NSA leaker’s girlfriend blogged about “feeling alone” when he left

I posted this elsewhere, but will post it here, too. I feel like I am just repeating myself, but also, I suppose saying it all in one place makes a lot of sense. I suppose one last attempt might be appreciated by someone. I've posted it in the other thread, too.

~~~

Context: Snowden is on the run/in hiding, and many people want to understand what would make someone do what he has done, given that there is an extreme personal cost and what some would also view as potentially illegal if not treasonous activity.

Story #1, the “girlfriend story.”

As I have repeatedly said, I wish that this story had been framed better. It went up under the supervision of a junior editor, which is a unavoidable fact given the staff size. That said, what the story was meant to do and what it actually did is not far apart. The story was meant to highlight some of the personal cost paid by Snowden, and apparently involuntarily paid for by personal relations.

Enter the person closest to him and his wife: Ms. Mills. The story relates how Mrs. Mills was left out of Snowden's decision, and found herself suddenly alone, uncertain of what was going on. We also learned that she was a supporter of Internet freedom, and at least from her perspective, the relationship was quite serious. Nevertheless, Snowden appears to have departed and undertaken his actions without involving Ms. Mills, or even being in contact with her apparently.

Yes, her last post on Instagram was her sitting in her underwear addressing the world regarding her loss. Yes, we did link to that picture. No, we never embedded that picture in the story. Yes, we indicated that there were many photographs of her in her underwear in her feed. As has been repeatedly explained, we did this in order to make it clear that we were not just trying to link up some random photo of a woman in her underwear.

Those who wish to view it as slut shaming, as Joe going for titillation, etc., all I can say is that you are wrong. I think Ars Technica has a history of supporting women’s issues, and I personally find it impossible to believe that anyone who has followed us for a long time truly believe that we were out to be sexually exploitative. And to those who say that we only covered it because the woman was attractive, you’re just wrong. There is no way to prove that you are wrong, just as there is no way to prove that you are right. But I'm not going to take ridiculous accusations seriously. There's not enough time in the day for me to do so.

In closing: we thought it was relevant, I continue to think it was relevant, I believe the story was not framed appropriately, and I think the language describing the imagery that was not safe for work was awkward and invited some people to think that we were linking it for less than savory reasons.


Story #2, Snowden was an Ars user

This one is pretty obvious from my point of view, as biography is a mainstay of journalism, and here we have primary source material for the construction of biography. It is routine for historians (my technical academic training) and journalists to use biography to paint a deeper picture of a person. What is and is not relevant for understanding a person is really in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be ludicrous for me to get into a debate with someone about whether or not details of Snowden as a gamer are relevant. I want a three-dimensional picture of the man, and that includes these details.

The question of whether or not the profile that emerged was good enough is a completely separate question from why we bothered to do it. It's either worth doing, or it is not. You can't very well argue that it's entirely irrelevant, but, we sure should have done a better job. That makes no sense.

As for the state in which it was published, there is no doubt that it was a shorter piece. It was not a feature report that someone had spent days on. Once we realized that several other publications were already publishing stories about his posts on Ars Technica, we felt as though we needed to acknowledge it and we had about 5 hours to do it thanks to some other commitments. We chose to do so by writing a quick report sampling some of his posts, and Joe attempted to pick a purposely broad collection of posts that he felt were representative.

I posted this elsewhere, but will post it here, too. I feel like I am just repeating myself, but also, I suppose saying it all in one place makes a lot of sense. I suppose one last attempt might be appreciated by someone. I've posted it in the other thread, too.

~~~

Context: Snowden is on the run/in hiding, and many people want to understand what would make someone do what he has done, given that there is an extreme personal cost and what some would also view as potentially illegal if not treasonous activity.

Story #1, the “girlfriend story.”

As I have repeatedly said, I wish that this story had been framed better. It went up under the supervision of a junior editor, which is a unavoidable fact given the staff size. That said, what the story was meant to do and what it actually did is not far apart. The story was meant to highlight some of the personal cost paid by Snowden, and apparently involuntarily paid for by personal relations.

Enter the person closest to him and his wife: Ms. Mills. The story relates how Mrs. Mills was left out of Snowden's decision, and found herself suddenly alone, uncertain of what was going on. We also learned that she was a supporter of Internet freedom, and at least from her perspective, the relationship was quite serious. Nevertheless, Snowden appears to have departed and undertaken his actions without involving Ms. Mills, or even being in contact with her apparently.

Yes, her last post on Instagram was her sitting in her underwear addressing the world regarding her loss. Yes, we did link to that picture. No, we never embedded that picture in the story. Yes, we indicated that there were many photographs of her in her underwear in her feed. As has been repeatedly explained, we did this in order to make it clear that we were not just trying to link up some random photo of a woman in her underwear.

Those who wish to view it as slut shaming, as Joe going for titillation, etc., all I can say is that you are wrong. I think Ars Technica has a history of supporting women’s issues, and I personally find it impossible to believe that anyone who has followed us for a long time truly believe that we were out to be sexually exploitative. And to those who say that we only covered it because the woman was attractive, you’re just wrong. There is no way to prove that you are wrong, just as there is no way to prove that you are right. But I'm not going to take ridiculous accusations seriously. There's not enough time in the day for me to do so.

In closing: we thought it was relevant, I continue to think it was relevant, I believe the story was not framed appropriately, and I think the language describing the imagery that was not safe for work was awkward and invited some people to think that we were linking it for less than savory reasons.


Story #2, Snowden was an Ars user

This one is pretty obvious from my point of view, as biography is a mainstay of journalism, and here we have primary source material for the construction of biography. It is routine for historians (my technical academic training) and journalists to use biography to paint a deeper picture of a person. What is and is not relevant for understanding a person is really in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be ludicrous for me to get into a debate with someone about whether or not details of Snowden as a gamer are relevant. I want a three-dimensional picture of the man, and that includes these details.

The question of whether or not the profile that emerged was good enough is a completely separate question from why we bothered to do it. It's either worth doing, or it is not. You can't very well argue that it's entirely irrelevant, but, we sure should have done a better job. That makes no sense.

As for the state in which it was published, there is no doubt that it was a shorter piece. It was not a feature report that someone had spent days on. Once we realized that several other publications were already publishing stories about his posts on Ars Technica, we felt as though we needed to acknowledge it and we had about 5 hours to do it thanks to some other commitments. We chose to do so by writing a quick report sampling some of his posts, and Joe attempted to pick a purposely broad collection of posts that he felt were representative.