The NSA's relationship with Reuters and AP
Posted by Jeremy Bigwood - February 6, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Sometimes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses produce unexpected results. Such is the case in a recent response from the secretive United States government’s National Security Agency (NSA) -- the agency that is now in the public limelight for listening to U.S. citizen’s telephone conversations without legal authorization or oversight. In a letter dated February 2, 2006 and signed by its Director of Policy, the NSA revealed that it has contracts with at least two of the major mainstream press wire services, Reuters and Associated Press (AP), and that the information that it had received from these wire services could not be released to the public. Here in part is what the letter said:
“Information provided to NSA by Reuters and AP is protected against disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4). The NSA contract with these companies precludes our release of this information. Violation of these contracts could prevent the government from obtaining similar information in the future.”The way the NSA response is written makes it seem like there is something major to hide, but this may not be the case. Reuters and many other “mainstream” press agencies have contracts with not only the NSA, but with other U.S. government entities as well -- to supply news to these agencies as if they were newspapers. This is “business as usual” and more than likely occurs with other governments too. But it is also true that in a technical sense, Reuters and AP journalists work for these U.S. government agencies, although the funds from that work only represent an infinitely miniscule part of their salaries.
And it is also a little strange that if Reuters and AP are only supplying the NSA with the same news that it is supplying the rest of us through our news media outlets – why can’t this information – apparently “old news” in this case – be released?
Since this happens all the time and does not represent a very large chunk of these journalists' income, it seems to be no big deal. But this response from the NSA is certainly intriguing.
Email this page
NSA contracts with AP, Reuters are a big deal
Submitted on February 6th, 2006 by Bill ConroyI can only assume that Bigwood, who is a respected and courageous authentic journalist, is proffering his “no big deal” comment with a sardonic tongue in cheek.
Given the recently revealed domestic spying program being carried out by NSA under the orders of the president, some serious questions arise with respect to Bigwood’s revelations. Because, in my opinion, it is a “big deal” if any mainstream news service has a “contract” relationship with any spy agency (either foreign or domestic), particularly when that relationship is hidden from public view -- even when invoking the Freedom of Information Act.
Let’s take a look at portions of AP’s editorial mission statement as a starting point.
Well, if Stone were alive today, I wonder what he would have to say about AP contracting with spook agencies like NSA?
Some serious questions bear asking on this front, and I would hope AP does take them seriously.
How can AP assure the public -- in light of the news service’s 1st Amendment responsibilities -- that the NSA and other government agencies with a clear bias toward spying on other nations don’t misappropriate the AP megaphone to spread disinformation? How can assurance be provided that NSA and other intelligence agencies don’t actually use AP journalists, knowingly or not, to undertake what amounts to spying missions in the name of journalism?
AP’s bold mission statement alone is not enough assurance, in my view, particularly in light of some of the apparent caveats to that mission in the name of bolstering the business side of AP.
More from the AP mission statement:
Might some of these other “outlets” include government agencies like the NSA? This does not seem like such an out-of-bounds question when we consider the types of tailored news services AP provides to its so-called clients.
Take for example AP Digital, and AP’s own description of that service:
Given the government’s response to Bigwood’s FOIA request, that “information provided to NSA by Reuters and AP is protected against disclosure” we have to wonder whether AP’s news delivery service might not, at times, creep over into a content-creation service for the NSA or other intelligence agencies.
What assurances do we have to the contrary, given that the public can’t even access contract details through FOIA?
This is a big deal.
The Queen’s Journalism
The inherent conflict between Reuters’ editorial mission statement and its business interests also raise some “big deal” questions with respect to the NSA contract revelation.
From Reuters mission statement:
Sounds noble. But then there’s the not-so-small matter of Reuters’ “Partner Benefits” package.
From Reuters’ Web site:
I wonder if NSA is a “Reuters Partner,” or could become one if it so desired? Would that then commit Reuters to supporting the “goals” of NSA? That seems like a big deal to me.
More about the “levels” of “partnership” in Reuters Partner Program:
Wow! Sounds like there’s a pretty gray line between Reuters’ news services and its desire to cultivate “mutually strong relationships” with its so-called “partners.”
Given that NSA sees fit to hide behind a FOIA exemption in choosing not to divulge the precise nature of its “contract” relationships with Reuters and AP, I think we can only conclude that such relationships are a “big deal” that require much closer investigation. And maybe that investigation even merits funding from an organization interested in shining a brighter light on the nature of the “gray” corporate matter that seems to be enveloping the 1st Amendment responsibilities of these mainstream news organizations.
After all, what possible objection could AP or Reuters have in helping to shine more light on these fundamental questions involving freedom of the press?
Like AP says in its mission statement:
“Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.”
NSA - Reuters/AP contracts deserve more research
Submitted on February 7th, 2006 by Jeremy BigwoodI have also heard from other journalists who feel that I have been unfair by not offering AP and Reuters the opportunity to explain the nature of their contracts with the NSA. Please stay tuned for these wire services responses and the results of other interviews on this subject.
The Bizarre Secrecy of 'Open-Source Intelligence'
Submitted on February 10th, 2006 by Stephen PeacockAnyhow, in the absence of a detailed NSA contract with AP or Reuter, out of curiosity I researched how and why federal entities in general buy news services and other "open source data services." This may -- or admittedly may not -- shed light on what even spy agencies are doing with this info.
According to one such contracting document, the U.S. Special Operations Command sought to hire a researcher to "consult on, and to create Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) products and services as required by {USSOC)." These "products and services" included what the agency called "Rapid-response deep Internet and commercial (fee for service) research"; "Acquisition of specified overtly available information products and data services"; surveys of "foreign terrorist, guerilla and insurgent groups on the Internet and newsgroups within the indexed and un-indexed World Wide Web (WWW)"; and even "Procurement of Russian military maps and other forms of geospatial information ."
More specific to AP and Reuters (with emphasis on Reuters contracts/solicitations only to lessen the size of this post, a March 2, 2005 document (further amended with a contractor Q&A) that I found via the FedBizOpps database, shows how several in-house entities/services of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) distribute custom-tailored lists of daily news stories that are not exclusively made for EOP, but are otherwise publicly available.
These entities include the White House News Service, the Office of National Drug Control Policy News Briefing, and the Office of the Vice President News Clips. They buy, and then distribute, summaries/briefings from various news sources specified under the contract.
The VP service, for instance, seeks to:
Numerous other federal agencies and departments solicit wire-service news summary/briefings that are "applicable to their respective missions," as some have more or less stated. These would include the U.S. Navy, which last month sought to buy a one-year subscription to Reuters World Service (a subscription for which last year it paid $59,920); the Secret Service; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; the Office of Naval Intelligence; the Broadcasting Board of Governors; the Department of Energy; and the Treasury Dept..
I know this doesn't solve the problem of an uncooperative and secretive NSA contract, but perhaps it might spark some additional ideas or avenues of inquiry.
Follow-up on the wire services
Submitted on February 10th, 2006 by Jeremy BigwoodSince my last post (above) I have contacted the spokespeople for Reuters and AP and sent them the following questions relating to their respective contracts with the NSA:
- How large is your contract with NSA?
- How big is the NSA contract in comparison with your U.S. newspaper and media contracts?”
- Do you have similar contracts with other U.S. government agencies?
- Do you have contracts with other governments?
- When did this contract start?
- What does this contract supply?
- Does the NSA ever ask your company to do “special stories” of work on any subjects?
- Does the NSA ever recommend that certain people get hired or promoted?
And to Reuters, based on Bill Conroy's commentary (above), I added:9. Is NSA a “Reuters partner”?
The response to these detailed questions was curt. "We don't talk about contracts," said Jack Stokes, the spokesperson for AP Corporate Communications. Samantha Topping, Reuter's Director of Media Relations was no more forthcoming, stating: "I can't offer any information about our clients. We don't talk about our clients." When I tried to obtain more information, she responded "No comment".
A follow-up e-mail from AP arrived later: “AP Digital sells a variety of news packages to corporate and government intranet clients in the United States for internal informational use only. Such clients are prohibited from redistributing AP news stories externally. See details on the front page of our corporate Internet site under "Buy AP News" or go directly to http://www.apdigitalnews.com/about.html.”
Of the eight questions above, only the question regarding similar contracts with other government agencies was answered, and then only by AP. We can take this answer as a confirmation that the AP has contracts with other government agencies besides the NSA.
The lack of transparency in these responses is stunning. If we were to reverse the roles and instead it was wire service journalists who were on the receiving end of such short and opaque responses, these would be undoubtedly viewed with great suspicion. Clearly, Reuters and AP should have come clean and answered at least some of the questions, especially with regard to any influence these contracts may have had on the behavior of their wire services. To have done otherwise only keeps us all wondering exactly what is the relationship between NSA and these wire services.
Standing guard on the thin ink line
Submitted on February 12th, 2006 by Bill ConroyIt seems to me that with the advent of satellite technology, the Internet and the broadband “global village,” the line between journalism and intelligence gathering has become increasingly obscured. In fact, it appears that thin ink line has already been breached in some sectors of the media.
The following report from the Christian Science Monitor sheds a bit of light on the clear and present danger of the emerging Tower of Media Babble:
As long as technology continues to advance, we may not be able to prevent governments from using the Internet and the media to feed their spook software programs. Maybe, in some folks’ minds, such data-mining efforts are justified in cases where they help to identify criminal or terrorist activity aimed against innocent people. But it is equally true that data mining can be used as a tool to control the population and for targeting and retaliating against legitimate political dissent.
And as with any data-based program, if you put garbage in, you get garbage back. If you frontload such data-mining technology with false information designed to identify political targets, you can create the “probable cause” to take action against those “political enemies,” even absent court-sanctioned warrants.
How we deal with this “Brave New World” is a storyline that is yet to unfold. But one thing seems clear to me in terms of where journalists must line up on the battlefront. We should not be actively participating in building Big Brother’s Tower of Media Babble. If integrity means anything in journalism, then we must remain government watchdogs, not lapdogs.
If we fail to maintain that line of independence, that authenticity (even in the face of pressure to act to the contrary out of some misguided sense of patriotic duty) we become little more than extensions of national intelligence-gathering apparatus, and all journalists spies in the field. That will be the end of the free press, and the beginning of a free-press pretense. Some might argue we have already lost the battle on many fronts of that struggle – which, by extension, puts the lives of many honest journalists in danger around the world.
That is all the more reason, with respect to AP and Reuters, to insist on transparency. We must know more about the contract relationships they have with the NSA and other intelligence-gathering agencies (foreign or domestic). Are these contracts helping to buff up Big Brother? Have these wire-service corporations, through these contracts, compromised our constitutionally protected Fourth Estate and its role in helping to keep an eye on Big Brother and the spy-making machinery — for the benefit of the democracy?
Some will argue that I’m jumping to conclusions, that there is a lot more grey shade along the thin ink line than my press-freedom absolutism can account for in the real world. What about the Danish cartoons that are spurring such a violent reaction in the Muslim world? Is that not evidence that there are limits to a free press; that it must at times be compromised in order to protect democracy?
All I can say to that bit of misdirection is that cartoons don’t kill people. Maybe it’s time we look to the source of the fire and rage in our world, instead of blaming a cartoonist for throwing a newspaper into the blaze. Nobody in the Tower of Media Babble has seriously suggested banning religion (whether it be Christianity, Islam or Judaism), yet many have been very quick to use the media, the “free press,” to further fan the flames of religious zealotry across the globe.
We must not be confused by those who seek to take away our freedoms in the name of preserving them. Likewise, journalists must not be tricked into believing integrity can be compromised in the name of patriotism or monetary gain. Absent a credible, authentic press, society itself becomes muzzled and incapable of making informed decisions that can help solve the world’s problems and empower democracy.
The line on this issue is clearly marked, in my view. The relationship between journalism and spying, ultimately, must be like the binary code used to build these vast data-mining software spook machines: It is either on or off; in this case, we must be sure the code reads “off.”
The Media's Watchdog Role
Submitted on February 14th, 2006 by Benjamin MelançonNational Security Agency responds to Narcosphere
Submitted on April 18th, 2006 by Jeremy Bigwood“Seven other documents (11 pages) have been reviewed by this Agency as required by FOIA, and although unclassified, the information responsive to your request is based upon Reuters News Service, Associated Press (AP) reports, and Dow Jones reports. As do many government agencies and private industries, NSA subscribes to Reuters, AP, and Dow Jones news services and is prohibited by contract from further public dissemination as NSA is not the owner or the originator of the information. Provision of this information would be in direct violation of our subscription contract and could result in NSA losing these news services; therefore, the information provided to NSA by Reuters, AP, and Dow Jones is protected against disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4) and is exempt from release pursuant to the fourth exemption of the FOIA.”
So, according to NSA, it buys “open source’ press material from at the very least Reuters, AP, and Dow Jones -- as do many other government agencies and private industries. If the NSA didn’t buy these news services, we would probably malign it for not “keeping up” with the news. So until and unless there is other evidence to consider, we should probably accept this NSA explanation as the last word.