Electronic Frontier Foundation to award Greenwald for "clear and credible news and analysis"

[David Krout]

The prestigious organization that recently forced the Government to release the FISA Court opinion about the NSA engaging in unconstitutional practices will award Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras with one of their "Pioneer Awards", in September.

https://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/2013

This is a big blow to NSA apologists who constantly criticize Greenwald's work.

[cantbeserious]

1. Yes - EFF Is Very Credible

eom

[tridim]

2. Unfortunately their award recipient is not credible in the least.

And this award will only inflate his already massive ego.

[cantbeserious]

4. Your Opinion - We Will Have To Agree To Disagree

eom

[Civilization2]

9. Can you point to one incidence where GG was shown to have reported wrongly or "lied"?

"is not credible in the least" you just keep making the character assault with nothing to back it up,.

Your ego comment is clearly a figment of your own ego issues.

[tridim]

13. He is running a scam. So, everything.

Who is he going to use next? His dog? His Mother?

[Civilization2]

16. Again, can you point to ANYTHING he has misreported ? OR just more argumentum ad hominem,.

What "scam" reporting on your heroes?

You do know the NSA and the corporate-military are really not your friends? Yet you protect them like a domestic abuse victim protects their abuser, sad.

[tridim]

24. He has misreported EVERYTHING.

Psst... He is using you too.

[Civilization2]

29. So you got nothing then?

You make a claim, yet can point to nothing of what you claim,. dreamworld much?

I don't care for bubble based reality,. lets keep it fact based.

[sabrina 1]

94. Psst, just one thing, you don't have to go into EVERYTHING, just give us one thing he

got wrong, that he didn't correct, because he does correct any errors he makes, unlike the Corporate Media.

I will check back later so we can discuss your entry.

Thanks in advance.

[leftynyc]

55. Start here

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#

Then you can go here:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/07/greenwalds-shocking-bombshell-nsa-analysts-can-analyze-intel-collected-by-the-nsa/

[G_j]

23. come on

if you got the proof, cough it up

[tridim]

25. Proof that the WHOLE THING is a scam?

It just is, obviously. It's a RW Libertarian scam for the benefit of the Paul family.

You're being used.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. So you got no evidence nor an example of mendacity, just some crack pot conspiracy theory to foist.

Whatever. Like a parody of your own cohort.

[Quantess]

43. Are you putting us on?

Is this like a parody? Bad comedy?

[G_j]

74. "it just is"

ah....ok....

[MNBrewer]

34. Some might say the same thing about Nobel Peace Prize recipients

[SidDithers]

3. ...

Seriously? That's not The Onion?

Sid

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Why should anyone on this site care? ....

GG is not a Democrat.

GG has done nothing in support of Democrats.

But most of all, people keep telling me that "it's not about GG" (when they're not on bended knee at the GG alter).

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Well, on Democratic Undergound we like the Electronic Frontier Foundation for reasons including:

Righthaven v. Democratic Underground
Democratic Underground -- represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fenwick & West LLP, and attorney Chad Bowers -- was sued by Righthaven LLC on August 10 for a five-sentence excerpt of a Las Vegas Review-Journal news story that a user posted on the forum, with a link back to the Review-Journal website.

Righthaven has brought over 200 lawsuits in Nevada federal court claiming copyright infringement, even though they do not create, produce or distribute any content. Instead, they create lawsuits by scouring the Internet for content from Review-Journal stories posted on blogs and online forums, purporting to acquire the copyright to that particular story from Stephens Media LLC (the Review-Journal's publisher), and then suing the poster for infringement.

As part of its lawsuit business model, Righthaven claims damages of up to $150,000 under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provisions, seeks the target's domain name and uses these threats to attempt to push defendants into a quick settlement. In its answer and counterclaim, Democratic Underground asked the court to affirm that the excerpt of the article does not infringe copyright and is a fair use of the material, with no damages due to Righthaven.

On June 14, 2011, the Nevada federal court dismissed Righthaven's copyright claim, finding that the company did not own the copyright. The case for a declaration of non-infringement proceeded against Stephens Media, and resulted in a judgment of non-infringement.
https://www.eff.org/cases/righthaven-v-democratic-underground

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. That wasn't my question ...

but you know that ... Right?

[David Krout]

11. Greenwald advocates policies supported by most Democrats in DU

Including the ones about the NSA, for which he's being awarded. The sad part is that you know it. The small minority of people here believe Greenwald does not advocate issues supported by Democrats.

This is why attacks against Greenwald never make it to the Greatest Threads list. Most Democrats here do not think the way you do.

[tridim]

14. GG advocates issues supported by Rand/Ron Fucking Paul. nt

[MNBrewer]

39. I support some of those issues as well!

When they support civil liberties, I will work with them. When they do not, I will oppose them.

Saying "Rand Paul" has become DU's equivalent of the "because I said so, now shut up" school of argumentation.

[tridim]

44. GG supports all of them, and he supports the Pauls.

Why? Because he's an idiot like all RW Libertarians.

I have no idea why Neo-DU loves GG and the Pauls. Can you fill me in?

[MNBrewer]

48. I believe you just stated some untruths

[tridim]

58. The truth hurts sometimes.

GG supports Bush too. I don't think Neo-DU has gone that far yet, but we shall see.

They hang on every word GG says and believe every word without question. Typical scam mentality.

[MNBrewer]

84. UNtruths

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. So ...

This IS about GG?

Should I applaud the klansman that gets an award for his work with the white homeless population?

[David Krout]

20. I don't get the KKK analogy

Please explain the similarities.

[raindaddy]

54. Amazing how fast the discussion degenerates.

Equating Greenwald with the Klan! He's now a racist for exposing secret NSA surveillance? And any Democrat who agrees with trashing our draconian drug laws, protecting our civil liberties and questioning our never ending wars is suddenly a Rand Paul Libertarian?

If this is any indication of where the Democratic party is headed count me out!

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Oh, no that's where the Thrid Way 'say anything centrists' are headed, the Democratic Party is

heading our way, that is why the distraction and insult crew is so swift to fling random poo. They are in full fear mode. They are not the Party, and if they were such minds are easy to defeat. They have bad discussion habits and debate is far above their skill set.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. LOL ...

that is why the distraction and insult crew is so swift to fling random poo.

No one has been insulting or poo fling other than ... well.

The clinical term for your affliction is "Projection."

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Yeah ...

amazing ... especially when one lacks basic reading skills.

See ...

My screen-name is !-Strong-Black-Man. (I am Black ... i.e., I have no love for klansman)

If a klansman does something I support ... should I forget about all the rest that is him (i.e., his racist self) because of that that he does that I support?

And any Democrat who agrees with trashing our draconian drug laws, protecting our civil liberties and questioning our never ending wars is suddenly a Rand Paul Libertarian?

Nope ... Only those Democrats that agrees with trashing our draconian drug laws, protecting our civil liberties and questioning our never ending wars; but like rand's "libertarians" never seem to find the voice to support equal rights and choice for women and "minorities", can't find the time to get mad about the VRA or the roll back of AA ... are, and have always been, rand paul libertarians.

If this is any indication of where the Democratic party is headed count me out!

I suspect you can't be counted out of where you've never really been.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Because I agree with something someone does ...

while detesting everything else about that person, should I support that person ... even in their efforts I agree with?

I would suggest no ... I can do those things I agree with, myself ... without giving that person (the klansman) my support or my attention.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Short memory? Your question was "Why should anyone on this site care?"

And you got an answer that made you sputter and spit but to which you had no actual response. We care because EFF represented DU in a lawsuit that could have ended DU and done harm to the admins.
When you ask a question, expect an answer or don't ask the question.

[stevenleser]

40. that was his original question, the conversation changed after that. That should have been obvious.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Again, his question was simple and clear 'why should anyone on DU care about this'?

Subject of the OP is an award from EFF to a reporter. EFF defended DU in several law suits. We on DU care about EFF and this story because that group did a great service to DU and to the admins.
I'm not sure if you know what 'obvious' means.

[stevenleser]

68. And the discussion changed after that. But you already knew that. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

75. No, the OP sets the subject, not a nattering crew making crazed analogies and asking questions they

don't like the answer to. The attempt to change the subject to 'Greenwald bad, bad' does not mean that is now the subject of the OP or the thread.
Sorry this award upsets you and that it is from such a sterling organization well loved on DU for righteous reasons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Yep ...

the conversation changed with the stuff immediately following the question mark ... but I guess some have either reading comprehension issues or a very short attention span.

[Robb]

7. Disappointing. However the other two recipients seem worthy.

I'm a long time EFF supporter. This is a bit more carnival than usual for them, frankly.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. As a long time and actual supporter of their work, I think this award is fitting well given.

You don't. 'A bit more carnival' meaning you don't agree with it but have no real criticism to offer 'too carnival'.
Kind of funny, really, how people get so flummoxed by Greenwald to the point that they slam the group that saved this website from right wing legal attacks.

[Robb]

32. Oh, please. I'm on record here supporting EFF.

Stuff the condescension, it's beneath you. Or is this your new tactic for "winning" arguments?

On edit: never mind, as I look at your responses in this thread I see you're only interested in slamming DUers, not discussing issues. Dull. Don't bother replying on my account.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Ah a personal attack devoid of any other content. Good stuff you got there, no facts but a lecture

that casually spews forth. Talk about condescension. Your entire response is an attack on me. Because I found your 'carnival' phrasing meaningless. Pretty touchy for a guy who speaks to others as you do here.

[stevenleser]

38. Again, you are misinterpreting someone's comments. Robb's comments were obvious. nt

[MNBrewer]

41. Robb's comments WERE obvious. Obviously lacking in substance

but had plenty of smear in them!

[stevenleser]

45. No smear. He disagreed with EFFs opinion in one situation.Characterizing that as "a smear" is a joke

[MNBrewer]

50. Carnival

Your blinders are effective, Steven. But your workout program must be showing lots of benefit by now, huh?

[stevenleser]

70. After mentioning the two other seem worthy. You keep forgetting that part. nt

[stevenleser]

10. Sorry, no one on DU on any side of anything turns their thinking over to some group's say so.

If you don't believe me, I have three words for you.

Nobel Peace Prize

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Steve, a 'jounalist' posting on DU slamming the EFF is about as ironic and vapid as it gets.

Are you aware of the work this group does? It's representation of this very site in court? The many other very important cases they have won? You of all people....I mean, of ALL people on DU....
https://www.eff.org/cases

[stevenleser]

26. As usual, you invent things that other people said instead of addressing their actual comments.

I never even mentioned EFF in my response.

I would say "nice try" but it wasn't even that.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. They are the group that is the subject of the OP, so when you said 'some group' did you mean

some other group? If so, you need to clarify because it is misleading. What group did you 'really mean'? The Lollipop Guild? News Corp? The Jonas Brothers?

I'm editing to add a tip of the hat to your personal attack on me, uncalled and rude.

[stevenleser]

31. It should be obvious. It's generic. No one here turns their thinking over to any group.

No group is infallible.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. So it was just a random comment unconnected to the discussion at hand?

Tell me as you would tell an editor why you think that 'should be obvious' because frankly it is not at all obvious in a conversation about a group giving an award that your use of the word 'group' does not refer to the group being discussed. If you claimed that in court, they'd laugh at you.

[stevenleser]

37. It's obvious. If you don't see it, that's your problem. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

56. No it is not obvious. It is the opposite of obvious.

You have a groovy day, Steve.

[stevenleser]

59. It's obvious. I mentioned Nobel peace prize. Does EFF offer that? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

71. The Nobel was a seconday exaple you were offering. You were comparing the reaction to the Nobel

award with this award from EFF. A comparison has two or more subjects, as yours did. Gosh, Steve, you can not alter the rules of the language to suit yourself, and I'm not going to agree that your incorrect statements are correct for you.
Sorry this award upsets you. Enjoy your foot stomping.

[stevenleser]

73. Which makes it obvious it was a more general comment I was making. See how that works?

Look, its obvious what this thread is about.

You tried to create a straw man and you got called out for it. And you don't have the character to acknowledge your mistake and your nasty and fallacious attack.

[Dragonfli]

92. A journalist? I thought he was Fox's token neoliberal talking head?

You know, for like when Ed Rendell is too busy to "agree in principal" with the fox conservatives regarding "strengthening" (IOW cutting) entitlements but differs on the methods, preferring the kinder gentler Pete Peterson approaches.

I just assumed he was the guy they trotted out for "the other point of view", you know like Harold Ford Jr, who has made a political and pundit career out of it. likes to do.

We call that journalism now? Really?

[PowerToThePeople]

12. EFF does good work. n/t

[Civilization2]

19. The naysayers are clearly responding to the goring of one of their scared cows,.

they provide nothing but claims of "bad reporting", yet can provide no instance where any of his actual reporting has been shown to be in error,. . strange behavior, seems to be acting out of something other than logic and reason.

[stevenleser]

35. Greenwald's thinking and analysis has already been shown to be suspect throughout Bush's 1st term

Anyone who trusted Bush ever is a moron. He and his team's shenanigans during the Florida recount made it clear what he was about. Attacking Iraq on non-existent WMD two weeks after UN Weapons inspectors completed their reports and proclaimed they had found no WMD after several months of onsite inspections where they covered all suspected sites should have finished that off.

Greenwald continued to 'trust Bush' (His own words, not mine) for some time after that.

The last person whose analysis I will trust is someone who couldnt figure out what Bush was about for 4+ years.

[MNBrewer]

42. So did Andrew Sullivan, but now that he's become an Obama cheerleader...

all is forgiven?

[stevenleser]

46. Nope, just as with any other person or group, each instance is evaluated on its merits. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

47. A list of Democratic Senators who voted Yes on the Iraq War Resolution.

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

[stevenleser]

49. IWR was before the UN Weapons inspector reports were written. Greenwald continued

to 'trust' Bush after that and after Bush went to war anyway.

[MNBrewer]

52. Not that I think you're lying, but

citations?

[stevenleser]

57. All in my article here...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[MNBrewer]

62. Ugh, enough with the self promotion

[stevenleser]

69. Ugh the links are there. I'm not going to retype them for you.

That's the beauty of the internet. If another document has the links or information, you dont have to retype them all.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. Exactly! Smearmaster Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!

2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

[Civilization2]

60. So trust is the issue, not the facts of the reporting, the "analysis"? Really?

You seem to go to strange contortionist positions to "justify" attacking the messenger, and yet you are simply misrepresenting the facts.

Go ahead and post one single link where GG provided "analysis" that supported Bush's actions in Iraq. You can not, because there is none. You are pointing to an interview where GG stated that his personal opinion was to "trust Bush" after the 9/11, in the lead-up to the war,. as many people did.

He did not report anything wrongly, or even provide analysis that Bush's war was the correct course. So, how does this show he is a "bad reporter" ?? That he trusted his president when he lied to him? So did a lot of people including democrats!

[stevenleser]

67. With thousands of journalists and pundits around, I don't need to read someone who trusted Bush for

four years. There is something obviously flawed with that person's logic and thinking processes.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. But you supported Hagel, a Yes vote on Iraq and a Republican for Sec of Defense

Hagel who claims he voted yes because he trusted Bush. He supported the war with his votes and words for years and years?
I guess it's all random, this condemnation of folks who supported Bush.

[stevenleser]

77. 1st, no, I did not support 'Yes' on IWR. Second, no, you are conflating trusting someone's analysis

with suggesting someone should be in a particular position.

I'm not interested in any articles or analysis Hagel might write either. But he is good in the SecDef position.

I'm sure we can find a suitable job for Greenwald that I would support him having. I still wont trust his analysis.

[Luminous Animal]

89. He has never once said he trusted Bush for 4 years.

You just made that up. Really, Steve, you shouldn't allow your irrational hatred of the man lead you to abandon journalistic standards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971646

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.

[Union Scribe]

22. Lol at the rage this has inspired. nt

[hootinholler]

80. We're still missing a few of the usual suspects

This could be big.

[Dragonfli]

85. I have noticed a pattern - One of the methods of this PR tag team has lately been to hold back a few

from posting to potentially serve on juries of predetermined targets that the others try to goad into negative comments that they then alert on.

[backscatter712]

27. Looks like EFF is under the bus with all the cool kids! n/t

[Hydra]

65. So predictable

So many people automatically under the bus lately.

I'd say the Ministry of Truthiness will have a lot of Crow to eat, but they'll keep insisting they were right all along when this all plays out and they are proven to be utterly incorrect.

[reformist2]

51. These EFF people.... anyone know if they have boxes in their garage????

Or whether they are nice to their neighbors? I need to know!!!

[QC]

61. I have it on good authority that several have been linked to

pole dancers!

[reformist2]

63. Oh noes!!!

I always enjoy a good laugh at the anti-Snowden crowd's expense!

[WillyT]

72. K & R !!!

[randome]

78. It is not a 'blow' to anyone with objective viewpoints on this or any other matter.

This is not a 'gotcha' game. I disagree with the EFF's award. Greenwald's reporting has been anything but clear.

Neither he nor Snowden apparently understood PRISM.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. Smearmaster Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!

2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

[bobduca]

81. Lol @ this thread with my ignore list

I only see about 25 replies...

Seems like the Pro NSA ringleader is slacking recently. Maybe they are renovating the propaganda workstation area at the DLC.

[backscatter712]

83. I was under the impression the 50-cent brigade was being run out of Booz-Allen. n/t

[backscatter712]

82. Watching the NSAbots flail in this thread is comedy gold!

[QC]

86. kick

[sabrina 1]

93. Wow, that's quite an honor for a journalist. And definitely validation of his work which he

deserves.