HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here goes. I debated pos...

Wed Aug 17, 2016, 05:26 AM


Here goes. I debated posting this, but I think it's fascinating

I understand that Glenn Greenwald is a hated figure by many here. I've never been a big fan. I've been an occasional critic. I've also appreciated some of his work. One thing I don't doubt is his intelligence and this is a fascinating and long interview. Whether you love him or hate him or have mixed feelings about him, this is a good interview. The interviewer does a great job. Greenwald appears very candid. I found it thought provoking regarding the current state of journalism, irritating at times, but well worth the time spent reading it.

The release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails last week was followed on Wednesday by Donald Trump’s invitation to Russia to find and release Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Trump has since claimed that he was being “sarcastic,” but some believe that he is all too happy to rely on hacked materials to further his campaign for the White House—and doesn’t appreciate the national security implications of Russian intelligence’s alleged breach of DNC servers. Others believe that Trump’s more isolationist foreign policy ideas, such as retreating from NATO, should be discussed rationally and that the DNC hack is being used as a cudgel with which to attack anyone who isn’t sufficiently hawkish on Russia. The hack, and its political and geopolitical implications, has also occasioned a debate about whether and how the media ought to cover leaked—or in this case stolen—information.

To discuss these issues, and others, I spoke by phone with Glenn Greenwald, the co-founding editor of the Intercept. Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, is best known for his role in reporting on Edward Snowden’s disclosures of National Security Agency material; that work, which appeared in the Guardian, won a Pulitzer Prize.

During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we talked about why media elites have trouble reaching Trump supporters, Greenwald’s differences with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the future of privacy in a world of hacks.



4 replies, 1243 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here goes. I debated posting this, but I think it's fascinating (Original post)
cali Aug 2016 OP
Gabi Hayes Aug 2016 #1
cali Aug 2016 #2
Tortmaster Aug 2016 #3
Hortensis Aug 2016 #4

Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Aug 17, 2016, 05:34 AM

1. never sure what to make of him, but he was pretty uniformly excellent many years ago....


btw, the OP is confusing because of the missing T that starts the quoted segment. maybe wrap it with "excerpt" button?

thx for link

still remember how he destroyed either frank Gannon, or Daniel pipes, in a series of exchanges awhile back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Gabi Hayes (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 17, 2016, 05:40 AM

2. Thanks, Gabi! Fixed.


I have mixed feelings about him. Always have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Aug 17, 2016, 06:44 AM

3. Greenwald is one of the biggest liars in the media. Perhaps the biggest.

Let me give you one example.

In his "Exclusive" story published on June 6, 2013 in The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald used a headline and second headline that read like this,

"NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily; Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama."

Greenwald could have used that same headline back in 2006, except he would have had to change "Obama" to "Bush," "Verizon" to "all telephone companies" and "top secret court order" to "no court order at all."

You see, in a 2006 post on his personal blog "Unclaimed Territory," lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald responded to the first time the NSA telephone metadata collection program was exposed. It was initially outed by USA Today in 2006, seven years before the world had heard of Edward Snowden. In 2006, Greenwald admitted that the telephone metadata program was likely Constitutional.

That, my friends, is proof of one of the biggest frauds you have ever seen perpetrated by the media. There are others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Aug 17, 2016, 09:40 AM

4. Lots of clear thinking mixed with heavy hypocrisy

whenever the topic discussed veers toward Democratic Party politics, when Greenwald's journalistic standards suddenly double and our minds stop tracking together. His rationalizations are more than a little opportunistic when it comes to material that could harm the Democrats.

I decided to read the article, though, because Isaac Chotiner's the author, and as usual his are worth reading. As for Greenwald and the negative issues in this article that might appeal to some in sympathy with his views on Democrats:

Regarding the question that Assange's timing of the DNC release was to do maximum damage to the Democrats,
"I don’t know of any evidence that suggests WikiLeaks did that here,"
Greenwald totally ignores Assange's many evidences of extreme, even irrational, malice toward the Democrats and very much against Hillary specifically.

You can cross a line at some point if you are really just trying to manipulate perception or interfere with the natural progression of events, but I am not going to criticize WikiLeaks at all because they waited until before the convention to release information at a time when people were most interested in what the Democratic Party had been doing. I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in criticizing WikiLeaks for that.


Greenwald goes on to criticize the press for now being "100%" negative about Trump, totally ignoring the fact that 90% of the negative coverage is simply finally reporting Trump and his own statements for what they are, without pretending he's a normal candidate. And how could it be otherwise when Trump gives them new, extremely newsworthy material virtually every day, often multiple shocking statements or behaviors in a day? Where's his statement on the press's creation of Trump-the-nominee and their journalistic behavior over that period?

Of course Greenwald's not a Trump supporter, but it is notable that the egregious behavior he does not criticize promoted the leading presidential opponent against the Democrats and that this, finally, more honest coverage of Trump greatly benefits the Democrats.

I haven't paid enough attention to Greenwald to determine, but I suspect he may be the kind of left-winger who's antagonistic to Democrats/liberals, like Assange himself, but less extreme, at least in expression. It's one of the defining characteristics of many on the far left, and we've heard from enough of those in the primary to be very familiar with that pattern of hostile thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread