General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's All About Greenwald
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/6/29/112458/736It's All About Greenwald
by BooMan
Sat Jun 29th, 2013 at 11:24:58 AM EST
There certainly is plenty to read about Glenn Greenwald today. Learning more about his life is kind of interesting but most of it feels voyeuristic to me. I think the most important revelation is that he has admitted that he approaches journalism the same way he pursued lawsuits. His style is litigious and argumentative and intentionally one-sided. If there is a counterargument to his case, it's your job to describe it, not his.
As a partisan writer, I know that I am going to be writing things from a certain perspective and I am not necessarily interested in being fair. But there is a little voice in my head that tells me when I am writing something that is factually inaccurate or that is grossly incomplete. When that voice speaks, I obey. Greenwald doesn't. He puts that voice in a little box titled "opposing counsel."
This trait is more noticeable to me now that he's trained his sights on a Democratic administration rather than a Republican one, but it can be seen in his style from the beginning. I admire his moral consistency, but his litigious style undermines his credibility in much the same way as George Will and Charles Krauthammer's partisan style undermines their credibility. It's not quite the same, however. Will and Krauthammer will basically say anything if they think it will advance their cause. Greenwald doesn't make things up or change positions whenever it suits him. But he is intentionally unfair. He's not even remotely interested in being fair.
And that is something his readers need to know when they are evaluating his arguments. Just like a juror shouldn't take a prosecutor's word as Gospel, even people who like and admire Greenwald should read him with a skeptical eye.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)"As a partisan writer, I know that I am going to be writing things from a certain perspective and I am not necessarily interested in being fair."
babylonsister
(170,958 posts)Cha
(295,899 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)"Greenwald doesn't" is partisan conjecture.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Because I doubt Greenwald said that he deliberately presents things that are "factually inaccurate."
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)...and attacks in an unfair, one-sided way. And this @#$% is spammed here regularly and treated as gospel truth. Oy!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Been like that for a few years now.
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Your fabrications are dissolving.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)to bolster himself with fake names. That is so much like what a 10 year old would do.
He could be walking amongst us right there.
What a creepy guy.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)He also wrote thee books about the Bush Administration that were certainly not flattering, The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I used to read his columns at www.salon.com
He did a lot of backtracking when commenters popped the rhetorical boils in his pustulent commentary.
Cha
(295,899 posts)I already knew this, but unlike you.. there is nothing I admire about Greenwald.
mahalo babylonsistah!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Since from the get go, we know where he is coming from.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Because he is an advocate first and a blogger/journalist second. He didn't take up writing because he needed a job, he did so to further the causes he believes in. I would call him unfair if he purposely misled people or left out important truths, which I don't believe he does.
I think this is why Greenwald was a hero at DU in 2008 and a villain in 2009. He doesn't care about Bush or Obama, only the issues they support and what they do about them. His job isn't to balance the politics of what he wants against what he can get; his job is to push as hard as possible to support his causes in order to change the balance in his favor.
Again, I don't see that as unfair, it's something we all do here at DU. He merely has a wider audience and more attention.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I agree. As far as I can discern, Greenwald has not reported lies and falsehoods whereas Krauthammer and Will rarely do anything else.
Cheers!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And if he can't be relied upon to publish to truth, he's worse than useless. He's dangerous.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Not only has he advocated limiting the NSA's ability to search domestic data, he has advocated for marriage equality, public financing for campaigns, freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc... There are seriously too many issues to name.
As for publishing the truth, I have never known him to purposely print a falsehood or attempt to mislead his audience despite what "Booman" claims.
Perhaps Greenwald is dangerous, but so is the truth if the truth doesn't suit you. I understand not being happy with what he is publishing but I think the quality of discussion is lessened when we attempt to smear our opponents instead of debating the merits of the facts each side presents.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And that disinfectant doesn't work if people like Greenwald work to keep some places in darkness & deliberately hidden.
It's not his job to tell you everything you need to know about an issue. He'll only tell you enough to get you upset, and distort some other info with the intent of misleading you, and outright lie if it suits his cause.
Meanwhile you miss the important parts of the story. And that makes Greenwald's corporate masters very happy.
That also makes him at least as dangerous as Fox News. More so, because while Fox can pretend to be objective, they do it with a nod & a wink. They don't try very hard. Greenwald OTOH can play at being earnest & bombastic, and score points with his low information fans by insulting real journalists, then play the martyr when someone calls him out for his lack of integrity.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I've posted my belief that Greenwald does one thing and you have posted that he does another. I've read Greenwald for years and the man you're describing does not fit my understanding of him. I can only communicate with you if you can agree to stop making Greenwald a villain out to trick his audience into becoming dupes for his "corporate masters." It just isn't the truth and I can't spend the entire evening trying to convince you that something that you seem to be so sure of isn't true.
Have a great day.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Ignorance is bliss.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Like I said, we cannot communicate. Good bye.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)When the facts don't fit your prejudices.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)What was it that he said that fooled you?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Which involves believing what you're told rather than investigating & learning for yourself. The terms "brownshirt" and "hivemind" come to fore, but unlike some of your allies I'm not about to make any accusations.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)find the truth. You want to get a mob (like the brown shirts) and hunt down anyone that might dare expose the secret spying that you think your authoritarian Big Brother is using to keep "you" safe.
Brown Shirts were tools for the authoritarian state. In the USofA the Republicans and their conservative Democratic allies are the Brown Shirts for the 1% Authoritarian State.
I support transparency which is essential for Democracy. You appear to support Clapper's secret spy machine which is essential for the conservative authoritarian state.
I stand with Sen Wyden, Sen Udall, Rep Grayson, Ms. Plame, Mr. Wilson, and Pres Carter. They are not authoritarian Brown Shirts.
Seems you stand with Republicans Clapper and Mueller who promote secret spying on all Americans.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)those who disagree with him.
"Again, I don't see that as unfair, it's something we all do here at DU."
So do Rupert Murdock. the Koch Brothers, Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean all of us should consider him a credible journalist.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)K/R
KoKo
(84,711 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But it is an approach that leaves little room for discussion or compromise. (and that is not his goal)
And, let me add, it's not evil or necessarily wrong.
In fact, it's easy to justify as the topics he tackles tend to be of such great import as to justify extraordinary measures.
The trouble with it is when people don't recognize it for what it is and then try to adopt the same talking points without the same intellect to back them up.
I hope I made sense there.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)but...
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)So...thought it was interesting that you would post this.
But...still...interesting read...as long as one goes back and reads the Wayne Madsen post that got Trashed here earlier on DU.
I, for one, feel it's a good thing to try to read opposing viewpoint...if they are "on topic."
Still we gotta trade off "BooMan" for "Madsen" or "Vice Versa" ...if we are going to be fair about posts here on DU...
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not according to others.
madamesilverspurs
(15,782 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)concern about a massive spying program conducted by the government?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of WHY you think that Greenwald is an axgrinder. What "axe" would Greenwald need to grind?
I'd like to know rather than your one liner snark reply. What is your problem with Greenwald's reporting. And don't give me "Libertarian, Cato..Ron Paul and War Supporter" Bull Crap!
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)0 points.
struggle4progress
(118,032 posts)David Allen Green, at the New Statesman -- where the editor Jemima Khan had put of some of Assange's bail money -- wrote two quite informative columns Legal myths about the Assange extradition and The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange
Mr Greenwald disliked Mr Green's claims in the first column and wrote a response
The New Statesman must correct its error over Assange and extradition
... Green claimed that "<i>t would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request" ...This is completely and unquestionably false ... Mark Klamberg a professor of international law at the University of Stockholm ... dissects Sweden's extradition law and makes Green's error as clear as it can be ...
Klamberg then tweets:
@ggreenwald is only qouting half of my statement and distorts my conclusion http://gu.com/p/3ax4a/tw @davidallengreen
https://twitter.com/Klamberg/status/239028648424898560
Klamberg then followed up with a lengthy blog post:
Sequencing and the discretion of the Government in Extradition cases
The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers.
At the time I looked into this, a number of tweets and emails were available by web-search, between various persons involved in this exchange, but it was not easy to sort it all out: Greenwald IMO has a habit of selectively quoting people out of context and then aggressively denying that he misrepresented what they were saying. I've just posting here enough of what I can easily reconstruct to show that Greenwald (1) misrepresented Klamberg's views and (2) knew soon after that Klamberg complained Greenwald misrepresented Klamberg's views (see the tweet page above) -- and as far as I can tell, Greenwald never admitted anywhere that he had misrepresented Klamberg's views
Cha
(295,899 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I have always said, Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk show host, only because at the time he tried it,
there was no need for him to be a dj, and he failed at that 10 times.
Had the times been different he would have been a star dj, which is what he really wanted
He just got lucky and it mattered only to his paycheck, his viewpoint.
btw, the Bush is hated meme is a strawman, because Cheney hated Bush the last 3 years.
Therefore, it is like saying if you hate Bush one would love Cheney and that is false.
It's the old
all the news that is FIT to print (meaning not all the news, just what fits that paycheck one receives.
Dan Rather turned the lights out on being a journalist when he was canned.
Now it's all op-ed style.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
progressoid
(49,824 posts)The Link
(757 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The real secret of journalism and news is that there's no such thing as objectivity. Everyone's biased. Greenwald makes his plain, and leaves it to his opponents to make the case for the other side. I like that.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It is much more honest for people to make their biases known than it is to try to hide them, never trust a person who claims to be objective because there is no such thing as an objective person. Those who claim to be objective are either unable to recognize their own biases or they are liars.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Thanks for posting.
Sid
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I look at the documents he and others have exposed.
There has been little pushback about their authenticity when published as is without editing except for redacting names by some.
Many people including the administration are spending their time attacking his work, his character, and debating whether he is a hero or a not. Snowden is experiencing the same thing.
There are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES
1-Greenwald's motives, character, analysis, opinions, hero or not debate and other items are one set of arguments.
2-The analysis of the documents, the law that allows these programs, and other points are a separate debate.
The issue of whether you don't like the messenger or the mailman is not germane. It is a red herring to distract the focus from where it should be. It should be focused on the content of the documents.
bigtree
(85,915 posts). . . there's some license to do that for an opinion journalist.