Speaking of journalists, the Columbia Journalism Review gives them a good spanking for the terrible job they’re doing in covering the encryption wars. In How not to report on the encryption ‘debate’, the CJR takes reporters to task for swallowing whole the government’s misinformation about the use of encryption in the Paris attacks rather apply the proper skeptical analysis and investigation.
The bodies in Paris were still cooling when officials from the CIA and other members of the security community started claiming that the terrorists were able to plan and carry out their attack because they used encryption. There was even talk of their sophisticated use of Play Stations to hide their communications.
In fact, as the CJR (and Irreal) points out, there is no evidence at all that the Paris attackers used encryption. On the contrary, they operated in the open, used their own names and their own (legitimate) documents, and communicated via Facebook and normal SMS. You wouldn’t know any of this from much of the reporting going on. Even after the New York Times and Washington Post called out the government dissembling about encryption’s role in the attack, many journalists—especially the talking heads—continue to push the intelligence community’s line that the attacks were enabled by encryption and, of course, Edward Snowden.
Now, sadly, after the San Bernadine attack the frenzy about encryption has increased and know-nothing, posturing politicians are insisting that “laws be passed” or something. It’s journalism’s job the dig out the truth of the matter. Instead, they’re content accept and reprint government propaganda.
UPDATE: Maybe this explains it
Sufficiently effective journalism is indistinguishable from crimes against the state.
— Kontra (@counternotions) December 11, 2015