Its a telekennettic cafe. Two of britains best known newspapers have gone to war and are dragging more papers around the world into the fray. the Daily Telegraph on the right versus the the guardian on the left. The issue is National Security what should be reported, what secrets should be kept. The the guardian is responsible for leaking the Edward Snowden story and the nsa leaks in the u. S. , and gcaq in the u. K. The guardian and daily mail never liked each other. They have never gone at it this way before. The guardian tried to isolate the mail by having 33 editors from 15 countries writing oped pieces backing mail. The domestic feud comes at a critical time in the ongoing debate about the future of revelation sparked by Rupert Murdochs phonehacking obligation. They are at each others threats. Anybody who knows anything about the british media knows incredibly polar iffed, its political and always has been. There was definitely a split between the mail and the guardian. Its been hammer and tongs for the last fortnight. Some people think the the guardian may have miscalculated. Maybe that they should be held to account. It is unfortunate, because its got away from the actual issue. Whether that was right or wrong in the democracy. That issue is government civil arranges the nsa in america, gchq in britain and the the guardian was the first to get the Edward Snowden files on that. That is not where the story started. It begone when the right wing daily mail went after ed miliband after quoting from diaries that hays father wrote and concluded that milliband senior hated britain. Much opprobrium ensued. The guardian took issue with mails media. When daily mail paul baker failed to show up for an interview sending his deputy it was roasted by alistair campbell. Paul baker does not have the guts to come on the program. Aalst stair was not in the studio. John had to carry the can for the mail and did an okay job. I dont resile from the headlines. It was tough or him. Alistair campbell went for him in total vitriolic terms. I thought this was going to be a debate, not a ramble reading outlines written by paul baker. The moment i enjoyed was when the presenter of news night reminded audiences that the Daily Telegraph had a secret in the cupboard, the only newspaper to back the nazis before the world war ii. I thought that was a lovely moment, because it brings a lit the press history into the present. I dont think anything enormous changed, but a lot of daily mail readers nor more about the daily mail than they did before. Not one to sit back and lick his moves, daily mails baker tried to bloody the the guardian over its coverage over the Edward Snowden story, through an editorial linking the guardian with the enemies of britain. Baker and his paper wrapped themselves in the flag. As soon as they published some of what Edward Snowden revealed there was a split in the media as to whether that was a right thing to do. Part was based on genuine safety as to the damage done to National Security. Part of it was the normal leftright liberal conservative split in the british media. Over the last few years there has been a disagreement between brode sheet newspapers and tab lloyd newspapers, of which the Daily Telegraph which the mail is part of. The complete irony of it is that the times, the telling , mail and the son, that part of the media that supported conservatism are the newspapers that are mill tant in defending press freedom. In this case what they are doing is attacking the guardian for using its freedom to try and hold the government to account, and that, to me is the irony of what is happening. Then the guardian called in backup, sending the daily mail to allies, had them weigh in. The Paper Stacked the field. The guardian managed to make a point. Towards people like David Cameron and politicians that said that was dangerous behaviour. They were fighting back. They filled four pages. We got the message. It seemed to go on forever. It comes as no great surprise that newspapers from New York Times et cetera would come out in favour of what the guardian had done. They would probably have done the same, had the material been available to them. I think they might at that point have started to feel lonely in the field with more newspapers in the u. K. Attacking them for what they had done. Listening post asked the guardian and mail for introduce. Both declined. The guardian sent a written reply conversation the differing approaches comes as regulation comes to a head. The guardians reporting broke open the phonehacking scandal of Rupert Murdochs tabloids and triggered the review leading to recommendations for new regulations backed up by the law. Most papers opposed the governments revelations. Since the guardians reporting started the ball rolling, the paper finds itself at the center of a storm of its own accidental making. Newspapers should put aside their bickering and sort out the issue of regulation. They have not done that in the preceding 300 years. Its difficult for them to do it thou. Theres an imet us for them to sort something out. Theres an imperative to create Something Better than has gone before, that offers redress and hope to people in dispute with newspapers. Public esteem for journalists is low. None of this helps. If we cant come up with a system to regulate ourselves in the 21st century. Something is desperately wrong. Our Global Village voices on the question of government secrecy and journalism in britain. We have to remember that one of the fundamental roles of journalism is to hold power to account. When we have a National Security system that is so secretive, that becomes difficult. The guardian did a good job in publishing the Edward Snowden leaked information. What it did do was put crucial information into the public domain. That allowed us to have informed debates. Therell always be a line crossed between journalism and National Security. We have to find the balance. As for Edward Snowden and the guardian however legitimate the intention, they seem to have become lost. One might argue in fact their behaviour was counterproductive as disclosure of Sensitive Information through the media is unlookly to foster changes in intelligence practices. Time for listening post newsbytes. Glenn greenwald, the american journalist who broke the Edward Snowdennsa is leaving the guardian to start in a startup. His new outlet would provide the same type of journalism making him one of the best journalists. Its reportedly funded by Pierre Omidyar. If confirmed, the fora by Pierre Omidyar is the second time in a few months that an online entrepreneur staked a claim in the media industry. In august amazon boss jeff bezos bought the the Washington Post for 250 million. Glenn greenwald joined the guardian. The string of stories published on nsa and global surveillance made headlines and Glenn Greenwald faced a backlash from many in the industry. Why should you Glenn Greenwald not be charged with a crime . He leaves the guardian on good terms. A spokesperson saying in morocco authorities are urged to release a journalist in prison for advocating terrorism, a charge intended to silence a government critic. On october 10th more than 60 human rights organizations issued a joint statement condemning the gaol of anewsler after posting a link to a video from al qaedas north african wing on his website. That included a threat against morocco and criticised the monarch was on the website of a spanish newspaper. He was charged with knowingly providing material assistance to terrorism acts. He faces 20 years in gaol. His backers argue that he is being targeted because of the issue taken on moroccan kink mohammed v 4 and he uses the site to raise issues of corruption and power. Its been condemned by press freedom and human Rights Groups and it is argued. It is argued. Last month the u. S. Government debated military intervention in syria. American media experts hosted a number of analysts backing the idea of going to war. A new report showed that those commentators had a vested interest in the issue. A study by the Public Accountability Initiative based in buffalo new york revealed 20 commentators that made a total of 111 media appearance, all with ties to defense or military likely to benefit from an attack in syria. A fact disclosed 13 times to readers and fuse. Steven hadlee is a former National Security advisor to george w. Bush and appeared on various networks. He is in favour of intervention in syria. Not once was the viewer told that he serves an a director at an organization that makes cruise missiles. Jack keen and general anthony are directors at General Dynamics and eae systems. The reports author said this is not the first time the u. S. Networks have been called out for this kind of thing. In 2008 New York Times journalist David Barstow won the pulitzer prize. He revealed the department of defense employed a network of military officers with ties to defense companies, sent on television armed with pentagon talking points, calling for the invasion to go ahead. News junkies will be familiar with the media pundit who seems to be everywhere, on every story. You know the types. The ones that flit from one news studio to the next lending expertise, which is often their opinion on whatever story is making news that day. Producers love them. Regardless of whether they are qualified to discuss the issue, they spit out sound bites quickly and often. Some punned its or hire advertise themselves. The serious side of this story has to do with the demands of 24 hour news channel, pressure created by deadlines and a lack of diversity into the voices making it on air. They are called renta mouth in the u. K. In north america the usual suspects. Nic muirhead now on professional media punned its and what they del us about the nature of the news business. Hes spoken on the mumbai terrorist attacks. You cant have a situation where 20 people hold a nation of 1. 1 billion people to ransom. Corruption in indian politics. Corruption in indian critic. It was uncompassionate to suspend the guy by sending an sms or a conspiracy that a tack was political. While he can comment on any subject, you may ask why a Brand Management consultant is doing all the talking. Im not the only motor mouth or talking head in india. If im being called, theres a reason for me being called. If you have anything to blame, ask the guys that call me. I am not forcing my way every day as an intruder, grabbing the microphone and saying, guy, listen. Here is someone that does. Meet greg packer from hunting tonne new york. He has made it his mission to get into the media as many times as possible. For the last 18 years he excelled at it, talking and making up thousands of experiences. I like to be in the media. Its a way to show what im doing. He could have done that on facebook, it meant news consumers would have missed out on his 0. 02 on the iphone. Beautiful. Or Pope John Paul iis death. He knows god is calling him or the brooklyn bridges 125th anniversary. Or events travelled to to get his name in the papers or mug on tv. He wasnt going to let anyone stand in his way. Nobody is going to stop me, not even osama bin laden. That phenomenon is an example of laziness across the world, even in the best organizations, in which they need to find a voice off the street to Say Something completely obvious. If you stand in line to buy an iphone for 24 hours, it is obvious that you are a fan of the iphone. Why do you need to then interview one person off that line to say. Yes, i love the iphone 5. That you like the iphone. Packer managed to be the guy. The one guy is not important. Hes saying something obvious. It doesnt matter who is saying it. Greg packer is not the issue, the issue is the journalist calling the same places. After im on this segment someone will call me for being around. That happens. What we need is deeper reporting. What we need more than that is diversity of voices. Weve been through the Associated Press newsagency came to the conclusion. Its memo in 2003 told staff not to interview packer any more saying a search to his name to more than 100 mentions, and that was a handful of the stories. It could have been seen as a speed bump in packers career. He sees it as a milestone. Some milestones is when the ap banned me for quoting me too many times. The world is full of all kinds of interesting people. I was one of them. I was eager to be quoted and ap said lets be eager to quote other people. We, too, were eager to quote someone else. Barry sabitow is a political analyst said to be the most quoted professor in theland. Listening post contacted him. A subject that he would not lend his expertise to is the proponent of overused media proponents. Hes appeared in the media appearing in 46 out of our 50 states turned us down for an interview its what you might call an exclusive. In a past pitched era of 24 hour news, what makes them so appealing, air worthy is their availability. Too often in news rooms journalists who look for Diverse Voices end up, because of their deadline with the same old voices. When you think about it, going on television have you to know about the studio. When you find people willing to do that, they are golden. The bookers job is to get someone now, someone talking about oil, crime get them in here. Thats why we have a level of repetition. The indian media is short on voices and long on time. You have 24 hours to fill. There are dozens of 24hour news channels all talking about the same thing at the same time. You have to fill the air time. People have to be able to talk about anything. Theyll get one of the people who have a certain phrase or knowledge of things and put them on Television Night after night the u. S. Has four 24 hour news channels. India 63. Thats more than 1,000 dollars of airtime every day. It keeps everyone busy. Like any celebrity will tell you living a life in a media spotlight has consequences. Public demand doesnt end when the cameras stop rolling. Someone comes and says, i saw you on the television program. What you said about obama i would get involved. Until one of indias anchors taught me the best trig of my life saying, next time someone says i saw your opinion, hes not interested in your opinion. He saw it on television. Its his opportunity to articulate his opinion to you. All you have to say is, yes, i did say that. Forget me, what do you think . Perhaps theres a media pundit in all of us waiting to be heard and scene. Given the right platform just about any story will do. More Global Village voices now on the usual suspects popping up on your screens. This phenomenon is frequent in italy. We have a guy who appears on all sorts of tv shows talking about politics, art, gossip. Then when somebody disagrees with his opinions he goes for the jugular and screams and insults people. Its the easiest ways for journalists and producers to get opinions and keep ratings high. There was a name that was everywhere in the international media. He is a spokesperson on the Muslim Brotherhood and was quoted in the two weeks not less than two or three times daily in newspapers. The other thing is that the family are spokes persons. The family is quoted everywhere in the media, commenting on everything to do with egyptian politics and the Muslim Brotherhood. Finally, you have seen the hidden camera shows. An American Program called candid camera was the forerunner. Unsuspect people are duped. Theyve gone corporate. Ad agencies figured out punking people and throwing it online is a good advertisement for your product. This weeks is telekinetic taking place in a cafe. The scary woman is to create a remake of karrie. She certainly spooks the customers. See you next time at listening post. Scraem scraem. [ screams ] clear next time on america tonight, the fracking boom. The nations natural gas and the prices community are paying for it. This is al jazeera america, live from new york city. I am Jonathan Betz with a look at todays top stories. 11 hostages are freed in a complicated swap as more violence rocks syria. J. P. Morgan chase reportedly reaches a tentative 13 billion settlement with the justice