Obama, NSA and Edward Snowden: The PR Behind Heroes and Villains

So if you haven't heard, the NSA (National Security Agency) recently got caught tapping all telephone, email and internet communications that transpire in the US. The revelations came as a result of a whistleblower, Edward Snowden, who provided The Guardian with proof that the US government was spying on its own population.

Snowden has since fled the US to Honk Kong and currently his whereabouts are unknown (with rumors that Russia is open to offering him diplomatic immunity).

State side the media is having a field day with this story. The public's view towards the government surveillance activities seems to be split - with half the population saying if it keeps them safe from terrorists they are ok with it and the other half saying the government is out of control. Similarly, senators and congressmen are split on their views as well - with a handful of them calling Snowden a hero and the rest calling him a traitor.

What is playing out at this point is the PR behind heroes and villains. The narrative of this story is anything but simple and because it is shrouded in the 'secretive' world of 'national intelligence' getting any real (objective) facts is almost impossible. As such, both sides are able to try and position themselves as heroes and portray the other side as villains.

Let's take a look at the bare-bones PR elements shaping each side of this story:

Edward Snowden














The Hero?

• He did reveal government activity which the government had denied it engaged in (in essence revealing that the government has been lying to the American people).
   
• He risks life (or at least years) in jail for having done this
  
• He had to leave his life behind to do this, losing access to family and friends
  
• He (obviously) no longer has a job as a result of doing this

Conclusion: Ya, it's hard not to call this guy a hero. I mean, he revealed the truth and paid (and will pay) a monstrous price for doing so. 

The Villian?

• On the other hand, if you have such an issue with spying on the American people why did you join the NSA to start with? Was he truly so naive as to think that the NSA doesn't do whatever the heck it wants?  I mean, he came from the CIA, so it's not like he was fresh out of University with no clue what he was getting in to.
  
  Even to the extent that he was unaware, he would have been aware that taking the job meant he could not reveal anything to outside sources. So once again, he would have had to be incredibly naive not to consider the possibility that he might see things that he didn't like and that he would not be able to tell anyone because of the confidentiality clauses in his contract.
  
  The logical thing to do for someone that feels they would not be able to uphold their confidentiality requirements would be to simply not take the job in the first place. It would be quite different if he was 50 years old though and had been at the NSA for 25 years...in that situation one can envision getting stuck between a rock and a hard place through no fault of one's own.
  
• While he lost a lot, he's also become world (in)famous. He's gone from some paper-pusher behind a desk, a face in the crowd if you will, to the entire world knowing who he is (and with many hailing him a hero).
  
• We don't know why he did this for sure. For all we know he sucked at his job, was about to get canned and figured "You want to can me? Alright, I'm going to hurt you beyond your wildest imaginations." Not saying this is the case, but who knows what really motivated his actions.
  
• If he manages not to go to jail, he could easily find himself with a million-dollar book deal and rubbing elbows with Hollywood movie stars when this is turned into a movie.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible that while his actions were heroic, that Snowden himself is not a hero. He may just be a young guy out for glory and fame and saw this as his opportunity to get that. I mean, his name will now be in the history books, so in that respect he succeeded. 

Obama

The Hero?

• Obama's pitch is that his job is to keep the American people safe and to that end certain privacy rights, at certain times, will be impinged on.
  
• As for not letting Americans know that the NSA was doing this, Obama puts forth the argument that certain things must remain secret or their effectiveness is degraded. If the 'terrorists' know that all communications are being monitored, then they will work out ways to avoid that monitoring.
  
• In essence, if you want to be safe then you have to let him do what needs to be done to make that happen.

Conclusion: While I don't buy any of this, a LOT of Americans do. In a recent poll, 56 per cent of American support the NSA monitoring all communications (only 41 per cent say it's unacceptable).  So as long as Obama keeps playing the 'trust me to keep you safe' card, it looks like most Americans are happy to give up their constitutional rights. I don't see Obama as a hero, but many Americans do. 

The Villain?

• The most glaring issue for Obama is that he was adamant in 2008 that when elected to office he would undo the Bush policies that infringed on civil rights and liberties. He not only failed to do that he actually implemented an even more authoritarian policies than Bush had. The hypocrisy is quiet stunning (video provided below)
  
• Obama has been tougher on whistleblowers than any other President in US history. Which puts him in a tough spot of punishing those who tell the truth (ie. leak secrets).
  
• Information is the most powerful weapon you can have.
  
  We tend to think of guns and tanks and bombs as the most powerful weapons, but to use them you have to do so in the open where people can see you using them.
  
  Even money (which can be used to buy influence) has to exist somewhere. Because it leaves a trail it too can be revealed.
  
  But information can be used without anyone knowing. By spying on ALL communications, the government has at its fingertips just about ALL the information you could ever want. Would they ever use that info for nefarious reasons? Would they ever blackmail political opponents or CEOs of companies or enrich themselves with insider information?

Conclusion: It's hard not to see Obama as the villain. Let's call this what it is, Obama was the man at the helm when we officially ushered in the era of Big Brother, where people with no criminal record or suspicion of criminal activity are monitored with the same scrutiny as those with criminal records or suspicion of criminal activity.  We've officially entered the era where everyone is treated as a potential criminal. 

The fact that people are prepared to be treated like criminals so they can be 'safe' is kind of sad. 

To quote Ben Franklin: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

I think the YoungTurks (a democratic / progressive media outlet) had the best commentary on this:

The PR Behind Heroes and Villians

So the whole Obama/NSA versus Snowden narrative playing out right now in the media is really an age old PR battle of defining who the heroes and villains really are.

Can Obama frame the narrative such that Americans view his actions as heroic? Can he push a narrative that he is a 'protector' and that someone like Snowden is trying to undermine that protection? If he can, then it becomes much easier to frame Snowden's actions of villainous. 

And one has to ask, does the American population at this point suffer from Stockholme syndrome to such a degree that they view the government as their protector even if that same government is abusing their rights?  Do they view their (false) choice as: Either I let Obama spy on me or some terrorist is going to blow me up. 

My two cents is that in the long-run Obama's messaging strategy is not going to work for a very simple reason... there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Snowden's out there. 

The more the administration tries to push 'We are only doing this to protect you from terrorists', the more people who actually know what is going on will feel the need to leak information and reveal the true motivations. 

Bradley Manning is still in jail for leaks he made to Wikileaks in 2010. The treatment of Manning sent a clear message from Obama, if you 'leak' information you will have hell to pay. And yet, despite that message, Snowden leaked information and you can bet that he won't be the last to do so. 

The more secretive the government tries to be, the more those within feel the need to leak information, which is why ultimately Obama's narrative of 'we are only doing this to stop terrorists' will fail, because it's almost guaranteed that they are doing far more than simply monitoring communications to address terrorist threats.

In my view, the real purpose behind Prism, is less about monitoring communications and more about archiving communications. This way, when you arrest someone for something you can then pull up every phone call, email or Web site they've ever made or visited and essentially get an instant view of their communications  history. You can also find out everyone they've ever talked to and then find out everyone those people have ever talked to and quickly build out a network of associations. 

I mean, I'm against Prism, but why would you not use it for other things? Would it not make it much easier to say bring down the mob or root out drug dealers or catch people falsely reporting their taxes? Why would you say Oh, we'll turn a blind eye to all crime we stumble upon unless it relates to terrorism? You wouldn't, which is how you know that the Prism program is about far far more than merely terrorism. 

We've definitely entered the era of Big Brother, the only question now is whether the government will be able to control the narrative such that the people accept it without much of a fight.  Every time a Snowden leaks info it will get harder and harder to control that narrative. 

Should be interesting to watch unfold.