d a little synergy about it now, find out more about our lead stories on the website. they can get issues. and opinion pieces. aljazeera.com - where you can keep up to date. [ ♪ music ♪ ] hello, i'm richard gizbert, and you are at "the listening post". here are the media stories we are attract. it's complicated, but the post mortem on the edward snowden side is complete. it's worth examining, as is the coverage. 5 years after argentina tried to

reshape the media landscape what is different and the same. >> in mexico an audience of 15,000 listeners is not enough to keep this journalist in her job. never mind the frolics, it's the interpreter. stealing the show it's close to two years since edward snowden blew the lid of surveillance not just at the security agency in u.s. but britain's g.c.h.q. it has taken that long for the i.s. c to tig figure out what to make of it so an informed debate can take place on balancing the individual's right to privacy. a couple of reports - i.s. c reporters are appointed by the government. no one gets on the committee without the prime minister's approval. committee members were to know what the spies were up to. it took edward snowden to tell them that.

the i.s.c.'s make up and track record are part of the context of the stories, and the conclusions that the g.c.h.q. did not break the law, but the law is not fit for purpose, that the collection of data is not a form of mass data. they did not go down well with people close to the story, including edward snowden, who having provided the british jury with the evidence watched as the jury came in. campaigning for collection and advocateing is a win for the terrorists. some of the media-minded outlets seemed to agree. if the politicians and bureaucrats dealt in the t-shirts instead of sound bytes they'd probably say keep calm and don't worry about mass collection. the starting point this week is london.

[ ♪♪ ] what we found is that the way in which the agencies used the capabilities that they had is lawful, necessary and proportionate. >> authorised although the committee overseeing intelligence in the u.k. admits it did not know about it. lawful - although the committee says the law is out of date and need replacing. necessary and proportionate. any evidence of that in the committee's report was redacted. in terms of the terminology, according to the committee, mass surveillance is out. collection is in. >> they tried to erelent a distinction -- erelent a distinction between the two. it's a false distinction that they are trying to make because what they are doing is detecting literally billions in excess of 50 billion, 600 million telephone calls. >> there's a difference between mass and bulk. it's everyone versus some

numbers slightly less than everyone. the difference between the two terms is mostly - it means that supposedly not everything is scanned. we have no realisation of what bulk means. >> what the government is doing is mass intersection of every communication in this country. now, that interception is affected by a computer, yes. it doesn't make it less invasive or terrifying. the computer can do what a human can't do. it can draw assumptions about you, analyse movements, relationships, political preferences. that is what the technology is doing, it's a detailed attempt to normalize mass surveillance. that's the real question that is being answered. >> g.c.h.q. tried to get out front of the story. the day before the committee's report came out, the publicity shy organization acted out of

character, putting out a handy guide on thou catch a terrorist with the help of technology the times owned by rupert murd act published it. the liberal guardian wrote of a committee in a democratic country telling citizens that it lived in a surveillance sit, the times zeroed in on civil liberty's groups accused of dealing privacy over security. when glenn greenwald appears on b.b.c.'s news night things are testy. >> you say when eight politicians who are part of the british government they are members of parliament get together and say something, that it's improper or makes you strange or conspiratorial. >> media coverage of snowden has been dire. the guard yap, of course led on

the story to start with stuck with it. bbc came into it late. a couple of newspapers stuck to the line that edward snowden is a traitor. now it's taking a lot of trust. i think what edward snowden showed is that we can't entirely trust them. we need oversight and transparency. >> it's disheartening to see the u.k. media take the side on that debate. when oversight has been weak there are so few means for to us hold the government to account. we rely heavily media to provide an element of accountability. this is an opportunity to do that. they failed in that seriously. >> when glen greenwald was contacted by edward snowden, the journalist considered the credibility of the source. media consumers would be wise to do the same.

a committee which admitted it was out of the loop on surveillance, and which in its report professes surprise at something that most understood for a while now. that a meta data trail is as revealing. we approached the ifc for comment. >> it doesn't feel like it's been written by people engaged in the issues or know a great dal about what is at stake. that is worrying. they'll fill in the gaps and knowledge by talking to the defense sources, meaning they'll hear what those want them to hear. >> they are certainly lacking insight, and to understand what is really going on. >> i don't know that this has been that credible. they have been supportive. people are looking for them to

take the lead on these issues and this debate. they are looking in the wrong place. a credibility challenged oversight committee failing to oversee what its spies were doing until edward snowden told them where to look produces a report that exposes little apart from the committee's limitations. the value of mass surveillance and under three examples that the security services gave. for how they use the information. it's all blanked out. security services keep the data for, and we are told not to worry because g.c.h.q. is acting in the best interests of the business. trust us we are doing what is good for you. >> britain's waited 18 months.

phillip hammond said it was time to move on from the debate before it was issued. the former head of g.c.h.q. said the same thing. we should have a list of supporters. they've been running a guerilla campaign against british intelligence. harming their own security. it's about time they stopped that. perhaps they don't watch the bbc in moscow. two days later, there he was, skyping into the future fest conference. no matter what they tell them how the media reports the story, it's time to call a spade a spade. we can't let the governments redefine and weasel out of it by saying this is bulk collection. all of my communications are secretly intercepted.

they are being sold but we have to say it's happening. we can't wish it away or say it's something that it's not. on the download our viewers on the coverage of the surveillance story in great britain. >> a majority of people have concerns about the over reach of surveillance accountability. and the issue. the ifc report does nothing to allay people's fears. that they have carte blanche, and that they are weak and ineffective. people are aware that the phone is subject to scrutiny and reasons are eroded in the name of safety and security. it's not up to the job. they don't have the knowledge and unders of others in order to provide oversight that is critically important. there was a surprise that

g.c.h.q. used metadata. surprised why. we have been telling them. they need reform and replacement for what they are doing. intel geps and knowledge. >> tonight. >> you're taking "if" i have kids and you're changing it to "when" i have kids. >> a life-changing choice. >> it is wonderful to have children, but i think you can have a happy life without children. >> follow a very personal journey. >> after the age of 45 to get pregnant... is one percent. >> i'm a bit nervous. >> from the best filmmakers of our time. >> it's not traditionally what broadcast journalism does. >> the new home for original documentaries. al jazeera america presents "motherhood on ice". tonight, 10:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america

al jazeera america gives you the

total news experience anytime, anywhere. more on every screen. digital, mobile, social. visit aljazeera.com. follow @ajam on twitter. and like aljazeera america on facebook for more stories, more access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the news, go deeper and get more perspectives on every issue. al jazeera america. >> the new al jazeera america primetime. get the real news you've been looking for. at 7:00, a thorough wrapup of the day's events. then at 8:00, john seigenthaler digs deeper into the stories of the day. and at 9:00, get a global perspective on the news. weeknights, on al jazeera america .

other media stories that are on the radar this week. the fighting in syria is into its fifth year and the casualty toll makes for disturbing reading. according to the new york based committee to protect journalists, 81 reporters lost their lives. it makes syria the second deadliest conflict. the organization tallied such figures in 1992. there are names well-known to audiences, they are the exceptions. 85% of journalists killed in syria are syrian. three names you haven't heard - three working for an opposition channel. they were killed as 2014 drew to a close as their car was hit by a missile. the channel reported the miss ill was fired.

the research shows that government forces have targeted journalists in an attempt to sensor the reporting. she's one of mexico's journalists. she has ratings to kill for. now she's out of a job. and the question is why. carmen was fired this past week for her news and talk show on nbs radio. the reason given that she wanted two colleagues rehired after they were asked for breaking the rules and using the radio logo in connection with mexico leaks, a website collecting tips and leaks. the back story is interesting. she was fired briefly in 2011 after accusing the former president calderon of having a drinking problem. nbs admitted this was pressured over the story with calderon's

star. and she recently was investigating a story with the current president and his wife. 2,000 staged a protest outside the radio. and she has been quoted saying "let no one doubt this is a battle for freedom" speaking of an authoritarian wind blowing through the country. the ombudsman described the firing as a sad night. >> protesters in ossetia and the democratic government - 30 people including an american diplomat and six journalists were arrested at a pro-democracy meeting. they were accused of plotting. four foreign reporters working for a.f.p. and b.b.c. and two congolese journalists have been released. 40 were killed in anti-government demonstrations and there were plans to postpone elections keeping joseph kabila

in power here at "the listening post" we have been chronicling the media storey coming out of argentina. the center is a media law passed by the government of cristina fernandez de kirchner. it was sold as correcting a media concentration problem, allowing new voices to compete for attention. an aspect is that it ruled the market should be divided into three parts, a third for privately owned media, a third for that owned by the state and remaining third for non-profits. some accused cristina fernandez de kirchner of bringing down enemies. it is the biggest media company in the country and it's not close. those in favour say it's bigger than that. it's about democratisation, and changing rules that go back to argentina's days. it's been more than five years

since the law was passed and the group was as big as ever. "the listening post" on a media law that is more than a battle between the government and big business. >> it was never going to be easy to implement, but argentina's media reform law is easy to understand. a director of the media regulate junior -- regulator in charge of putting the law in faith, saying splitting into three parts will pave the way for freedom of press. another will say it's an attack on the company he works for. >> translation: it's one of the

most debated and controversial lawyers, aiming to demum rattize speech so everyone can be heard, to represent the diverse country that argentina is. >> translation: i think it's a genuinely rich topic that hadn't been addressed in argentina. in recent years, there hasn't been a place for genuine discussion. the government settled, for denouncing fallacies and encouraging antidemocratic behaviour: >> chlorine is the biggest conglomerate. dominating the cable tv market and opened the satisfaction and controlled the paper. that makes it the most influential media group by far.

she was once a government ally. the relationship turned sour. in swathe when the government raised taxes on landowners. she turned. aligning itself with business as protests swept through the country. a year later the law was passed on air, in print and in the courts. where they challengele constitutionally of the war. they have given preferential treatment. to the conglomerates which owns the widely watched tv channel. this law was created by the community to get even with a critic. instead of aiming to update the administration. the law creates a framework, rather than following standard. it aims to bring the media and centralized regulation.

disabling many. >> shaping a media landscape that is favourable to the status quo. >> translation: no the law is not against one group or two groups. in order for the voices to be heard, we must confront monopolies. the law says they can have cable channels. tenfold, 237. we talk about them. they refuse to comply with the law, not because the law was made for them. >> from the current perspective, it was understandable that they decide to target a very powerful political matter of the country. a natural power of this country. the downside of that is an

obsession which looks like a cartoon. rather than a political conflict. >> this became the law in 2009. a lot of ink and air time. a conglomerate relationship. there's less coverage on a media component of the law, designed to give communities under-represented a voice. >> communities conserved by the news. >> tune in. a radio station. 1500km away from the capital in the north-west. it's one of more than 1,000 radio stations. outlets which have different agendas and stories to tell. >> the different kinds of news that they receive here by cable

or antenna do not show us who is going on in the region. we feel like we are watching something nothing to do with our experience. we think we need outlets that give more information about what is going on here. >> the new media law has given us a chance to regain voices and communities to proclaim practicing matrix in the media of the country. >> then in buenos aires, a community outlet broadcasting out of a factory occupied by workers, a precarious outfit covering news and social realities in a way mainstream journalism does not. what we like others in the country are proposing is another kind of tv. it represents voices that are twisted in the mainstream media. failing to tell people about

stories that are unheard or lead to strikes or protests. we try to understand the processes and context ulis them. >> reporter: reforming a media landscape doesn't happen in a night. armiy, intelligence and the media taking back to the dictatorship. the media law is a result of some struggle on the part of prochem okay rahsy most. the law that regulated the media decreed dictatorship. that law outlived the dictatorship, and intensified the amount of licences that can be exploited. >> the impact of media

concentration is not only a problem in argentina, but around the region and the world. groups have extorted and injured democracy in order to condition it. >> with the popular government. >> the media is a social conflict. because, you know the media corporation also start to attack the government. blaming them for not reporting the speech. in this conflict. it's how we can see or understand why we are debating so much about it.

>> criminal gangs risking lives >> it's for this... 3 grams of gold >> killing our planet >> where it's blood red... that's where the mercury is most intense >> now, fighting back with science... >> we fire a laser imaging system out of the bottom of the plane >> revealing the deadly human threat >> because the mercury is dumped into the rivers and lakes, it then gets into the food chain... >> that's hitting home >> it ends up on the dinner plate of people... >> techknow only on al jazeera america

eye finally, one of the first rules of show business one that i have to demand our producers of, never show off talent. that means that the back up singer should stay in the background. don't steal the show. peep on the internet don't care about that. when millions watched and shared a song from the euro vision contest, it was not about the singer. the track went viral because of sign language interpreter who was fantastic. he is tommy, and there's an online movement to send him to the euro vision finals in vienna. we leave you with him and his

backup band. see you next time at "listening post". [ singing ]

. >> what are you going to do to me. >> put your hands up. put your hands up. >> what are you going to do? >> get down on the ground what would you do if you were a cop faced with a split second life or death position. i'll take you inside the cost of injustice in america. from the hands on lethal force training that is unaffordable to many department to the tax-pair funded reforms forced on broken