General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWeirded Out By All the Attacks on Glenn Greenwald
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cbayer (a host of the General Discussion forum).
Let me start out by saying I don't feel educated on the topic enough yet to give any sort of opinion about Khorasan. This post isn't about who is right or wrong regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East. All I'd like to remark on is how all the fraught focus on Glenn Greenwald strikes me.
Greenwald has been working on pieces critical of the government, and he's been using sources unsanctioned for release. He's not a "tame reporter" - he's outside the system. The Obama administration itself positioned him that way by the way they bungled the Snowden situation. I confess I'm a huge admirer of how Greenwald helped Snowden. Any other leaker/whistleblower would have been destroyed by misinformation, propaganda, and all the manipulative tactics the government used to try to regain control of the situation. Yes, authorities in power do lie and deceive and try to make other people look bad to get what they want. The Obama administration didn't limit its maneuvers to Snowden, it attempted to bully Greenwald's family as well.
But beyond the government fully demonstrating what their own malfunction was while they attempted to suppress Snowden, the documents themselves contained materials that were valid basis for reporting. And that's how Greenwald makes his living now. The Intercept is his employer, and Greenwald is doing his job when he writes his articles. Again, if the U.S. government didn't want him to be doing that, they should take note of how they themselves shaped his opportunities.
So now we get to this Khorasan thing. It's news. Greenwald is reporting it. If it's true, others would report it, too. If the GOP twists this news for their own ends - so what? All news is twisted for GOP ends. The only reasons this an "alliance" with Greenwald is Greenwald happened to be a reporter who reported something.
Democrats who worship the ground Obama walks on should recognize that various parts of the government are capable of screwing up all the time and have to be open to criticism. Look at the Secret Service today, for example!
What all these hand-wringing anti-Greenwald screeds have this vague vibe of a COINTELPRO operation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
There is so much emphasis on discrediting Greenwald, that I have to wonder whether I'm being prepped to disbelieve him. Are all these posts from old DU Democrats who genuinely think Greenwald must be stopped for the greater democratic good, or do we have some moles sewing propaganda here?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)that post on this forum.
Just saying...
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)ran into a nest of it yesterday -- Marriott is waging a war against anyone critical of the firing of the Democrat for running for county commission in Florida. They've had their PR machine in overdrive for days, and a poster here was swept up in it, walking back his support of the fired Dem.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)for the gov't, be a DEM and post here.
I'm just pointing out the motivation that prompts some to bash Snowden/Greenwald.
It's all good as long as it is acknowledged.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Quoted Spinal Tap to him....got hid. So I sympathize.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The rest of us just have to trust that karma will sneak up on those folks and give them the pepper sauce enemas they deserve.
I imagine the folks who do this sort of scab posting are like those hucksters on the streets of Vegas handing out pictures of prostitutes - cynical, bitter, and unable to explain to their parents or children what they do for a living.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)There a lot of right wing employees on this site along with libertarians who like to be "secret" about their real agenda too. Just saying.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Back in 2010 Greenwald wasn't in quite the same spotlight he is in now, but he and Jane were buds and did what they could to diss democrats and take money from republicans -- she taught him well enough but I see him, and her, for what they are. Manipulators and RFers.
blm
(114,648 posts)of an Ayn Rand/Koch 'revolution' to change America, too. Turn it all over to corporate empires and stay out of their way.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's all the same corporate sewer.
It's how corporatists operate. It's the difference between corporate rule and representative government.
It is the deliberate perversion of a system meant to REPRESENT people into a system that ADVERTISES, MANIPULATES, and controls to ensure its own agenda and grow its own power and profit.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because they can't imagine that someone could honestly disagree with them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)also build propaganda machines.
The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Glenn Greenwald at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592
254 Recs. DU understands exactly what is going on here.
Those who build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines. A great deal of effort and resources are being poured into trying to give the false impression that Americans support our own government's abuses of power against us, and that we have contempt for those who exposed them.
It's no accident that the very small group of the loudest smearers of Greenwald are also overwhelmingly the most reliable attackers of liberals and defenders of every corporate outrage coming out of this administration: the TPP, indefinite detention, secret laws, secret courts, assaults on journalism, handing the internet to corporations, drone wars, drilling, fracking, corporate education, privatization, deregulation, etc., etc., etc.
DU overwhelmingly supports the actions of Greenwald and Snowden, as shown in virtually every poll posted here. This group uses the very same tactics, over and over again, including attacks on the messengers, mocking, swarming, and endless diversion from what is really important here: government abuse of power. It is all very familiar, and the tactics detailed in the links below.
Let's repost some reminders of what we are really dealing with here:
Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796
Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097
Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/
The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111
The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242
The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454
Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741
Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Greenwald, like Assange, likes attention more than he likes the truth. You will never hear him bad-mouthing Putin or Russia in more than a cursory manner because that's where his money-boy, Snowden, is stuck.
Greenwald is hiding in Brazil to avoid paying back taxes.
Greenwald said his work was like putting on a show and he promised a grand finale fireworks display a few months ago. Nothing happened.
You can like him or hate him but I don't see how anyone would trust him.
The posts you say 'discredit' him are usually in direct proportion to the hero-worshippers who adore him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)going to give up citizenship to avoid his back taxes.
randome
(34,845 posts)Brazil makes a lot of sense when you see things that way. But if he does give up his citizenship, I'm sure we'll hear it's because he can no longer tolerate Obama and his zombie army.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)blm
(114,648 posts)He's as infallible as anyone else, including those involved in government.
Are we being prepped to accept whatever Greenwald says as infallible because it will benefit the Rand Paul candidacy Greenwald supports?
Of course government screws up - so does Obama - and so does Greenwald. When they do, constructive criticism should be expected.
I wonder the same thing. How many here who stand by Greenwald no matter what will be working behind the scenes for Rand?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)every one of us should be outraged.
It is creepy to live in a propaganda state. These are tactics associated with totalitarian governments. They have no place in a country that purports to be a representative democratic system of government.
And we certainly pay for it.
The relationship of the people to the US government has been fundamentally changed, and in a profound way. Perhaps we have not lived in a free country for some time now, but they have destroyed any remaining illusion of our real relationship to this government most of us were taught to believe was our own.
These are the tactics of a totalitarian state manipulating and exploiting its own people, not something any of us should have to associate with the United States of America.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This is a partisan website for Democratic partisans....not some arm of the CIA.
We simply are not that important.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I often wonder why so many people who constantly bash the president are posting here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And don't forget the NSA reading all their posts here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Fred Friendlier
(81 posts)If the fantasists hung out only with their own kind, on their own little web sites, nobody would ever see or hear from them.
Exactly the same dynamic is at work over at the Daily Kos: they hate Markos and despise the Democratic Party but it's the biggest leftie discussion group on the web so they all flock to the place where they can have an audience when they whine about how oppressed they are.
Z_California
(650 posts)I agree 100% that Third Way/Right Wing/Corporatist propagandists litter this site. I still participate because of information from posters like Woo Me With Science. I just ignore and block propagandists when I can identify them and my experience is much less frustrating.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)can't publish it but it sure makes DU more conversational and less about one-liner junior high spirit squad.
greatauntoftriplets
(178,963 posts)Hoping the promised raise comes through after the election. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)We were told we CAN NOT let him take us down!
zappaman
(20,627 posts)When Eleanor was in accounting, I got paid regularly.
Her replacement, Charlene, doesn't seem to be up to speed.
Any idea who I could email to unclog this pipeline?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Instead of the manual process there is a new bot you can install on your PC to do automated tracking.
That is tied back to the payroll system and everything then is direct deposit. I tried it two weeks ago for the first time and works great!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I've seen some honest criticism of Greenwald here, but there is some that is just a smear campaign and I could see the admins not wanting DU to be used for that.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I see more smear campaigns here about president Obama than about Greenwald. I also would think the admins would not be wanting DU used for that either. Just saying.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)rightly so
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)perhaps because it is easier for some to just accept or deny information based on the source rather than doing any research (or thinking) about the actual events, facts and information that the source relays. Add to that the fact that there is a tendency to seek out "news" that supports ones present point of view and disregard facts that don't.
If a canary died in some of these posters coal mine they would simply yell "Get up you narcissistic bird!" until they themselves passed out.
See also:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He wants you to support Rand Paul.
He consistently supported Ron Paul.
HE also lies as evidenced by his latest hit piece.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Few posts could do a better job of proving the OP's point.
Way to go!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)GG's goal may very well be to finish the right wing's goal of promoting mass distrust in the efficacy and effectiveness of government, in general, by bringing the left into the "Bad/Too much Government" camp.
And judging from some on DU, it's working!
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)Greenwald may just be a journalist. One you don't always agree with, but just a loudmouthed journalist.
The level of paranoia and folks jumping to unfounded conclusions, ON BOTH SIDES, is disturbing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Maybe that's a product of seeing/not seeing what one wants to see/not see.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...then maybe you can provide One scintilla of evidence to support your claim. So far, that's completely missing.
FSogol
(47,613 posts)
Or maybe GG just writes a bunch of libertarian BS. Wasn't he supposed to release some earth shattering news? What ever happened to that?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with my NSA dividends.
FSogol
(47,613 posts)a Democratic website are the true disruptors! And we/they are probably all paid big time to promote Democrats on Democratic Underground! WOOT!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)us is never quite explained.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)First he said it was because the govt was just harassing his innocent partner. Even Rachel Maddow got punked on that.
Then, when it became known his partner was carrying stolen govt info, Greenwald's story became his partner was now a journalist and was detained without access to a lawyer.
But then it became known that his partner, who was carrying stolen govt info, refused to talk to the lawyer he was given and insisted on waiting hours until his own private lawyer showed up.
Each time during this incident, Greenwald lied about what was going on. Each time Greenwald released false information and used it manufacture outrage.
These are the recorded facts. It is not a smear to report the facts about how Greenwald manufactures outrage using false and/or misleading information.
It's what he does.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)You just said that a guy carrying a laptop with a journalist's source material insisted on waiting for his own lawyer rather than than submitting to the one the authorities - who were threatening him - assigned to him. Yet you framed it all in language that made it sound like he was doing something wrong. Isn't that skewing the information to try to "manufacture outrage"?
Personally, I don't even see Greenwald's lie in that situation. His partner IS innocent if you don't regard the possession of that source material as a crime in the first place. The whole thing hinges on your perspective on the original leaking case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)offense, and he's lucky he wasn't in the dock. Personally, I suspect Britain made sure that he carried home some interesting accessories.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Greenwald LIED and said his partner was detained without access to a lawyer.
Not wanting to talk to a lawyer you're given and insisting on waiting hours for your own private lawyer is two very different things.
Saying your partner was held for no reason other than he is your partner is very different than getting stopped while traveling with stolen government documents THAT YOU GAVE HIM.
The fact you responded to my factual post about Greenwald's lies shows you are the one with an agenda.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I admitted right in my OP that admire Snowden and what Greenwald did for him. I have zero opinion on any writing Greenwald has done since - in fact I haven't read any. What's my agenda?
Your "facts" were written in a slanted way, which I illustrated. The slant is laid on incredibly thick. This is what my OP is about. How can someone even give Greenwald's work a critical read when there's all this fuzz in the way?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)is not, in any way, close to being the same as someone deciding to wait to talk until their own private lawyer shows up hours later.
It's like describing a small domestic short-haired cat who sits about the house licking their fur as a ferocious, man-eating lion.
So stop pretending.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I'm sure you'd wait for your own lawyer instead of taking the one "given" to you. Seems like a no brainer to me.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You have started a doubleplusungood thread.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)question upthread.
If you think this site is infiltrated by the CIA, or the NSA, or some governmental agency, then why are you here?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Any individual or collection of individuals that present a dissenting or contrary opinion to that of the caller of the swarm.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Familiar, organized swarm.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is a time-proven method to cast doubt on inconvenient stories. Every time Greenwald opens his mouth these days, there are a flock of posters that attempt to discredit everything he has ever said. He's critical of government. He was critical of Bush, and he's critical of Obama. I daresay he'll be critical of whoever is in office after Obama.
Some people try to make the story about him instead of about the story because he publishes information that is unflattering toward politicians. No one says a peep on here when he publishes information that is unflattering toward Republicans, so I'll leave you to do the math as to why that might be.
Is he perfect? No. Does he have an ego? Yes, he does. Do either of those qualifiers make him wrong about everything? No, they don't.
wandy
(3,539 posts)I attack the fairytale.
msanthrope has made a good start of debunking this RW propaganda here.........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025602072
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Greenwald wants to tell a story of a made-up threat resulting in Obama attacking Syria. So he's claiming that Khorasan was the justification for bombing Syria.
The problem is the Obama administration never said "We're only bombing because of Khorasan". Yet Greenwald is claiming that is the case.
It really doesn't matter what else he's reported - Bob Woodward did great, and then became a massive hack resting on his fame. No matter what you think about Greenwald's reporting up to this point, his current claims are a sloppy lie.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)If Greenwald is nor reporting a situation accurately, or if he's outright manufacturing evidence to fit the story he wants to tell - then this should be the criticism. And no other respectable media venue should touch the story.
However what I'm seeing on DU is: Greenwald is an Obama-hater! Greenwald is a Libertarian! Greenwald is a GOP pawn! Greenwald stole stuff! Greenwald isn't paying his taxes! Greenwald stole Christmas! Greenwald has horrible taste in t-shirts! Greenwaaaaaald!!!!111111!
It's hard for me to look at Greenwald's arguments critically when all these over-the-top attacks make me instinctively want to defend him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And as always happens when discussing opinions about why someone would do such a thing, it wanders off into motive. This lie is so sloppy it's pretty easy to ascribe some nefarious motives to him. Largely because innocent motives don't make much sense - we're not talking about an easy thing to accidentally screw up - "It was an SA-11, not an SA-10!"
I have no idea why Greenwald decided to lie, and to lie in such a sloppy manner. And frankly, I don't give a shit about why.
Fact is he is doing so because reality is not fitting the story he wants to tell. Which means I now must distrust everything he says from now on, as well as rethink everything he has reported up to this point. Because he's demonstrated he will lie to tell the story he wants to tell.
blm
(114,648 posts)want to defend him, however, the constant barrage of overthetop attacks on Obama shouldn't make his supporters instinctively want to defend him.
No disconnect there, eh?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)He's reporting on the media hyping led by some of the usual reporter known as mouthpieces for Pentagon/NSA Disinformation of an "Imminent Threat to the "Homeland" by Khorasan Terrorists (a group no one in more reliable positions to know had ever heard of before) carrying exploding bombs hidden in toothpaste tubes, possibly wearing exploding clothing, etc. to whip up the public that this new group was a more immediate threat than ISIS.
He then goes on in his article (which you didn't read, obviously) to post the article links, Twitter/Tweets and the rest to make his point. It was an investigative report and well sourced.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Where he explicitly claims Khorasan was the justification for airstrikes in Syria.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the article is about jumping on false reporting to inspire fear of imminent attack and how that has been backtracked now by the same voices. It was spreading FEAR of Imminent Attack by this group no one had heard of that gave the push and justification for the ground attacks. Supposedly destroying the weapon's factory was put in there to give extra reasoning to justify the AUMF extension of Imminent Threat.
But, then I've answered you many times...and realize this is a bit of a game on your part with the back and forth. 
's
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)They are DUers who joined well before the Snowden affair (though Greenwald came in for some criticism before then, because of his writing about drones), but have had an obsession with Snowden and Greenwald since 2013 that I never could have believed would happen to DUers. They leap on any method they think can be used to denigrate Snowden, Greenwald, or anyone vaguely associated with them (for instance, the Bolivian president came in for heavy criticism, since they thought it was an excellent idea to force his plane down because they thought there was a remote possibility Snowden could have been on it).
You'll get used to their names; you'll get used to realising they will savage anyone who makes any criticism whatsoever of President Obama, and they will never forget. You'll get used to discounting anything they write about a critic of Obama. You'll also, inevitably, start to discount their opinion on anything else, which is a shame, because they used to be reasonable people.
randome
(34,845 posts)It is 'obvious' to many that neither Greenwald nor Snowden can be trusted. Remember, they thought PRISM was a way to download the Internet on a daily basis!
And your opinion is just as 'obvious' to you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
blm
(114,648 posts)I am all for criticizing Obama on a number of things.
I am all for criticizing Greenwald on a number of things.
This OP deserved the mirror being put up. Mocking Obama supporters as if they 'worship the ground he walks on' and have no ability to show discernment is absurd. Neither Obama or Greenwald is infallible. Why are Greenwald supporters acting as 'precious' as they like to claim Obama supporters are acting?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)The fact that you can criticize Obama for anything sets you apart from them. I don't think any Greenwald supporters go to the lengths of adoring him that the group under discussion goes with Obama.
blm
(114,648 posts)I confront a lot of Rand Paul supporters on various forums. The logic mirror is in high demand these days. ; )
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I support Obama, and when I criticize the government, my criticisms are heavily to the left. I lean socialist, not libertarian.
Just because I admire Snowden and think Greenwald did a good job of helping him doesn't automatically make me an acolyte of Greenwald's beliefs, whatever they may be. I haven't been reading his articles at The Intercept at all.
In a comment above you ask why I don't feel defensive when Obama comes under blatant propaganda attack. Who says I don't? Perhaps you aren't "holding the mirror" up to the person you think you are.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Thanks for saying it. This place really has become less because of a few. It is a pity.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)Obama policies because Greenwald is gay? Fortunately the OP got PPR'd for that. But not until after a number of DUers showed their asses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376
I have been reading Greenwald since Unclaimed Territory in 2005. I find myself generally in agreement with him, saw him in Boston back in 2011 with Noam Chomsky and was very impressed.
Greenwald has flaws just like everyone else but the last people I am going to believe about anything anti-Greenwald are DUers, especially those who have been singing the same song here for years.
wandy
(3,539 posts)I do find it curious that Glenn Greenwald and Andrew C. Mcarthy have written almost exactly the same story using the same talking points and almost the exact same format at the same time. I find it even more curious that other reporters such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Breitbart, The Daily Beast and others have come up with similar stories and additional related information at the same time. The only thing that is surprising me is that Josie (the teller of Ferguson, Mo truth) has not appeared on The Dana Show to read us the Khorasan account as told to her by a highly placed friend who wishes to remain anomalous.
Although I may not hold Greenwald in highest regard, I do not attack the person, I attack the fairytale.
msanthrope has made a good start of debunking this RW propaganda here.........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025602072
Forgive me if I tire of these Right Wing Bull Shit smears of the week.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)They will become familiar if you pay attention.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)After naively trying to reason with them, I've finally put several of the usual suspects on Ignore.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Watch the responses to corporate and predatory policies.
G_j
(40,568 posts)for sure..
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)G_j
(40,568 posts)Thanks!
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)What kind of patterns? Houndstooth, plaid, checkered?
Am I responding correctly? I might be a lover of predatory policies so you must let me know if I am and how to change my ways, to Your ways.
Oh. so serious. You must be in dire danger of your keyboard and monitor.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I too have notice the names of those supporting Greenwald, no matter what, are pretty much the same names that bash president Obama on a daily basis. Do you think they have some kind of agenda? I mean some of them have said some pretty terrible things about he president, remember?
randome
(34,845 posts)Hey, it works both ways, doesn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Ad hominem attacks are the surest sign of a poster devoid of both integrity and substance. Such people generate nothing but Internet pollution, and I urge others to add them to their ignore lists as well. Discourse is much improved by doing so.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)sheshe2
(97,487 posts)I got that from him as well.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're accusing DUers (many of whom have been here for many years) of being "propaganda moles" just because they think Glenn Greenwald is an opportunist. I think he's one, and I'm not paid, I'm not a mole, and I'm not an opportunist. I've seen all the work he's done for the Koch brothers, he was on their payroll for YEARS; his present alliance is suspect, and he doesn't inspire any confidence in me at all.
Anyone who sells state secrets at a profit (like he did with his little book) is a bit squirrely to my mind. The only one who hasn't been seen to profit (unless he has an under-the-table deal with Greenwald) is Snowden. Everyone else is raking it in.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)It's been around for a long time - this idea that Greenwald, alone among writers, should be working for free if he had integrity. And it's weird when DUers latch on to it. Getting paid for your personal work is something that anyone, wherever they are on the DU left-to-right spectrum, would agree with. But Greenwald is, to a few of you, an exception.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can write a little book about the "inside baseball" of your reportage after the fact (a la All the President's Men), but this guy published reams of "Snowden's secrets" as part of that failed not-a-bestseller that was supposed to blow the doors off everything.
He essentially published stolen documents with very little, if any, comment. And he got the "Ho-hum" reception that such gross laziness deserved.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)No, not all journalists get paid a salary. Many are freelance. You do remember that word, don't you? Greenwald was not being paid a salary. He was a freelance.
Why would publishing work in book form be wrong, when publishing it in a newspaper would be acceptable? Is the lack of bestseller status a problem for you - weren't you just throwing your hands up in horror at the idea of someone making a living from journalism, revealing illegal US government activity? Now you seem to think it would have been better if he'd earned more money. Is that how you judge a journalist, after all?
I think you are embodying a typical problem of the "kill the messenger" brigade - you don't actually try to be consistent. You just flail around, hoping the shit you're flinging will stick to something.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the Koch Brothers/CATO Institute for several years, he worked for the Guardian at a salaried position for several years, and now he is working for The Intercept in a salaried position.
He didn't publish a book--he published a longish essay, accompanied by a data dump of Snowden's "stuff" (with little to no exposition) and expected a grand reaction. He didn't get the reaction he hoped for, though.
I judge a journalist by their actions and by their integrity. This guy comes across as not a journalist, but an individual who takes money from people like the Koch Brothers, and like that Pierre Omidyar, to push specific positions using a "journalistic-ISH" patina. Some can call it "advocacy journalism," I call it something south of propaganda, and north of agenda - pushing.
I'm not "killing the messenger." If I had the ability to do that, then why is Glenn Greenwald still publishing his crap? He'll kill himself with his lousy "journalism." Five years from now he won't be the flavor of the month anymore, and he'll probably be called things like "flaky" and "reckless" by his former cheering squad.
But more to the point, I hope you will notice that I didn't say ONE DISPARAGING WORD about YOU in this post. I stuck to the issues. Reread your testy little subject line, and your last paragraph, and maybe try harder to return the favor, why don't you, next time?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I do admire how he helped Snowden - and I'm sorry to differ with you there. I'm also bummed out by Greenwald's Libertarian remarks, but I don't see him as a GOP pawn yet. I also do regard a lot of his "opportunism" as his job.
If the people here would genuinely like me to develop a critical view of Greenwald, they should realize that when their posts come across as propaganda, it KEEPS me from forming a critical view. When I start to think "why are all these people trying to discredit Greenwald?", it keeps me from evaluating the story itself - it might even make me more inclined to defend it, where previously I had been neutral.
The important article to write to persuade people like me would be one countering Greenwald's claims: establishing Khorasans existence, explaining it's importance, etc. THEN, if Greenwald made stuff up, point it out. At that point, Greenwald is discredited as a reporter. Mission accomplished.
The approach that's being taken here, however, backfires.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Read the doggone SOP for the group, please.
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.
Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.
I can't get behind you accusing people who have been here for many years of being moles and propagandists simply because they don't agree with YOU. Differences of opinion are NOT justification for questioning the motives of people who have been here for YEARS. I could be nasty and call you a newbie, and maybe make a snide insinuation that you are a sock or a zombie but I won't do that, because it is an uncivil thing to do. You shouldn't do that kind of thing, either, and you most definitely shouldn't do it in an OP in GD, because the SOP says "Don't Do It."
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)The only think I'm pro-Greenwald on is the Snowden affair, which I haven't hidden in any way.
I haven't even read any of his recent work. I don't see how I could be starting a fight about people "disagreeing with me".
I'm trying to let people know that, from an outside perspective, it looks like there's some sort of weird propaganda campaign against Glenn Greenwald - and that makes it hard to clearly view any of his work. I'm just being honest about that.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I saw the OP surprised that a Democratic Discussion Board would have people who attack a journalist like Greenwald without having any substance for their attack and reveal the poster hasn't even read the article and so couldn't rationally discuss any points within the article made by Greenwald and his Co-Author. Instead we see some kind of distraction by "association" throwing out names having nothing to do with the article in question i.e. Jane Hamsher, Rand Paul, Libertarian, etc. And, now you talking about Koch Bros. money?
It doesn't speak well for a Democratic site supposedly filled with open minded, non-prejudicial people, trying to discuss issues intelligently, to have posters who come in, without bothering to even read the article, and then and throw around accusations and associations without verification which have nothing to do with anything except to disparage Greenwald's reporting.
I think that we are better than that. I would hope we could at least TRY to be better than that. If you don't like the source of the post or topic then don't read it. If you personally don't like a poster here then put them on ignore and move along. What's so difficult about that?
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's against the SOP, plain as day.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,160 posts)I replying to the 'newbie' who wrote the OP explaining I didn't think it was 'moles', just people who support Obama at all times, by any method possible. And when I saw your diatribe against books, I replied to that, because I think it's a particularly depressing attack to see a DUer attempt. It's just so anti-intellectual.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
leftstreet
(40,551 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Greenwald did not gives us his 'grand finale fireworks' as promised. Snowden did not get out of Russia. Obama did make changes at the NSA.
Why would anyone expect something more to come out of all this?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I seriously doubt that the people here who oppose Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, Manning, et al, are paid to do so. IMO, they are merely trying to protect the policies of a president they admire.
Greenwald, et al, pose a perceived threat to him and they have their Go Team, Party Loyalty, blinders firmly in place.
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I really never paid much attention to Greenwald other than reading something and often not agreeing with him, until DU's Greenwald Anti Fanclub launched all of those very nasty attacks on him centering on his sexuality.
The people who employed those tactics and the people who associate with them are all bigots in my book. And that's worse than being an often conservative pundit like Greenwald.
Tikki
(15,134 posts)would like to think is happening on a progressive forum site.
I don't think he should be stopped from talking, let his words be his deeds...but neither should those
of us who have real reasons to criticize Greenwald. You wouldn't want that, would you?
Tikki
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)how we will pay for the new war.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)enough to demonstrate that people are either throwing out their integrity or their grasp on reality when they go to attack them. The guy is for universal healthcare, publicly funded elections, protecting social security, prosecuting corrupt bankers, says Elizabeth Warren is good on domestic issues and speaks at socialist conferences. Yet any thread about him will get multiple people calling him a libertarian.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is host consensus that this is disruptive meta. It was noted by some hosts that the OP would have been fine without the final paragraph that suggest that some members are propaganda sewing moles.