Haaretz profiles Glenn Greenwald, and his "liberal, ultra-critical line and strong web presence"

[Zater]

Must-read in the left-leaning and prestigious Haaretz of Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.547506

Excerts:

“Edward doesn’t want me to take the documents and publish them all indiscriminately,” Greenwald says. “He has made it clear all along that he wants me to make choices about the things that should be published and about those that ought to remain secret, according to the accepted journalistic balance between the public’s right to know and avoidance of causing harm. That’s what I do every day: go over the documents, connect them to one another, try to understand them.”

...

After the publication of the Snowden documents, The New York Times ran an unflattering profile of Greenwald, dubbing him a “blogger” and “activist” rather than a journalist. ‏ Despite the mutual sniping between the two newspapers, the assault on The Guardian by the British authorities led to a recent announcement that they would cooperate and that the Times will take part in making Snowden’s documents public.‏ The possibility cannot be overlooked that the disrespect Greenwald encountered from part of the industry in the first stages of the affair stemmed from professional envy; after all, it was Greenwald’s firmly held views that prompted Snowden to approach him.

Emphasis is mine everywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Jealousy, in the industry? Nah

never, ever happen. At all. No way, no how.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Exactly what I was going to reply.

[Robb]

5. "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen."

I believe that's on the masthead of the Aspen Times.

Correction: Aspen Daily News.

[bvar22]

3. DURec for Journalists & Whistle Blowers.

They ARE our Paul Reveres,
and an absolute necessity for a functioning Democracy.

The Senate (Democratic Majority) is currently attempting to re-define "Journalist" as ONLY those who work for a big corporations that are beholding to Congress. The "unapproved" Pamphleteers of the American Revolution would NOT be covered by the bogusly named "Shield Law".

WASHINGTON — Journalists and bloggers who report news to the public will be protected from being forced to testify about their work under a media shield bill passed by a Senate committee Thursday.

But the new legal protections will not extend to the controversial online website Wikileaks and others whose principal work involves disclosing "primary-source documents … without authorization."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-shield-law-20130913,0,4553946.story

The Senate does NOT get to define "Journalists" as those that they like,
and withdraw Shield Protections from those that they don't.

I understand that we are going through an accelerated redefinition of what journalism is, and that technology has made the old definition of a journalist obsolete. But there is nothing about the technology -- or about the effects that technology has had on the profession -- that requires us to abandon the fundamental requirement that journalism always -- and let us speak slowly, lest the gobshites misundertand us, a-l-w-a-y-s, is a profession outside of, and adversarial to, government, politics, and, yes, indeed, even the doings of the all-to-human, error-prone heroes of our intelligence apparatus. Nothing about the internet changes that.

There are far too many people right now in Washington who are far too comfortable in being a de facto part of the country's power structure. Their profession is not mine. Let me be quite clear. If you accept the Congress's right to define what a journalist is, you are a miserable traitor to the profession you presume to practice. You have, quite simply, become something less worthy than an informer, something lower than a jailhouse snitch."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023704678