for that might be Ecuador is 80% Roman Catholic

as is President Correa.

[mhatrw]

29. Damn! He's as bad as Bill Clinton!

[Cha]

34. Sounds worse and we're not living in those times anymore.

[mhatrw]

45. Thankfully, we aren't. Most of Catholic Latin America still is.

What's next? Outrage because the Pope is not a woman?

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Ecuador may in fact be a better place to live than the United States.

Especially if you're not filthy rich.

[Cha]

9. Not for Gays or the freedom of the Media.. and I'm not "filthy rich".. I

live in Hawai'i and in many other states of the US in my many years. I actually love it and my family and friends.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Members of the LGBTQ community are essentially no worse off in Ecuador than they are in the US.

And you live in one of the best states in the US for social welfare programs and public education. If only that were the same everywhere. Unfortunately it is not.

[Cha]

11. "Members of the LGBTQ community are essentially no worse off in Ecuador than they are in the US"

is a bullshit statement.

Ecuador: Pres. Correa says he won't allow marriage or adoption rights for gays and will veto any gender identity laws

•He denied his government was pushing for marriage equality and highlighted the constitutional ban he once called unnecessary saying that no other type of partnership could ever be considered a marriage except for that between a man and a woman.

•He acknowledged there were current efforts in the national assembly to pass a gender identity law but mocked the legislator introducing the bill and promised to veto the bill if it ever reached his desk.

The shock and disappointment among leading Ecuadorian LGBT rights advocates was palpable on the social networks and many took to Twitter to demand an explanation from Correa on the eve of his inauguration.

http://blabbeando.blogspot.com/2013/05/ecuador-no-to-marriage-equality-no-to.html?spref=tw …

As I said I've lived in quite a few states and I loved them all.. Colorado, Arizona, California, North Carolina, Florida, New York and Hawai'i.

'Course I'm not a Libertarian Leaker on the run.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. I live in Arizona and it's a fucking shithole. So there's that.

And gay citizens are treated terribly here.

But, you know, the President of a nation abhorring gay rights means the entire nation hates gay people...wait, no that can't be right.

[reorg]

20. time to update your cheap talking point

Ecuador became the first country in the Americas (and only the third worldwide) to include sexual orientation as a protected category in its constitution.[1] ...

In 2012, President Rafael Correa apointed Carina Vance Mafla, a lesbian activist, as the country's Health Minister.[13] ...

After the 2013 Ecuadorian general election, Nelson Zavala, an evangelical preacher and the presidential candidate who finished last out of eight candidates, was sentenced by an election court to pay more than $3,000 in fines. The court also prohibited him for a year from standing as a candidate or from affiliating himself or being involved with a political party or movement. During the campaign, he called gay people "sinners" and "immoral" and said they suffered from "severe deviation of conduct". LGBT activists applauded the ruling as a "landmark".[20][21] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ecuador

The constitutional protection against discrimination is also reflected in the new media law, BTW.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. Your post does not support the preconcieved narrative. You shall be banned henceforth.

[zeeland]

27. +1000 n/t

[Cha]

35. Good to know.. so Ecuador doesn't discriminate against Gays anymore. Bueno.

[mhatrw]

48. What else can you trash them on? You know, other than

not constantly kissing the ass of USA's hegemonic corpocracy?

[Cha]

61. I don't have to "trash" them on anything. I'm only interested in the facts.

Which you obviously aren't.

[HiPointDem]

70. then why did you post non-facts?

[mhatrw]

31. your freedom of the media = freedom for corporations to monopolize media

as they do in the good old USA.

[pnwmom]

17. Not for people like Snowden who claim to care about freedom of the press. n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

18. You're totally right assuming nobody cares about the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3089504

[pnwmom]

22. The link you posted sure has a sunny view of the new law.

Your link sure has a sunny way of viewing the new law. For example:

“The law prohibits previously existing censorship measures. But it also emphasizes ultimate media liability for content they publish.”


And:

“Another innovation is the prohibition of “media lynching”. This is understood as “the dissemination of information that is expressly and recurrently designed to destroy the reputation of a natural person or legal entity or to impinge on their public credibility”.


IN OTHER WORDS: The State can prosecute newspaper owners whose content is judged inappropriate, or who allow writers to "destroy" reputations.

From the LA Times:

“Under the sweeping new rules, websites are now liable for reader comments, unless the online outlets create a system for monitoring comments and registering readers. And the new law allows the government to impose sanctions and fines against media outlets that "omit facts" or fail to provide "balanced reports."

“As the Committee to Protect Journalists' Carlos Lauria told the Miami Herald in a statement: “The law not only undermines journalists’ ability to report critically but threatens the right of citizens to be informed about sensitive issue."

[Gravitycollapse]

24. This amounts to status-quo US media outlets attacking a system that would end their existence.

Needless to say, I'm not buying the bullshit.

[pnwmom]

41. No, it amounts to publishers and bloggers who are standing up for freedom of speech

and freedom of the press.

[cprise]

66. The US press are 90% owned by 5 corporations

...who are very cozy with each other and take an absolutist approach to punishing people even if they only appear to be violating a company's "intellectual property".

Likewise, FOX News sued for the ability to knowingly lie to the public... and won. Some years later we got the war in Iraq.

None of that looks like "freedom" to me. You abuse the word like a typical flag-waver.

[pnwmom]

67. The old media, which is dominated by the 5 corporations, is more and more

being supplanted by the new media.

[cprise]

68. Dream on. US corporate media are larger and more profitable than ever. n/t

[HiPointDem]

85. you're a riot. the 'new media' that's essentially a spy tool.

[mhatrw]

38. Here are CPJ's criticisms of Ecuador's Press

Ecuador

Newly enacted legislation bars the news media from promoting political candidates "directly or indirectly" in the 90 days before an election. The law, backed by the Correa administration, also prohibits news media from publishing or transmitting any type of information, photos, or opinions about an election in the 48 hours leading up to the vote. The move was widely seen as benefiting Correa in his 2013 bid for re-election.

If only Howard Dean had the benefit of this reform.

The president has made a practice of demonizing the press, routinely calling journalists "liars" if they don't parrot his government's views. "The administration has adopted a policy of generating polarization between the media and the government," Zurita said.

How is this any different from what our Republicans do?

Facing legal harassment, three journalists fled into exile in 2012, marking Ecuador's first appearance on CPJ's annual exile report, which tracks journalists forced to flee their countries. (Two of these journalists were later able to return.) In September, threats forced journalist Janet Hinostroza to take a leave of absence from her show on the private network Teleamazonas, where she had been investigating allegations of banking improprieties involving a presidential relative.

Gary Webb feels their pain.

Though the administration maintained one of the most extensive state media operations in the hemisphere, government regulators closed at least 11 private broadcasters during the year. Although officials cited regulatory violations, most of the stations had been critical of the government.

Damn! Fewer private media stations! How tragic!

[pnwmom]

43. "How is this any different from (what) our Republicans do?"

Our Republicans don't have the power to press charges for coverage they don't like.

[Gravitycollapse]

44. They don't have to press charges. They own the press.

[pnwmom]

49. They don't own all forms of media. And anyone with a computer can set themselves

up as a blogger without fear of prosecution.

[mhatrw]

51. Not until they are spied on by the NSA for "aiding our enemies," that is. n/t

[mhatrw]

50. That wasn't the CPJ's criticism and you know it.

And we routinely jail reporters for not revealing their sources.

[cprise]

69. Essentially it's illegal to 'Bum Rush' the public right before an election

That's pretty interesting.

[HiPointDem]

71. and your post fails to note the MAIN reasons the law is disliked in some quarters, which is

taking away some broadcast spectrum from the big boys, banning monopolies, mandating local content and excluding some of the international media giants' content, as well as their ability to take over ecuadorian media.

US media is a joke.

[reorg]

74. IN OTHER WORDS: You don't know what you are talking about

Did you read the law? Of course, you didn't.

The new media law does not establish new rules for "prosecution". No, the "state" cannot "prosecute owners whose content is judged inappropriate. Not any more than they already can under existing libel laws.

What the new media law establishes is

a) certain requirements of fair reporting and the right of those affected by reports that do not meet these requirements to demand "rectification".

b) the "right to reply" - anybody who is attacked in the media has the right that his version of the story is published

c) sanction against "media lynching": the new "Superintendencia de la Información y Comunicación", of whose 5 members 4 are elected by the institutions and associations they represent, can demand an apology.

OMG, an apology! Such hardship for publishers, they have to apologize if found guilty to engage in campaigns of slander.

Only if news media refuse to comply with the above listed rules, the Superintendencia can impose fines.


Similarly, the provisions about "ultimate responsibility" of content such as reader comments do not establish any changes in existing libel law. The new law does NOT "allow the government to impose sanctions", it merely establishes precise conditions which allow for newsmedia to avoid liability for reader comments.


If you, as it appears to be the case, are under the delusional impression that blog posts are exempt from libel laws, please educate yourself:

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

[newfie11]

65. So says many American retirees

Beautiful country and people.

[davidpdx]

13. Well one thing is for sure

He won't see friends or family unless they are willing to travel to South America. I'm sure at some point being on the run will get old. he's 29 so he has lots of years ahead of him where he will have to do that.

[Bonobo]

14. .

[Number23]

19. There was an interview yesterday on the ABC

(Australian Broadcast Co) where the journalist absolutely EVISCERATED the Wikileaks spokesman. ABC is constantly vilified for its "left wing bias" but this was a hell of an interview.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/wikileaks-spokesman-kristinn-hrafnsson-speaks-with/4774888

She was nothing short of incredulous that Wikileaks, the "champions of the free press", saw nothing even remotely hypocritical about supporting someone who fled to first China, then Russia and is now trying to get to Ecuador in order to get away.

[pnwmom]

23. But Assange is taking refuge with Ecuador, so I don't know why she'd be incredulous.

Assange is as much of a hypocrite as anyone.

Thanks for the link!

[Number23]

28. No, she knows that. I think her point is that Wikileaks positions itself as the champions of the

free press and is actively helping someone access countries where journalists, academics and every damn body else are routinely put away or even killed by their government for thinking "the wrong thoughts."

Virginia (the woman journalist) doesn't miss a thing. She is sharp as two tacks and called him out beautifully. I love the long 4 second pause after she asked him how he doesn't think that Wikileaks is opening itself up to charges of hypocrisy with its behavior.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Virginia was a bit of a hypocrite...

We also have a ban on political advertising in the lead-up to elections here. Maybe she should go live in a country that has real freedom of speech and ask those same questions from there.

btw, the ABC isn't left-wing. It's got it's share of really good reporters and really crap ones. I'd stick her towards the latter end of the spectrum given that she's on some obscure morning show and not something like the much lauded 7:30 Report

[Number23]

86. I would wager that more people watch the morning show than the 7:30 report

So I hardly think that it would be considered obscure. And I'd definitely stick her towards the higher end of the journalistic spectrum.

And I am not at all sure what your comment about a ban on political advertising has to do with questioning Wikileaks on what some see as hypocrisy on championing a "free press" by helping someone get to countries that imprison and kill journalists right and left. But I'm sure you feel that is an important point for whatever reason.

Edit: I just checked and all ABC News shows are lower than the commercial tv shows which blows my mind considering how horrible the commercial news is. And it's hard to compare because the morning show is spread over three hours while 7:30 is only a half hour show.

But every time I hear the words "ABC News" I hear "left wing bias" in the same sentence. So it's interesting that you are now saying that it's not actually left wing. lol But maybe it's the same as in the States where everyone says the media is left wing just to minimize their impact.

[Coccydynia]

33. And once again the brainiacs miss the point.

If you are shopping for tires you don't go to a jewelry store.

Assainge and Snowden are looking for places that will not turn them over to US torture chambers. That is goal number one. Everything else is secondary.

It really isn't complicated.

[quinnox]

36. exactly, it sounds like the OP thinks Snowden can go to Paris or something and hang out at the local

club med. He is on the run from the worlds greatest power!

[Coccydynia]

39. They probably wouldn't mind Snowden going to Paris because, you know, Freedom Fries.

But your are correct, he is fleeing for his life, and I hope there isn't a drone or a Seal Six team waiting to protect us from the truth.

[Democracyinkind]

47. I think it's pretty fucking naive to judge the ecuadorian media by american standards.

I'd say the situation is quite different, akin to Venezuela, and therefore there is a legitimate dilemma involved - Freedom of the press even if that means watching the oligarchy instigate coups and riots? It's a tricky question. Generally, I'd rather have them err on the side of freedom of the press. But the Chavistas have paid and are still paying dearly for that decision. Just as a little context to the controversy. Also, as the NSA apologists like to say, we'll just have to wait and see. Spare me your outrage about "Freedom of the Press" in Ecuador until the law is actually (by your standards: unlawfully) abused. If they abuse it in a legal way you'll just have to swallow it as this is what your propose as the moral interpretation for the US/NSA fiasco.

As to the assertion that Snowden chose exile because he can't live in a country without freedom of the press, I think that's quite ridiculous. Even if the press were totally free in the US he still would have needed to flee if he wasn't looking forward to the Manning treatment (or worse). People might not believe this or care about it but they totally broke Manning. Quite reasonable to want to avoid that. Naturally, his safety - i.e., extradition laws is the only factor that's really relevant for Snowden. And Ecuador is still way much better than most other options that don't extradite to the us.

[pnwmom]

55. I think Snowden is "pretty fucking naive" if he thinks Ecuador is the kind of country

he told the Washington Post he wanted to go to.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-09/politics/39856642_1_extradition-nsa-leaks-disclosures

Snowden said he is seeking “asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy,”

[Democracyinkind]

58. As I said...

At this point, I don't think he cares much about free speech and victimization of global privacy. It might be good PR, but we all know that at this point his primary (and probably only) concern is avoiding the Manning treatment.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

52. These Snowden haters are experts on everything.

A week ago they were experts on China (even though they don't realize Hong Kong is self governing), yesterday they were experts on human rights in Russia and today they're experts on Latin America.

Wikipedia warriors.

USA USA USA USA!!!!!!

[pnwmom]

56. It's delusional to think Hong Kong is self governing with regard to foreign policy.

They didn't do anything without China's approval.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

59. That wasn't the point I was making.

I was referring to their criticisms of human rights and the standard of living in Hong Kong. The skewed xenophobic and ethnocentric views a lot of the Snowden haters share is very telling.

[pnwmom]

60. Well I wrote the OP and I haven't said anything in any thread about human rights in Hong Kong

or the standard of living there.

But I do not agree with you that Hong Kong is completely self-governing. And neither does Snowden's lawyer.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=134905&sid=39861371&con_type=1&d_str=20130625&fc=2

Albert Ho, who acted as Edward Snowden's lawyer in Hong Kong, says he suspects that Beijing engineered the American's flight to Moscow.

"The Hong Kong government has no power to decide or say anything whatsoever," he said.

SNIP

Ho said his colleagues accompanied Snowden to the airport and they noted that they were followed.

"I have reasons to believe that those who wanted him to leave represented Beijing," Ho said. "Beijing would not step forward as this would affect Sino-US relations. The Hong Kong government may not have had any role other than not stopping him."

[HiPointDem]

72. it's delusional to think the same people aren't running hk that have run it since the british took

it by force of arms in the opium wars.

[HiPointDem]

73. actually, some of them are in the business. i won't say which one.

[randome]

75. You fascist American-hating authoritarian!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[mike_c]

78. are you being paid to pursue this single-minded bulldog vendetta against Snowden...?

Serious question, no snark intended. "Keep the attention on Snowden's shortcomings, rather than the NSA and the surveillance state."

[pnwmom]

80. Are you being paid to lionize him? Serious question, no snark intended.

"Benghazi didn't work, the IRS thing didn't work, but we're really getting to them with the Snowden thing. Keep it up!"

[mike_c]

83. no-- nor am I lionizing him

Snowden is just the messenger-- the surveillance state is the primary issue for me. It is not "the Snowden thing" at all. I appreciate the risk he's taking on our behalf, but I don't know him well enough to "lionize" him. I don't know how much of what's reported about him is simply propaganda. I believe you are actively supporting that propaganda effort, hence my question about whether you're being paid for it.

I don't have access to popular media, i.e. television, so I didn't hear much about Benghazi or "the IRS thing" except on DU, and I don't think I participated in any of those discussions.

[LittleBlue]

82. He wanted asylum in one of the freest countries- Iceland

But they demanded he show up in person, so if turned down he would be given to the US and subjected to Bradley Manning treatment.

Ecuador is one of only a few countries on earth willing to defy the US, and the most free one of the lot. It's a democracy. To argue that he's not going to a free country is dishonest, since going to any free European country would get him a one-way ticket to life in solitary confinement.

Really OP, think before you post. Or maybe you did, and this is the propaganda it appears to be.