I have only found 1 positive thing that Greenwald has said about Obama, and even that was kind of a

[still_one]

Backward compliment


"The president deserves credit for his actions in this civil rights area, regardless of his motives"

This was in response to the President supporting gay marriage.

Has there been anything else that anyone is aware of that Glenn Greenwald has been even mildly favorable toward that the Obama administration has done in his eyes?

Thanks

[MuseRider]

1. Was he supposed to say

nice things about Obama?

Does this mean we should never listen to him ever again?

I was not aware that journalists had to like or say nice things about our elected officials?

[still_one]

4. Did I say that? All I asked is I could only find ONE favorable article in ALL.of his writing that

WAS NOT critical of Obama

Also, he is more than a journalist, he invokes his personal opinions in his writings

[Luminous Animal]

24. Did you even read the article? Greenwald is stating that motives are irrelevant when someone does

the right things.

I noticed that you failed to provide a link: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

Jesus Christ, it is a response to many people who were trying to minimize Obama's stance by saying that he had motives beyond civil rights.

What do you think this paragraph means?

When it comes to assessing a politician, what matters, at least to me, are actions, not motives. If they do the wrong thing, they should be criticized regardless of motive; conversely, if they do the right thing, they should be credited. I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re prompted by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction. That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

[still_one]

54. Yes I read the article, and I did not post the link cause I am on a mobile device.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Greenwald is a journalist...

It's not his job to write nice things about the President. His job is to report the news.

[still_one]

6. Bullshit, he does not just report on stories, he puts his personal views In his writings. That is

More than a journalist, that is giving an editorial comment also

[Cooley Hurd]

10. No, he doesn't

I've been reading GG FOR 12 years and his journalistic standards are rock solid. Sorry, but very true.

BTW... He was on Chris Hayes last night. He was on Lawrence O'Donnell the night before. Are they also considered untrustworthy?

[still_one]

12. I disagree he comments in his writings. Even in the post I found, that was a favorable comment

[avaistheone1]

3. Why is that of any importance?

[still_one]

8. Then don't respond if you don't like the thread

[frylock]

49. silence is consent..

you're not going to sneak this fucking shit past people.

[still_one]

50. What "shit" are you talking about, oh wait, I have a personal agenda. I am opening a topic for

Discussion period, nothing else

How does one distinguish between reporting the new without injecting personal feelings?

This is a forum where each person can bring up personal views, like "sneaking this shit past people"

Gosh I am so cleaver, but I sure didn't pull the wool over your eyes, or whatever I was supposed to be doing

As far as your first statement, silence is consent, I agree with that, except the post I was responding to, had NOTHING to do with my inquiry. The poster wanted to know why my post was important. How dare I bring something up for discussion that isn't important to everyone. If we don't have group think on certain things, it appears some people get upset, though I do not think the person I was responding was upset.

[Enrique]

5. "Obama's political courage should not be minimized"

the thing about Greenwald's praise, is that it's thoughtful. He doesn't post romantic pictures of Obama, he says what he thinks about Obama's policies, consistent with Greenwald's own thinking, right or wrong.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/17-7

Numerous commentators are objecting to the idea that Barack Obama deserves credit for his release of the OLC torture memos yesterday in light of his accompanying pledge that CIA officials relying in good faith on those memos won't be prosecuted. Chris Floyd is one who articulates that objection quite well and, as is always true for Chris, his criticisms are well worth reading. Many others -- including Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, John Dean and Bruce Fein -- yesterday lambasted Obama for his anti-prosecution stance. Since I gave substantial credit to Obama yesterday for the release of the memos and believe even more so today that he deserves it (despite finding the anti-prosecution case as corrupted and morally bankrupt as ever), I want to return to the issue of Obama's actions.

(...)

Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class.

[still_one]

7. Thank-you, that is what I was asking

[arely staircase]

9. "regardless of his motives"

bless his little ol' heart

[Luminous Animal]

25. Read the damn article. The OP is skewing the meaning of the article.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

If you noticed, there is no link thus no way to make up our own minds what was being said. The OP presumes to think for us.

[arely staircase]

27. I am familiar with Greenwald as well as his anti-Obama agenda and sloppy journalism.

nt

[Luminous Animal]

29. Still haven't read the article.

When it comes to assessing a politician, what matters, at least to me, are actions, not motives. If they do the wrong thing, they should be criticized regardless of motive; conversely, if they do the right thing, they should be credited. I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re prompted by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction. That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

[arely staircase]

30. the context

cnfirms the OP and my comment.

thanks for posting

[Luminous Animal]

37. No it doesn't. He is addressing those who were trying to minimize Obama's stance by saying

that motives don't matter.

There were quite a few people who were claiming that Obama only came around because the wanted they LGBTQ community support and money. Greenwald said in the article that he has no clue if there is a "secret" reason, and if there was that it wouldn't matter, because he is doing the right thing.

[arely staircase]

52. very few people I know felt he was doing it any other reason than it was the right thing to do

"addressing" a virtually non-existent criticism was greenwald's too clever by half way of leveling that criticism.

[Progressive dog]

55. Grenwald makes the point of the OP in the article you linked to

" I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re prompted by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction."

That's not Greenwald's opinion, he's just reporting on Obama's horrible acts. Sure he is.

[Autumn]

11. Maybe he doesn't like Obama.

Maybe he thinks Obama has focused on the wrong things, maybe he doesn't like his appointments. Some people just don't like him. It's not required that he like Obama.

[still_one]

13. I am not referring about his like or dislike of Obama, though the other parts of your post make

Sense

What I am trying to understand is his objectivity regardless of his personal views, and even though most will think I am referring about the NSA and Snowden, I actually want to not include that here.

When I saw him on Bill Maher a few weeks ago, he expressed not one positive thing about what the Obama administration had done.

Now I recognize reporters/journalist all have their own bias, but how much does that affect their reporting?

[Autumn]

31. I think a good reporter should keep their personal bias, for or against a President

out of their reporting. If as you say he praised Obama on only one thing maybe he approved of that and said so. But I do think perhaps he has known about ( NSA) this for a while and he personally is strongly against it and sees no reason to express positive things about what the Obama administration had done, or maybe it's personal and nothing the administration has done affects him. I haven't got a clue.

[treestar]

22. but then that shouldn't affect objectivity of a journalist

[Autumn]

26. No it shouldn't. But I haven't seen a link where he talks bad about Obama

personally. So I guess thats objective.

[still_one]

39. That should be true of any journalist. Problem is the way news is done now it is hard to tell when

News is reported, and editorial opinion is being expressed

[enough]

14. I find it useful to remember his relentless, scathing, unremitting

reporting and essays criticizing Bush and his administration from beginning to end. He was one of the most outspoken, clear-headed and forceful critics of Bush and Company. To my mind, this gives him credibility, even when I find his criticism painful now.

[still_one]

15. So from your observation he is quite even-handed it sounds like. That is fair

[Autumn]

33. That's what I remember, and I took a lot of comfort from it.

Bush fucking sucked

[LWolf]

16. He probably would have said more positive things

if Obama DID more positive things.

Some people watch Obama breathlessly, fiercely latching on to anything that can be given a positive spin.

Some people watch Obama breathlessly, fiercely latching on to anything that can be given a negative spin.

And that's what it is. Spin. With an agenda.

Personally, I find very little that Obama has done to be positive. That's because I have a different definition of what constitutes "positive" than many do. I have a different agenda than he does, and he regularly works against the issues I care about.

Also, to be honest, it's personal. I'm a teacher, and his policies with respect to my profession are despicable, to say the least.

I will be the very first whistling, stamping, clapping, cheering, and throwing my support his way when he:

1. Gets rid of RTTT, TIF, and every other policy destructive to public education and beneficial to privatizers; start by banning high-stakes testing.

2. Gets our military out of everyone else's business and focuses our resources domestically.

3. Fights repeatedly, without giving up, for a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health CARE system.

4. Fights repeatedly, without giving up, to protect and extend Social Security.

5. Pitches Monsanto's people out of his administration.

6. Fights to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety.

I could go on, but these would be a great start. I won't be holding my breath, though.

[still_one]

40. but you are not a journalist, you can and should say what you feel

[LWolf]

58. Greenwald writes a column on civil liberties.

He's a columnist. Columns include commentary and opinion. It's not a straight news format.

[still_one]

63. ok, that is not the same as a reporter.

[1-Old-Man]

17. The purpose of the Press is to criticize. Only Obama's Press Secretary is obliged to praise him

It is what we expect of the press. I think far too many people have got too used to a flattering press, on either side of any issue. Its not what they are for. It is the job of the Press Secretary to make the President look as good as possible, but all those other guys and gals in the room are paid to pry and to pressure, and certainly to criticize. Greenwald, like him or not, is certainly one of the Press and so what he is doing is quite pointedly his job.

[Zen Democrat]

21. That is NOT the purpose of the press. Their purpose is to report the facts.

Commentary is for editorialists and pundits. Reporters should be neither. I think there's a few too many accusations of "romanticizing Obama" from a dedicated sector that are swooning and "romanticizing Greenwald." Take the emotion out of it and look at what we know for a fact so far. I'm sure much more is yet to come. And I don't think facts would be forthcoming at all if we had any president other than Barack Obama. And I'm including the Paul freakshow too.

But if you're a reporter and believe it is your duty to criticize the president, you need to check yourself.

[still_one]

42. How do you know when it is reporting news verses an editorial comment?

[MrScorpio]

18. Greewald sees his role as being critical against President Obama... To him, that's being "unbiased"

If he writes positive stories about the President, that could be construed as stenography... And he can't have that, because THAT would be considered bias in the President's favor. So, it's better if Greenwald simply ignores anything positive and just focus on what he considers is negative about the President.

The opposite of which, of course, would damage his credibility... With people who can't stand President Obama for one reason or the other, or who would continue to blame him for things that they're concerned about.

You see, Glenn Greenwald has an image to maintain. So, don't expect him to damage that image by saying nice things about President Obama, even if they're true.

[One of the 99]

28. As journalist, isn't his job to report the truth

regardless of whom it is favorable or unfavorable to?

[MrScorpio]

36. The question asked by the OP was why hasn't he written positive articles about the President

Are you alleging that the truth is that there's nothing positive that the President has done for Greenwald to write about at all?

Because, if Greenwald is really dedicated to the truth, then certainly he could have mustered something better than a backhanded compliment after all of this time, right?

Unless, of course, it's his AGENDA to ignore anything positive that the President has done.

Hey, whatever pays the bills.

To me, Greenwald's unpaid defenders on a subject like this say more about themselves than they do about Greenwald.

At least he's making a living out of it.

[One of the 99]

60. Which was my point.

He should write the truth whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the President.

[Enrique]

32. false

Greenwald thinks no such thing

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/17-7

Numerous commentators are objecting to the idea that Barack Obama deserves credit for his release of the OLC torture memos yesterday in light of his accompanying pledge that CIA officials relying in good faith on those memos won't be prosecuted. Chris Floyd is one who articulates that objection quite well and, as is always true for Chris, his criticisms are well worth reading. Many others -- including Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, John Dean and Bruce Fein -- yesterday lambasted Obama for his anti-prosecution stance. Since I gave substantial credit to Obama yesterday for the release of the memos and believe even more so today that he deserves it (despite finding the anti-prosecution case as corrupted and morally bankrupt as ever), I want to return to the issue of Obama's actions.

(...)

Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class.

[MrScorpio]

38. Wow, one nice thing. Great find.

I guess that you can that balance.

Fifty one negative stories against the Prez versus one nice one way back in 2009.

That's fair.

[Enrique]

43. "Obama's pick of Sotomayor deserves praise"

http://www.salon.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor/singleton

"Obama’s choice of Sotomayor deserves praise"

(...)

But based on everything that is known now, this seems to be a superb pick for Obama.

(...)

It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous (right-wing) smear campaign.

(...)

Obama has also ignored the deeply dishonest right-wing attacks on Sotomayor,

(...)

Obama deserves substantial credit for this choice. There were choices available to him that would have been safer among the Respectable Intellectual Center (Diane Wood) and among the Right (Elena Kagan). At his best, Obama ignores and is even willing to act contrary to the standard establishment Washington voices and mentality that have corrupted our political culture for so long. His choice of Sotomayor is a prime example of his doing exactly that, and for that reason alone, ought to be commended.

[MrScorpio]

44. So, that's at least a twofer for 2009...

High praise indeed.

Must have been Greenwald's honeymoon phase with Obama.

I guess that the honeymoon's over.

[Enrique]

45. what you said wasn't true

that was my point.

[MrScorpio]

48. Oh, well... Mea culpa then

At least in regards to 2009.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. So? I don't recall Obama hiring him as his press agent.

[DesMoinesDem]

20. I think he said Obama has never done anything wrong in his life.

That's quite a complement. Oh, wait. That was Chris Matthews. Well I guess not everyone can be as good as Chris Matthews.

[HangOnKids]

23. Well Shit It Appears Greenwald Just Isn't That Into Obama

Make sure you pass the note around in home room.

[Autumn]

34. ROTFLMAO

there it is

[MNBrewer]

35. So, Greenwald isn't a BOG creature...

Neither am I.

[QC]

41. Glenn Greenwald never really loved him!!

[still_one]

53. But can he fairly report in spite of that?

[frylock]

46. is there a fealty quota that we're supposed to adhere to?

[still_one]

56. Of course not

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. You might have an issue comprehending this

but good reporters are not cheer leaders of ANY in office.

I know, the piece I am working on will place a big target (LOL) on my back. I can see it, I never loved Obama either...

The job of a reporter is to make those in power uncomfortable...

Oh and I will be nice. All this crap did NOT start with Obama.. and will not end with his successor or his successor successor. It will only end, maybe, when the Empire dies.

[still_one]

51. Fair enough. Should the job of a reporter also not let their personal bias become part of the

reporting, and lets not include any specific issue in this, just generally speaking, can a reporter distance his bias from the reporting?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. To the shock of a local member of the board of supervisors

we do regularly.

She knows the day she does something improper we will say so, but we report.

Now seriously, this article will place a huge target on my back, but historic retrospectives tend to.

For the record, I mention three democrats and one republican president in it...

[still_one]

64. Well then you are able to separate the two. That is good

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Insofar as this story goes

So has Greenwald and the Guardian team that helped him.

Suffice it to say, this is a big fucking deal, and it did not start with Obama...nor Little boots. It started with Truman

[Demit]

59. Why on earth are people in this thread calling Greenwald a reporter?

Does anyone understand the difference between reportage and analysis? Reporters and commentators are both part of journalism, so they are both called journalists, but they do different things. Greenwald doesn't function as a reporter; he functions as a columnist or essayist. A reporter strives to keep a point of view out of his writing; a columnist wouldn't be worth reading without one.

[One of the 99]

61. You're right. He is not a reporter.

Reporters report the facts without bias. Greenwald is no more a reporter than Andrew Brietbart was.

[struggle4progress]

62. Here's a typical Greenwald quote: "What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt

complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good"

That is Greenwald on Obama in the late spring of 2008, not long after Obama secured the nomination, attacking Obama for supporting the FISA Amendments Act

Now I myself happen to think the FISA Amendments Act is shitty law, but it's probably the best we could do at the time: it passed the House 293-129 and the Senate 69-28, which suggests some consensus on the Hill

And since hundreds of Representatives and Senators voted for it, I can't see why Obama deserved special censure from Greenwald for his vote

But, of course, the campaign season was beginning in earnest, and Greenwald's agenda for years has been to try to strip progressives from the Democrats in hopes of upping the libertarian vote

The general language Greenwald has used to attack Obama has followed the same (now well-worn) rut ever since