English version of "Snowdens uppgifter tar en helt ny väg". Published today, 22 Jan 2014 in SvD.
Published in Professorsblogg.com 22 Jan 2013
Glenn
Greenwald, the American journalist and political commentator who –
through files leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden – revealed to the
world the widespread American surveillance, opted in October 2013 to
leave the British newspaper The Guardian, to work instead with the eBay
billionaire Pierre Omidyar. Together, they will develop First Look
Media, a new digital-journalism project which Omidyar finances with an
initial capital of 250 million dollars. This means that Omidyar, to
operate in a larger political-economic agenda, has hired one of the most
government-criticizer journalists that exist, and eventually he is
establishing an indirect collaboration with the world's most hunted
whistleblower.
During
the same month that Greenwald left his post at The Guardian, 14
activists associated with the political free-speech movement Anonymous
were subject of court trial in America. The protesters, also called
hacker-activists because of their use of computer-related technologies
for political purposes, were accused of intentionally injuring the
international payment site Paypal's internet traffic during December
2010.
The
political reason behind this digital protest was that Paypal together
with other payment companies such as Visa and MasterCard, had withdrawn
financial services linked to WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, at the
request of the U.S. government. This is because Wikileaks - the
non-profit media organization that reports and publishes classified
information to the public - including the publishing of the classified
materials provided by Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning
). The blockade meant that WikiLeaks could no any longer receive the
donations that enabled its existence. When Paypal blocked the financial
transfers to WikiLeaks, the 14 protesters replied by sending thousands
of micro files ( DDoS ) to Paypal during two hours, in order to
overwhelm the site's computer systems.
On Thursday, December 5th,
the majority of the accused acknowledged the charges ("conspiracy " and
"deliberate damage to a protected computer" ) as part of a legal
agreement which meant $ 5,600 in fines for each - in exchange for that
prison sentences would not be imposed at the final judgment that is
scheduled for 2014. During the impeachment process against the 14
hacker-activists, Paypal has been collaborating with the U.S. Department
of Justice prosecutors.
Paypal
is a subsidiary of the multinational e -commerce company Ebay (who also
bought the Swedish eBay ), where Pierre Omidyar is both founder and
chairman , and has substantial financial interests. When Omidyar now
hired Glenn Greenwald and other American journalists to work in the new
journalistic project, it means that Greenwald goes into business with
the president of the company that blocked online financial donations to
WikiLeaks.
Wikileaks’
Sarah Harrison is a journalist who escorted the whistleblower Edward
Snowden from Hong Kong to Russia in June 2013 , where he has been
granted asylum and work. She has spoken out in the German magazine Stern
on Omidyars new investment: " If you are creating a new media
organization that claims to do everything for press freedom, but where
you also are a part of a blockade against another media organization, it
is difficult for us to take it seriously. "
The
operation against Paypal thus arose as support for Wikileaks, and the
14 hacker activists associated with Anonymous are indeed now in a legal
battle against PayPal. This occurs while Omidyar is funding a new media
company with a quart of one billion U.S. dollars, and where the
reporters not only support the right to " free speech" but also use
WikiLeaks as a source for their sensational news.
This
paradox does not necessarily mean that Greenwald no longer defends
Wikileaks or Anonymous’ political struggle for freedom of expression,
state/corporative transparency or the civil right to anonymity. But
neither it is a coincidence that Greenwald's involvement with Snowden's
eventual future documents, can now indirectly be redirected and
contextualized in a larger political-economic agenda.
So,
who is this Pierre Omidyar ? According to The Independent newspaper he
was born in 1967 in France to Iranian parents after fleeing the Shah's
regime in Iran. Forbes magazine writes how Omidyar moved to Washington
at age six, and today he is USA's 47th and World's 123rd richest man.
He is also a noted philanthropist who donates huge sums to foundations,
in his " vision for positive change driven by the individual " (as the
Omidyar group writes on its website). It is from this (philanthropic)
platform that Omidyar explains that he intends to support independent
journalists in full, all in support of public interest. And he wants to
find a way to convert regular readers into concerned citizens.
The
ultimate goal is to build a digital media platform - called First Look
Media - which provides Omidyars’ journalists, as he puts it, " the
opportunity to pursue the truth in their fields ."
In
an interview with journalist Amy Goodman for the American independent
news channel Democracy Now, at the end of October, Greenwald himself
contributes to the rhetoric with the somewhat paradoxical statement, on
that Omidyar "would not start a new business only to make money. He
would just start a new business in accordance with a conscious societal
perspective. "
Omidyar
has previously said that his business is based on the idea of acting as
a "force for good ", and the interest for critical investigative
journalism (a journalistic form which according to him does not give
much money) follows the same track.
However,
critical grassroots’ voices argue that it would be naive to think that
one of the world 's richest people voluntarily commits himself to
finance journalists who question and challenge the political and
economic structure that allows Omidyars own economic power to expand.
The logic is simple: if you hire a U.S. critic (Greenwald) and give him
several million dollars to implement specific projects with a clear
U.S.-critical focus, the following question arises: Why choose to be at
odds with the U.S. government? And if Omidyar becomes "enemy " of the
U.S. government - who will be his "friend" ?
Additional
voices argue that the merger Greenwald/Omidyar is more about an attempt
in advocating against the state apparatus that controls “too much” both
the market and individuals. In short, where the government-critical
information contextualizes in relation to certain political and market
ideas based on individual and economic freedom - without strong
government regulation. Hence the leaked critical information is not
targeting state apparatuses or authorities as such; instead it functions
towards an influencing effect in the long run: for a mobilization
against the mentality that accepts a bureaucratic state that routinely
control its citizens/companies through a variety of means and
techniques.
What
is thus latent under progress is something more than the concrete
information coming out through Snowden and Greenwald . The interesting
thing is (also ) how these activists and journalists' knowledge is
indirectly influenced by political and financial power .
The
Guardian's editor says (3/12) that they have "published just one per
cent of all Snowden’s documents"; which means that a substantial amount
of information remains to be published - information that it will likely
be distributed by First Look Media.
That
is, coming Snowden leaks are will no be published in a vacuum but
instead under strategic management, published at a particular political
time-occasion, and adjusted to other news articles. If there are only 1
per cent of all Snowden leaks that have been published by The Guardian,
it is now First Look Media that will have a unique opportunity to decide
when, where and how sensitive data would be fit to be published.
To
summarize: the information war is structured and controlled in an
increasingly organized, populist and at an establishment level. The
actors are no any longer solely Snowden or Greenwald, neither is what
they say the only thing what matters; but also how they say it and in
what context; who/what could indirectly influence these government
critics; and who/whom is profiting or losing with a certain type of
information that comes out to the public.
Seen
from this perspective, Snowden and Greenwald works as pawns in a power
game competing to win the public's political preferences, where the
control by the Government of critical reports become "business as
usual", a market for further political and economic ends.
None
of this undermines the seriousness of Manning’s or Snowden's leaks, on
the contrary, the question is rather how the political-economic
management of these leaks and their spokespersons will be developed:
which outcomes shall crystallize and how they promote or discourage
different market and political forces.
Meanwhile,
and in the margin, parts of the Anonymous movement are still awaiting
court verdicts; individuals and formations of young hacker activists who
risk long prison sentences and substantial fines for political
activities associated with the free speech.
Their struggle is also completely outside financial interests. Not like that sweater for sale on eBay Tradera.
____
Rodrigo
Ferrada Stoeherel M.A, is a documentary-maker and Media &
communications researcher, PhD student at Umeå University, Sweden
Read also by Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel the Aftonbladet article:
No comments:
Post a Comment