Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism - BFP Roundtable #02

[Pholus]

56. Cue Ackbar: "It's sha trappp!!!!"

Or at least it's supposed to be. Look, this says more about you than me. Mostly that you seem to live in this black and white world of hero worship.

Let's examine the goals of this thread to illustrate that point.

In YOUR world, the goal is to make party A (let's use the Cryptographer placeholder name Alice) flawless and above reproach. Of course, Alice is actually human and therefore fallible. But we mustn't think this because in fanboi all heroes are above reproach. Kinda what Christianity does when you think about it. But I guess that's how politics has to be.

If Party B (Bob) points out something Alice did that makes Alice not flawless and above reproach an immediate kneejerk response is to make sure Bob's reputation is tarnished so that becomes the story instead of Alice's flaws.

The first way to try to do this is to try to find fault directly. You know, boxes in the garage, the pole-dancing girlfriend, mean to neighbors, school dropout. Whatever. Fling poo and hope some sticks.

But six months of that didn't work, so on to page 2 in the playbook.

Find party C (Carl) who has done something noteworthy and laudable as well. Carl can criticize Bob, possibly for very valid reasons. In black-and-white fairy tale land, this means that we're supposed to pick Carl's opinion over Bob's, therefore keeping us from realizing that oh-mah-god Alice might not be perfect!

If we don't then obviously the comeback is that we repudiated poor Carl after all. Why do we hate Carl?

Seriously, try living in the real world.

Alice has done a lot of good things but as a human being is going to have a few flaws, the massive flip-flop on NSA surveillance being a major (and rather cowardly) one IMHO. Reforms are promised, indicating that there WERE and ARE problems in the system. We'll see if they are made in good faith.

Bob wouldn't be my choice for a best friend, but brought vital information about things being done in our collective names into the public debate. Personality is irrelevant when it comes to action.

Carl's opinion has validity, but it is fairly balanced by other NSA whistleblowers as well as two very respected members of the intelligence committee who were warning us about this for years. Not accepting that opinion is not a general repudiation of Carl.

That is called nuance. I know that political types often times feel they can't afford it to stay on message, but I find it helps out in my life immeasurably.