Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Keeping Secrets: Pierre Omidyar, Glenn Greenwald and the privatization of Snowden’s leaks [View all]KoKo
(84,711 posts)22. Glenn Greenwald Responds to the "Pando post" - and other matters
Glenn Greenwald: On NSA Journalism and the Absurdity of Some Recent Critiques (Fascinating Read)
-------------
Questions/responses for journalists linking to the Pando post - and other matters
by Glenn Greenwald
The other day I referred to those who "evince zero interest in the substance of the revelations about NSA and GCHQ spying which we're reporting on around the world", but "are instead obsessed with spending their time personally attacking the journalists, whistleblowers and other messengers who enable the world to know about what is being done." There are dozens of examples, one of whom is the author of a post this week at Pando.com which accuses me and Laura Poitras of having "promptly sold secrets to a billionaire", Pierre Omidyar, and claims we made "a decision to privatize the NSA cache" by joining Omidyar's new media organization and vesting it with a "monopoly" over those documents.
I've steadfastly ignored the multiple attacks from this particular writer over the years because his recklessness with the facts is so well-known (ask others about whom he's written), and because his fixation is quite personal: it began with and still is fueled by an incident where The Nation retracted and apologized for an error-strewn hit piece he wrote which I had criticized (see here and here).
But now, this week's attack has been seized on by various national security establishment functionaries and DC journalists to impugn our NSA reporting and, in some cases, to argue that this "privatizing" theory should be used as a basis to prosecute me for the journalism I'm doing. Amazingly, it's being cited by all sorts of DC journalists and think tank advocates whose own work is paid for by billionaires and other assorted plutocrats: such as Josh Marshall, whose TPM journalism has been "privatized" and funded by the Romney-supporting Silicon Valley oligarch Marc Andreesen, and former Bush Homeland Security Adviser and current CNN analyst Fran Townsend ("profiteering!", exclaims the Time Warner Corp. employee and advocate of the American plundering of Iraq).
Indeed, Pando.com itself is partially funded by libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Paypal and CIA-serving Palantir Technologies. The very same author of this week's Pando post had previously described Thiel (before he was funded by him) as "an enemy of democracy" and the head of a firm "which last year was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting American political opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders" (one of whom happened to be me, targeted with threatened career destruction for the crime of advocating for WikiLeaks)).
Moreover, the rhetorical innuendo in the Pando post tracks perfectly with that used by NSA chief Keith Alexander a few weeks ago when he called on the US government to somehow put a stop to the NSA reporting: "I think it's wrong that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000-- whatever they are, and are selling them and giving them out as if these-- you know, it just doesn't make sense," decreed the NSA chief. This attack is also the same one that was quickly embraced by the Canadian right to try to malign the reporting we're now doing with the CBC on joint US/Canada surveillance programs.
I would think journalists would want to be very careful about embracing this pernicious theory of "privatizing" journalism given how virtually all of you are not only are paid for the journalism you do, but also have your own journalism funded by all sorts of extremely rich people and other corporate interests.
Much More...long read at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/02-5
-------------
Questions/responses for journalists linking to the Pando post - and other matters
by Glenn Greenwald
The other day I referred to those who "evince zero interest in the substance of the revelations about NSA and GCHQ spying which we're reporting on around the world", but "are instead obsessed with spending their time personally attacking the journalists, whistleblowers and other messengers who enable the world to know about what is being done." There are dozens of examples, one of whom is the author of a post this week at Pando.com which accuses me and Laura Poitras of having "promptly sold secrets to a billionaire", Pierre Omidyar, and claims we made "a decision to privatize the NSA cache" by joining Omidyar's new media organization and vesting it with a "monopoly" over those documents.
I've steadfastly ignored the multiple attacks from this particular writer over the years because his recklessness with the facts is so well-known (ask others about whom he's written), and because his fixation is quite personal: it began with and still is fueled by an incident where The Nation retracted and apologized for an error-strewn hit piece he wrote which I had criticized (see here and here).
But now, this week's attack has been seized on by various national security establishment functionaries and DC journalists to impugn our NSA reporting and, in some cases, to argue that this "privatizing" theory should be used as a basis to prosecute me for the journalism I'm doing. Amazingly, it's being cited by all sorts of DC journalists and think tank advocates whose own work is paid for by billionaires and other assorted plutocrats: such as Josh Marshall, whose TPM journalism has been "privatized" and funded by the Romney-supporting Silicon Valley oligarch Marc Andreesen, and former Bush Homeland Security Adviser and current CNN analyst Fran Townsend ("profiteering!", exclaims the Time Warner Corp. employee and advocate of the American plundering of Iraq).
Indeed, Pando.com itself is partially funded by libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Paypal and CIA-serving Palantir Technologies. The very same author of this week's Pando post had previously described Thiel (before he was funded by him) as "an enemy of democracy" and the head of a firm "which last year was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting American political opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders" (one of whom happened to be me, targeted with threatened career destruction for the crime of advocating for WikiLeaks)).
Moreover, the rhetorical innuendo in the Pando post tracks perfectly with that used by NSA chief Keith Alexander a few weeks ago when he called on the US government to somehow put a stop to the NSA reporting: "I think it's wrong that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000-- whatever they are, and are selling them and giving them out as if these-- you know, it just doesn't make sense," decreed the NSA chief. This attack is also the same one that was quickly embraced by the Canadian right to try to malign the reporting we're now doing with the CBC on joint US/Canada surveillance programs.
I would think journalists would want to be very careful about embracing this pernicious theory of "privatizing" journalism given how virtually all of you are not only are paid for the journalism you do, but also have your own journalism funded by all sorts of extremely rich people and other corporate interests.
Much More...long read at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/02-5
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Keeping Secrets: Pierre Omidyar, Glenn Greenwald and the privatization of Snowden’s leaks [View all]
El_Johns
Jan 2014
OP
This paints with a broad brush, Snowden was not enriched when Greenwald sold those secrets.
Vincardog
Jan 2014
#1
I don't think it says Snowden was enriched; I think it says he wasn't, in fact.
El_Johns
Jan 2014
#2
What this hit piece does is try to confuse the weak minded into believing Greenwald shouldn't profit
last1standing
Jan 2014
#19
Looks like you don't know the difference between a journalist and a whistleblower, either.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#48
You know, I can read all the Pentagon Papers. Can you read all the NSA documents Snowden claims
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#5
What does the opinion you linked have to do with what we're talking about?
last1standing
Jan 2014
#28
Something more important than Greenwald and Snowden---people's lives. If the NSA information
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#29
Okay--you are a bit all over the place. The comparison was between Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers and
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#33
Tell us all how the head of COINTELPRO 'leaked' FBI documents to Naval Intelligence.
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#40
I think the article makes it very clear how that case was different from this one. Ellsberg leaked
El_Johns
Jan 2014
#7
Snowden offered the documents to more than Greenwald. They chose not to take him up on it.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#10
I don't think you read the article. Its focus is Greenwald, not Snowden. It doesn't claim
El_Johns
Jan 2014
#11
Did Woodward and Bernstein give away the info they got from Deepthroat or profit from it?
last1standing
Jan 2014
#12
I'll wait for you to actually read the article. No point responding until you have.
El_Johns
Jan 2014
#13
I've read it. It's an insulting smear piece that doesn't answer my question. Neither have you.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#15
As more and more stories emerge and there will be many more, saying these leaks are to
Thinkingabout
Jan 2014
#9
They belong to We The People and the NSA should hand them over to us.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2014
#17
Funny--I can read the Pentagon papers for free. Why can't I do that with the NSA ones? nt
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#30
Could you read all the info from the Watergate scandal before the Post printed it?
last1standing
Jan 2014
#32
I think you miss the comparison made---in both the Pentagon Papers and the NSA debacle, there's
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#35
To whom? FYI, do you really believe that the head of COINTELPRO 'leaked' anything to
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#39
Seriously--where is this treasure trove of super-secret FBI documents that Felt leaked?
msanthrope
Jan 2014
#44
They're good & pissed at Sibel Edmonds as well. She's asking some interesting....
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2014
#58
don't you make light of bebe jeebus glen like that! those are fightin woids!111! time for kickboxin!
dionysus
Jan 2014
#60
yes, as a matter of fact i do. we've concluded the people i argue on DU with are nuts.
dionysus
Jan 2014
#65