Greenwald: Approve or Disapprove?

[JackRiddler]

Last edited Wed Oct 2, 2013, 12:00 PM - Edit history (4)

As a whole and on balance, have the works of Glenn Greenwald in the last few years been...

ON EDIT: Added "Not of great impact" as an option. (At that point there were 40 votes: 27 "Good" for both, 12 "Bad" for both, 1 pass.)

43 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Good for the world and Americans?
	32 (74%)
	Bad for the world and Americans?
	9 (21%)
	Good for the world but not for Americans?
	0 (0%)
	Good for Americans but not for the world?
	0 (0%)
	Not of great impact
	2 (5%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[1-Old-Man]

1. Exposure

[bananas]

44. Valerie Plame: What are your thoughts on the leaks of Edward Snowden?

SFR: What are your thoughts on the leaks of Edward Snowden?

VP: For too long, the media was much too focused on Edward Snowden because he was sort of the shiny object that they were chasing after. The issue is much more profound and broader and deeper. It’s the issue of security versus privacy. When you talk to the person on the street, they kind of shrug, because we have been inured to our privacy being sort of dissolved before our eyes. Well, they’re missing the point. The problem becomes that when the government amasses this huge amount of metadata—and we’re just beginning to understand from Snowden what it entails—that power of information is astounding. And it only takes a couple overzealous prosecutors. It really goes against the 4th Amendment and what we Americans like to think of as our open and accountable government that we hope for, strive for. I think it’s bad news, it’s really bad news.

http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-7733-our-spy.html

edit to add NPR interview:

On the recent NSA leaks, and being surprised and outraged by what they revealed

I find it absolutely astounding. The revelations about the extent and the breadth of the NSA is nothing short of breathtaking. This goes to the very essence of the Fourth Amendment and, broader, what we want as a democracy and that very perilous tension and dynamic between security and privacy. And we really do need to have a national dialogue on this, on how much we are willing to give up to be kept safe.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/28/226529040/i-spy-valerie-plame-makes-her-fiction-debut-in-cia-thriller

[Octafish]

53. ''...that power of information is astounding...''

And to think there are Democrats who are OK with shutting down awareness of what the government does in secret. Take Cass Sunstein:

Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" Is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished

Washingtons Blog, Oct. 7, 2010

EXCERPT...

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, (Sunstein) argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

SOURCE w links n details: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/main-obama-adviser-blocking-prosecution.html?m=1

PS: Thanks for the heads-up on Ms. Plame's interviews, bananas-san. Very interesting stuff that ALL should know, including Bhoot is a low heel that rhymes with Cheney.

[adirondacker]

71. Makes you wonder how many supported Robert Novak. Hmmmmm.

Thanks for the info Bananas.

[JackRiddler]

80. Here's one of his many finest moments, BBC

[adirondacker]

113. WOW! That was an excellent watch.

I hadn't realized the British control of their press was that bad. The Baroness was frightening.
Truly informative, Thanks for posting.

[msanthrope]

2. I'm going to reserve judgment until I read Glenn's excoriation of the Right for the shutdown.....

The teabaggers and Paulites better watch out!!! Glenn's gonna do a series of articles that will be mind blowing and relevatory, right??

[joshcryer]

4. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

10. LOL. Good luck with that.

Methinks you'll be waiting a very long time.

[2banon]

33. Why should he? teabaggers not his beat..n/t

[JackRiddler]

46. To give a loyalty oath to Democrats.

Only then can one speak, and only to put out the party line. Otherwise, whatever they're saying is wrong and they're only saying it because they hate the president and want to get rich.

[BlueCaliDem]

82. + 1000.

Should we hold our breath?

On second thought . . . .nah.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, JackRiddler.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Without question, his works and words have been good for this nation.

And he's still covering the most important story of the year.

[QC]

6. He's a big old meaniebutt!!!

[JackRiddler]

7. Hooray! More votes!

[leftstreet]

8. Can you list some examples? Is he an artist or something?

[randome]

9. He does impersonations.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

48. Yes, he impersonates real journalists. It's hard to absorb since we don't have too many

of them in our Corporate Controlled media. But if you look back on the history of journalism you will understand what he is doing. An old, lost art and a real threat to those who have something to hide. As we saw in the contract about to be taken out to 'silence him'. I hope that wasn't tax payer money. I'm not for silencing anyone, I would much rather prove them wrong.

Which is usually not all that difficult.

[JackRiddler]

11. Simple enough poll...

No push or pull to it. However, assumes you know at least roughly what he's been doing. That much is true. I doubt you don't.

[bigwillq]

12. Good (nt)

[BainsBane]

13. Are we voting for prom king?

That's what it looks like. It certainly isn't a discussion of NSA surveillance.

[JackRiddler]

14. You, maybe.

Me, I'm trying to see what the opinion of the majority of DUers is on this much-discussed and controversial personage.

On NSA, feel free to vote here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023745530

[BainsBane]

18. This exemplifies perfectly

why so much of what is discussed on some of these issues amounts to nothing. I could respect Greenwald and approve of NSA spying or disrespect him and disapprove of NSA spying. He isn't even the only journalist to publish about it. These fights over individuals become proxies for issues, until eventually they become about nothing but fights between DUers. I find it annoying and fail to see how any of it matters in the least.

My take on Greenwald: He as a person is irrelevant to the larger issue. Since there is no option above for that, I am conveying it here.

[JackRiddler]

28. As you wish...

"As a whole and on balance." If it ain't giving you enough options, don't vote. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

49. Think of it as a discussion of journalism then.

[xiamiam]

15. I listened to all of his lectures or book tours before the snowden story broke. Introduced here

at DU. I read him when he was on Salon if I could read It for free. I was disillusioned and disappointed and found hope in the way he boiled down our rights, the constitution, whistleblowers, nsa etc. He has a very logical way of dissecting things and then explaining.. and he is principled. He was the perfect person to break the nsa story imo because of those very reasons, knowledgeable and prepared and principled. I wish we had more journalists like Greenwald and Scahill. I have great respect for both of them.

[Cerridwen]

16. Neither. None. Which question are you asking?

Your subject line refers to the man. The next sentence refers to his work. The poll refers to the impact of his work with subjective words such as "good" and "bad" and how it impacted "America."

To which question would you like posters to reply? Or are you counting on no one noticing the inconsistencies in your OP? This way, all you'll get is a bunch of replies and votes based on personal bias and/or which part of your OP the reader read.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt

[JackRiddler]

17. Fact:

There is no rendering of this question on a DU poll that would ever meet with your approval, because it's already clear that the majority on DU approve of Greenwald, and you do not.

I have offered entirely fair options, but it's true the result is predetermined.

There are those who so hate Greenwald, as a person and even more as a political force, that they have created an entirely false impression of DUers' attitudes toward him and his works.

This is an approve/disapprove poll in the same sense as when polls ask whether people approve (or disapprove) of other persons or institutions, i.e., the relevant criterion is the effect of his works and actions in the world.

[Cerridwen]

19. Fact #1: Not one person, you, I, or another DUer

knows the impact Glenn Greenwald or his writing has had on "America" in the last few years. We can only speak to how his writing may or may not have influenced our thinking or the thoughts of those around us.

Fact #2: You will not find me discussing Glenn Greenwald on this board; pro, con, or otherwise. I invite you to search my posts. I've been here around 10 years so it shouldn't take too long. You may find a couple of posts in which I note that people are discussing the man rather than what he writes. I abhor those who would "shoot the messenger" rather than discuss the topic at hand.

The options you offered may have been "fair" in your mind; they were, however, inconsistent in their use. "Fair" is another one of those subjective words.

Here is how it might have met my "approval" (I note you immediately consider me anti-Greenwald because I pointed out your inconsistencies. Another case of confusing the person with the message, i.e. attacking that with whom you think you disagree rather than discussing what I wrote.):

1. Do his articles included well cited facts?
2. If something he has written proves false or improvable, does he correct the false and remove the improvable?
3. Do his articles present logical, valid, arguments meant to bring information to light?
4. Does his work show he attempts, in good faith, to deal honestly and completely with the facts surrounding the issue?

Those 4 questions are just the start of what would have met my "approval."

[Uncle Joe]

21. Not on an individual basis but as a group we come closer to knowing.

Fact #1: Not one person, you, I, or another DUer

knows the impact Glenn Greenwald or his writing has had on "America" in the last few years. We can only speak to how his writing may or may not have influenced our thinking or the thoughts of those around us.

All our perceptions of having our thinking influenced or the thoughts of those around us gain accuracy with the increased size of the group participating in the poll.

There is no truth. There is only perception.

Gustave Flaubert


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/gustavefla161911.html#8tb0I3cHhHRq80C8.99

[Cerridwen]

22. The poster referred to "America."

I stayed with that point.

I mentioned fact(s), not truth(s). They are not the same.

Being "influenced" by something is not the same as "truth." One's perception may have nothing to do with fact or truth.

You are conflating the two, or three or four. Fact, influence, truth, perceptions.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Would America and the world for that matter be debating FISA's mass collection of metadata

via the Internet and Phone records to the point that it is, if not for Greenwald's work?

[Cerridwen]

25. You and the OP seem to be of the opinion,

the unexamined and uninformed opinion, that I am anti-Greenwald. You have each attempted to defend what you think is my opinion of Greenwald against an attack against Greenwald I never made.

Why is that?

I pointed out some inconsistencies within the OP. I said nothing of Greenwald's work or of Greenwald. Yet you've both, apparently, decided that because I questioned the lack of consistencies in the OP that it means I am anti-Greenwald.

Or...perhaps you are both attempting to change the subject, move the goal posts, or perhaps, attempting to discredit the messenger rather than the message, i.e., "kill the messenger."

Why is that?

Please point out where I attempted to discredit Greenwald's work; in this thread or in my past posting.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I never said you were anti-Greenwald, I simply asked your opinion as to whether you believe

Greenwald's latest work, that being his reporting on exposing FISA's policies had an impact on society; America and the World.

Now if you believe it has, whether you approve of his work or not, that's societal impact or influence and would most certainly be a "fact" in determining or using our group perception to gauge whether pro or con America and/or the world has changed as a result.

[Cerridwen]

27. No. You did not "simply ask" my opinion.

Nice try at rephrasing.

You implied some very questionable thing. I'll overlook it for now.

Since you asked, whether honestly or with a hidden agenda, I will reply.

I don't know nor care whether it was Glenn Greenwald or Edward Snowden or any part of Wikileaks or the Occupy movement that got the greater populace of the US to finally remember to question various factions of the government and the "media" that reports it. I'm just happy something(s) finally did.

I was fortunate and privileged (unearned, mostly) to grow up during a time in which "government" reports were not taken unquestioningly. "Question Everything"

I was also fortunate and privileged (earned, mostly) to work with other political activists who had been on various government agencies' "lists" of people to watch and so learned that there are factions in our government who would "destroy Democracy to save Democracy."

I have no opinion of Greenwald, Snowden, or Wikileaks. I don't care about Assange so much as I care about the information his organization made public. I wish Occupy would look beyond the numbers and look at the "love of money."

I expect you to understand 1/10th of what I just typed.

It is the world as it exists today.

[Uncle Joe]

45. No, I didn't, I asked a simple straightforward question and I never implied anything in either of my

three previous posts to you.

Would America and the world for that matter be debating FISA's mass collection of metadata

via the Internet and Phone records to the point that it is, if not for Greenwald's work?

There is no implication in this other than asking for your opinion on the subject.

Personally I do believe Greenwald's work has made a significant impact on raising the awareness of the FISA issue, but I never cast aspersions against your motives whether explicit or implicit, nor have I insulted you.

I don't expect everyone here at D.U. to totally agree on any subject, I was just rebutting the points you made, to which on my first post I shaded and bolded the specific point that I was addressing and nothing beyond that.

I'm happy that you're aware, that there are those who would "destroy democracy to save democracy" on that we're in agreement.

[JackRiddler]

30. What you say is a general criticism of "approval" polls.

None of those ask if, e.g., Congress or the president cite facts properly, present logical arguments, or the other stuff you mention, which is material for an essay, not a poll. And yet these polls are done and cited here (presidential approval polls especially).

[Cerridwen]

32. No it wasn't. I specifically noted this OP.

That whole "they do it too" is BS here and elsewhere.

I.don't.care.

I expect more.

I don't care for an appeal to mediocrity and "they do it too."

I expect more.

This is a democratic/Democratic board.

I expect more.

Will I get it? Not bloody likely when we can point and say "they do it too."

[JackRiddler]

39. What do you expect?

A history book? An encyclopedia entry? Worthy projects: write them!

Your concerns would be relevant if this thread purported to be either of the above. Of course it isn't.

This is a poll of DUers on their overall opinion of a certain Greenwald, controversial figure who has been extensively discussed for years around here.

It's perfectly alright to think such an exercise is stupid of course. But then this would apply equally to all "approve/disapprove" or "like/dislike" polls.

No suggestion is made above that the results will make Greenwald right or wrong, or are meant to reveal any grand truth. They will only possibly be an accurate picture of what DUers currently think of Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

50. I can answer your questions, which are similar to questions I ask myself

Regarding Greenwald, I have answered 'yes' to all those questions.

1) Anyone who reads him even sporadically would have to say 'yes' to that.

2) His blog posts are filled with corrections, whenever someone points out any errors he may have made.

3) Throughout the Bush years most Democrats would have agreed that 'yes, his presentations of the issues, which mostly centered and still do, around Civil Liberties, were logical, intelligent and for the most part accurate. A few Dems appear to have changed their opinions since then.

4) 'Yes' again to this question.

[struggle4progress]

20. Greenwald has an agenda: it is to split voters away from the major parties and get them to vote

libertarian. With that aim, he constantly misrepresents and distorts facts -- and when he is caught, he simply blusters and never retracts. Greenwald was an early adapter of the crackpot theory that the Swedish allegations against Assange were part of an Obama plot to forward-extradite Assange to the US. He pushed a crackpot interpretation of the NDAA sections discussing indefinite detention as evidence Obama had a plan to indefinitely detain US citizens. He has advanced a crackpot view of the charges against bizarre wannabe Barrett Brown, as proving an Obama administration was conducting some unprecedented attack on journalism. And in preparation for the Snowden affair, Greenwald was pushing the crackpot idea that the NSA was recording all US phone conversations

Greenwald is obviously a bright man with rhetorical talent. But his habitual dishonesty undermines the value of much of what he says

[JackRiddler]

31. I always enjoy your remote viewing talents.

Amazing how you're INSIDE everyone's brain and know their hidden intentions even when their actions show something different.

[struggle4progress]

51. Greenwald is on tape pushing exactly this libertarian organizing tactic in November 2010

so no mind-reading is necessary

[Bluenorthwest]

84. Since you make an unsupported assertion readers would have to read your mind to know

if you are speaking the truth. I have no reason to trust your words and you offer nothing but your own wailing words of contempt even on the internet where it is so easy to link to these 'tapes' you claim saying stuff you claim to have heard but somehow just can't cite, share, link to or prove.
Anyone who offers up unsupported allegations and characterizations is up to some agenda, those who claim there are 'quotes on tape' which would damn their opponent but somehow can't deliver those quotes or the tape seem even more questionable.

[struggle4progress]

95. I've posted links on that dozens of times in recent years. Here are a couple of examples

Ron Paul, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and the Libertarians’ Electoral Strategy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125179195

54. It's Greenwald's basic strategy: he beats notes on this drum constantly, regardless of facts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023354591#post54

[Vanje]

93. I would be interested in hearing this tape, or reading its transcript.

I bet I'm not the only one here who would be eager to click on a link to that tape of Greenwald .

[grantcart]

23. Neither: GG is a distraction. He is, in effect, the publisher and if he didn't publish

there would be a hundred others who would have been happy to put their name on it and get a byline.

Because he has his own personal agenda I wouldn't take personal legal advice from him because he is more interested in advancing that agenda than providing legal counsel. No way of knowing but if GG was trying to offer legal opinions to Snowden at the same time he was trying to publish his material then that would have been a terrible conflict of interest, something Snowden may just be realizing now.

[JackRiddler]

29. Really? Hundreds would have done it?

I call bull!

The problem is that corporate journalism is wed to the state and most non-corporate journalists are shut out from much of an audience. There aren't many like Greenwald who would have been willing to do what he did, or would have had the figurative balls and willingness to take the kind of irrational abuse you also show. ("Personal agenda," etc., as if there's anyone without one, or as if anyone could have brought out the Snowden revelations without being accused of this straight from the usual talking points deployed against deviant journalists.)

[grantcart]

34. lol that's pretty funny. You do realize that GG wasn't the 1st contact and he had already leaked

material that was widely distributed long before he "came out" publicly with GG. Greenwald did not "break" the story, only the identity.

Before that Snowden had already contacted Laura Poitras and Barton Gellman and was the main source of a series of WP stories.

NPR did a detailed story about the sequence of the original meetings:

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/11/221359323/reporter-had-to-decide-if-snowden-leaks-were-the-real-thing

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/11/221359323/reporter-had-to-decide-if-snowden-leaks-were-the-real-thing

Since the beginning of June, Barton Gellman has been reporting on classified intelligence documents given to him by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. As a result of the Snowden leaks, Gellman and reporter Laura Poitras broke the story of the PRISM program, which mines data from nine U.S. Internet companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Facebook.

Gellman, who has been writing for The Washington Post, also found that the NSA has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress expanded the agency's powers in 2008. He revealed that the U.S. has conducted cyber-operations against computer networks in foreign countries — including Iran, Russia, China and North Korea — and reported on the "black budget" used to fund secret programs in America's 16 spy agencies.

"[Snowden] gave these documents, ultimately, to only three journalists. What he said he wanted was for us to use our own judgment and to make sure that his bias was kept out of it so that we could make our own judgment about what was newsworthy and important for the public to know. And he said we should also consider how to avoid harm.

So the facts are that Snowden picked three journalists and developed a repoire with them. Only after that when he made a strategic decision to go "full Monty did he publish via GG.

So yeah "hundreds". Not only are there dozens of qualified American journalists that would have loved to win a Pulitzer (which they will win) there are Australian, Canadian, British and so on.

When GG "published' the full monty he had no problems getting the Guardian to do so.

Your stream of consciousness paranoia about the corporate media notwithstanding there is no evidence that any major outlet wouldn't have loved to have gotten this story. They would have little legal concern as well. While it is against the law to take classified material there is no law against publishing it. The government would have had to try and get an injunction before publication to stop it, something that has only been tried with the Pentagon Papers and failed. As long as the Publisher wasn't involved in actually conspiring to take the material they are on solid first Amendment grounds.

[JackRiddler]

35. Laura Poitras was working with Greenwald.

The poll also refers to Greenwald's recent body of work, over several years.

And your trust in the corporate media is touching.

[grantcart]

36. That's not true and you obviously didn't read the NPR article

It explains how Snowden took an interest in Poitras and how he contacted her anonymously. She then asked Gellman to help vet this tipster (they explain that they get dozens a week) and he had Snowden answer a series of questions. Gellman states that he knew immediately that Snowden was not exaggerating his position and eventually a relationship was built up.

Poitras passed Snowden to Gellman and Greenwald was not involved at this point at all, if he was then there would have been no need to go through the trust building exercise.

Everyone has been rather up front about exactly the steps involved but you are certainly free to make it up as you go.

I trust that the corporate media people are interested in making money, that includes our guys as well as theirs. Everyone gets sentimental about Ed Schultz but I see a guy who has a basic one dimensional show that he has leveraged into a net worth of about $ 15 million. People get misty eyed about Keith Olbermann apparently unaware that he's worth close to $ 40 million and has gone back to those evil guys at ESPN to work. Michael Moore has built up a net worth of more than $ 60 million doing high quality political propaganda.

I don't fault any of those guys making big money, but I don't believe that there are poor folk heroes like GG fighting monopolistic media empires who are trying to control their message. All of them are in it to make money and I want our guys to make more money than the others, that will encourage more to try and do the same. I hope that Limbaugh goes broke and Maddow makes $ 40 million a year.

You are factually wrong about the sequence with Greenwald he didn't "break" the NSA stories and my initial assertion that there are hundreds that would love to have been the guy stands. That is why Greenwald isn't that important to the story but a diversion. Your paranoid screed a tight monopoly control that would keep this information deeply hidden is significantly undermined by the fact that there are many on our side who are going to the bank with yearly 8 figure contracts. If Murdoch figured that he could make more money pitching an MSNBC line up he would do it in a minute, all he cares about is what he takes home and puts in his bank account.

[JackRiddler]

38. Your assumptions are endless.

The poll doesn't say Greenwald singlehandedly broke the stories, though obviously he was part of it. The poll asks what one thinks of Greenwald's works on the whole. And "Poitras worked with Greenwald" is a correct sentence. It's interesting how much effort goes into making up in this case obtuse reasons to dislike him. I'm impressed!

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Yuck.

It is, in my opinion very rude to call the other poster's work a 'paranoid screed'. Characterizations and 'GG' dropping. Yuck.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. No, I wonder if *you* read the article properly

Point one: that article doesn't mention Greenwald by name (though it's only 'highlights' of the audio; but he's not in the transcript either). But he is clearly the the third journalist. Gellman does not, despite what you think, say that the third journalist was brought in after Poitras and Gellman.

Point two: Snowden contacted Greenwald before Poitras - but because Greenwald didn't show enough interest, he turned to Poitras instead (who knew Greenwald). From the NYT article about Poitras:

Poitras was not Snowden’s first choice as the person to whom he wanted to leak thousands of N.S.A. documents. In fact, a month before contacting her, he reached out to Greenwald, who had written extensively and critically about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the erosion of civil liberties in the wake of 9/11. Snowden anonymously sent him an e-mail saying he had documents he wanted to share, and followed that up with a step-by-step guide on how to encrypt communications, which Greenwald ignored. Snowden then sent a link to an encryption video, also to no avail.

“It’s really annoying and complicated, the encryption software,” Greenwald said as we sat on his porch during a tropical drizzle. “He kept harassing me, but at some point he just got frustrated, so he went to Laura.”

Snowden had read Greenwald’s article about Poitras’s troubles at U.S. airports and knew she was making a film about the government’s surveillance programs; he had also seen a short documentary about the N.S.A. that she made for The New York Times Op-Docs. He figured that she would understand the programs he wanted to leak about and would know how to communicate in a secure way.

By late winter, Poitras decided that the stranger with whom she was communicating was credible. There were none of the provocations that she would expect from a government agent — no requests for information about the people she was in touch with, no questions about what she was working on. Snowden told her early on that she would need to work with someone else, and that she should reach out to Greenwald. She was unaware that Snowden had already tried to contact Greenwald, and Greenwald would not realize until he met Snowden in Hong Kong that this was the person who had contacted him more than six months earlier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=5&_r=0

So now you know why Snowden chose Greenwald; because he admired the work he'd done. Poitras was more receptive, but it was Snowden who suggested she work with Greenwald - whom she already knew well. Despite what you claim in the thread you started, Snowden did not choose Gellman - Poitras brought him in.

he had already leaked material that was widely distributed long before he "came out" publicly with GG. Greenwald did not "break" the story, only the identity.

No. This is completely wrong. Greenwald went, with Poitras, to Hong Kong (and with a Guardian staff journalist) and conducted the face-to-face interviews with Snowden, before anything was published by anybody. Shortly after that, Greenwald also published the story naming Snowden.

But if you think Greenwald is a distraction, then I think you should talk to those on DU who have engaged in protracted character assassination of him (eg saying that him writing a book shows that he can't be trusted as a reporter). It is they who made thread after thread trying to make the story about Greenwald.

[JackRiddler]

112. Bravo for the complete treatment.

Thanks!

[sabrina 1]

42. There are a whole lot of assumptions in your comment. Eg, I've seen this phrase

so often now it has become meaningless to me. But maybe you can expand on it. What do you mean by 'He has his own personal agenda'?? What is that agenda, and do you know him personally to be able to speak with authority on something that is rather 'personal' to put it mildly.

I eg, do not know him personally but have been reading his work since he first began as a blogger around 2005. He quickly attracted attention both from the Left and the Right due to his fearless criticisms of the Bush administration and Republicans in general. He was fiercely attacked by the Right every day but never allowed that to deter him.

If you were to ask me what his 'agenda' is I would judge that by his work. It appears to me and this hasn't changed, that his main 'agenda' has always been issues of Civil Liberties, which as you must know where completely trashed during the Bush years.

I would not presume to claim to know anything about any personal agenda since I can judge him only by his work.

That work has been CONSISTENT. His focus always on Civil Liberties and the many threats to our Rights that we all used to agree on using 9/11 as an excuse to dismantle them.

I see no change in Greenwald since the Bush years. He is an effective writer so he elicits strong reactions from people who both care about the protection of our rights, and those who care more about power and money. Nothing has changed regarding HIS 'agenda'. So I am wondering what exactly his 'agenda' is in your opinion.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Some hate Greenwald so they say GG and characterize anyone who supports him

Grant calls the other poster 'paranoid'. BOG was forced to stop using the homophobic 'Gigi'.
Attacks on him for being gay have been on DU for years and years, long before Snowden.

[Octafish]

37. Truth vs Government Press Release

Even if it hurts, democracy requires the former.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. I first started reading him because of DUers who attacked him for being gay

and that put me squarely in his corner. Way back in 2011 there was an epic thread 'I just found out that Greenwald is gay and so are some DUers!!!!!!! What must we do?'
Tons of Greenwald's critics took part in that attack, most of them still attack they call him 'GG' while never using initials for anyone else because they got called out on calling him GiGi. They are what they are.

[struggle4progress]

52. Anyone, who attacked Greenwald for being gay, didn't last long here at DU

[QC]

91. The person who repeatedly referred to him by a woman's name

and called him "a nasty little bugger" is still here and still attacking everyone in sight.

Same for the person who posted "Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world."

The management here generally comes down hard on bigotry, but there are some strange exceptions, like these.

[Recursion]

43. Made incredibly stupid mistakes in reporting an incredibly important story

I wish a better journalist had gotten the scoop.

[xiamiam]

47. puh-lease..nt

[JackRiddler]

54. Hm, wonder why...

Snowden and Poitras decided to go to him?

Whom would you have recommended? A name, please.

[KittyWampus]

100. David Korn- Mother Jones.

[JackRiddler]

56. Well? Please give an example...

of "a better journalist" who should have got the scoop.

Also, what would have been better? The coverage of the story itself? The fallout and outcome politically? Etc.?

[JackRiddler]

57. Can't come up with a better journalist?

Come on, who do you wish had gotten the scoop instead of Greenwald/Poitras? What would have been better?

[Recursion]

58. Anyone who wouldn't make absurd claims like "the NSA can watch you as you type"

You know, basic factual wrongnesses like that.

[Recursion]

60. Yes, that's me quoting Greenwald who was quoting Snowden

Who said that knowing it was false.

[Recursion]

62. It cannot be used to get real-time keystrokes from arbitrary Internet users

That is what I'm saying, because it's true.

[Recursion]

64. Cannot. Real-time keystrokes are not even transmitted

So by definition they could not be intercepted.

[JackRiddler]

65. NAME ONE!!!

That's not an answer. We both know the names of many journalists as well as publications. To whom should Snowden have gone instead of Greenwald? (Through Poitras, yes.)

[Recursion]

66. Name one what? I don't understand your question

I mentioned some basic factual mistakes Greenwald made, which is my complaint.

[JackRiddler]

67. You: "I wish a better journalist had gotten the scoop."

Post #43.

So, there are so many working journalists out there.

Name one you think would have been preferable to have gotten the scoop.

[Recursion]

68. I don't care who; someone who would have done some basic technical fact-checking on that

I'm complaining that he credulously repeated literally impossible claims by Snowden.

[JackRiddler]

69. That's the problem. You "don't care who."

Either they'd be a conformist lightweight who buried the story. Or, if they succeeded in getting the attention and treated this story of the incipient totalitarian surveillance state as calling for a crusade of exposure, as it indubitably does, you would have found some reason to attack them personally and make this same cheap comment.

You cannot name a single working journalist you would have preferred? Tell me, can you name two working journalists at all?

[Recursion]

70. Yawn

This is boring

Tell me, can you name two working journalists at all?

I have about 50 working journalists on my Android's contact list. Now, make a point, or stop kicking this old thread.

[JackRiddler]

73. Fantastic! My, you are so well connected!

So out of those 50 working journalists - who knows, we might share a couple, and even if we don't, I'm sure I'd recognize one or two - please give me an example of even one to whom you would have preferred Snowden had gone with his documents and claims, because you expect it would have been handled better than with Greenwald.

If you think a few days is "old," that may be a symptom of something.

[Recursion]

75. I'm still not understanding your question

I don't particularly care who would have run with it. This isn't about Greenwald, remember? It's about journalism.

[Recursion]

76. Is your point that only Greenwald would have "dared" to run with that?

If you think that, then I have to call bullshit, because you know as well as I do anybody who could have broken this story would have.

[JackRiddler]

79. My point is you made a comparative statement.

Implicitly: It would have been better if someone other than Greenwald.

Well maybe it would have been. I don't know. Give me an example.

Fabulous: you know so many journalists personally! I'm thrilled you're taking all this time to consult with a lowly guy like me! You know the field.

SO, whom would you have preferred? 10, 20 posts in give us an example of a better person to have handled this. Thank you.

[Recursion]

81. Why are you making this about the journalists rather than the journalism?

For the last time, I don't care who, and for that matter I don't know many people on the natsec beat. Though any of the tech journalists I know would have been fine.

I wish somebody who wouldn't credulously repeat impossible claims without checking them first had gotten the scoop. That's basically any journalist, and an example of why Greenwald isn't a very good one.

If a batter strikes out looking on a fastball, I don't have to pick a particular better batter just to wish that it were somebody else.

[JackRiddler]

89. Because you're exposing yourself.

Basically, you can't name anyone who would have done this as beautifully as he has, except for others whom you would have found objectionable for the same reason of being openly against a system of total surveillance by an authoritarian state (Scahill, Taibbi, whoever). "Journalist" perhaps for you means the Russert-Gregory School.

[Vanje]

96. I don't have any nationally important journalists on my Rolodex,

Hell! I dont even have a Rolodex, (though I do personally know the person who summarizes the weekly livestock sales report for the Capital Press, I cant say I'd recommend her for the Snowden material, but Boy Howdy, She does know her barrows and gilts!

I have digressed.
Back to the subj at hand:

A journalist who might handle Snowden's information would need to have some starch. He or she, might ought to be one who would not be shaken by his/ her spouse being detained for 9 hours in a secluded room in a foreign airport, by anti-terrorism agents representing a government with no constitutional regard for freedoms of the press.

A journalist who might handle Snowden's material would need to stand up under intimidation by government, and intimidation by others in the media. When a fellow "journalist" suggests he/she should be should be concerned about being charged with a crime,how would your chosen journalist respond to the intimidation.

I hope you could find one who would respond as well as this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/23/david-gregory-glenn-greenwald-crime_n_3486654.html

[JackRiddler]

106. Beeeee-yootiful!

Say it again!!!

A journalist who might handle Snowden's information would need to have some starch. He or she, might ought to be one who would not be shaken by his/ her spouse being detained for 9 hours in a secluded room in a foreign airport, by anti-terrorism agents representing a government with no constitutional regard for freedoms of the press.

A journalist who might handle Snowden's material would need to stand up under intimidation by government, and intimidation by others in the media. When a fellow "journalist" suggests he/she should be should be concerned about being charged with a crime,how would your chosen journalist respond to the intimidation.

[xiamiam]

97. thanks for pressing this point.

it's easy to wish for something or someone better instead of respecting the courage and fortitude and character of the person putting themselves on the line. A less secure journalist would have been destroyed by questions like the ones in the interview you posted above as well as the intimidation from sources we know and don't know. I have so much appreciation for the very few willing to tell us the truth. One of the many things wrong with our culture.

[KittyWampus]

104. LOL DAVID KORN. There's one. For a starter. You've exposed yourself and the reason for your thread.

The less I post on DU and the more I observe, the clearer things become.

[Vanje]

98. Would David Gregory have broken story?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/23/david-gregory-glenn-greenwald-crime_n_3486654.html

[KittyWampus]

101. I can come up with a number of better journalists who are actually journalists.

Funny how you can't.

David Korn is one.

[sabrina 1]

90. What mistakes did he make? And who would a 'better journalist' be

who would have had the courage these days to release the story? We know, eg, that our major 'news' organizations have been asked by our government to 'sit' on stories, the NYT eg and have done so, as important as this one.

I'm curious to know what journalist in this country in the atmosphere that we now have regarding Jouranilsts and Whistle Blowers would have been a better choice than Greenwald.

I can't think of one. And if one did emerge, s/he would be subject to the exact same attacks as Greenwald has been. Because it isn't about the journalist, it is about protecting and defending the status quo and covering up for the malfeasance of powerful people.

[JackRiddler]

107. Bravo!

[ucrdem]

72. Just another louse on the body politic.

Plural of louse = lice.

[JackRiddler]

74. Speaking of Godwin's Law...

Is there a corrollary covering the point at which someone has not yet mentioned Hitler, but actually uses Nazi rhetoric like "louse on the body politic"?

Charming.

[ucrdem]

77. ... you just invoked it. C'est fini. n/t

[tarheelsunc]

78. Good in some ways, bad in others. eom

[JNelson6563]

83. I'm of two minds on him.

On the one hand, I appreciate the NSA revelations though haven't been nearly as shocked by any of it as many have been.

On the other hand he is a very biased columnist (yet so often confused with being a just-the-facts journalist) who is obviously in need of a great deal of attention, regularly. Preferably support and plenty of sympathy because of his victim-hood that he makes evident, also regularly.

I daresay I consider him to be less than forthright in his efforts to conceal or deny his biases.

And milking the NSA story (bombshell coming SOON!1!) and such, yeah, got a whiff of whore to it.

Then again I do hear he's working on or soon to be something with an actual journalist. Something like that. I would be glad to see him push on into such work and eventually just drop out of the counter-productive shit-flinging-monkey routine entirely.

I guess, in the end, it's not a black-and-white or yes-or-no kind of situation. I realize you tried to address the complexity of the views people hold of him but the choices given, none of them were a close enough fit for me to pick one.

Julie

[Vanje]

99. Greenwald's "victimhood

The hostility and intimidation of Greenwald, by agents of government and media IS part of the story.

[JNelson6563]

108. It's been there long before NSA

I noticed it was a commonality with many of his most ardent, vocal supporters too. It was one of the reasons I didn't take to him long ago.

Julie

[Doctor_J]

85. I just think it's a personality cult

Any OP that has Greenwald in the subject line attracts the BOG is full attack mode, even when the subject isn't the president.

Like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=605589

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Ye shall know them by their insults. They call Greenwald 'GG' now that admins don't let

them say GiGi. For weeks they all called him by a woman's name, because he's gay. Now they do GG but the intent is the same. Horrific culture they have created.

[KittyWampus]

102. "For weeks they all called him by a woman's name"- gross exaggeration.

[KittyWampus]

103. Really, is the BOG on this thread in full attack mode? I have been surveying this thread

and find your characterization unfounded. Curious. It says more about you than any members or IMAGINED members of the BOG.

[Doctor_J]

105. Sorry. I meant the president's fan club. They may or may not be BOGers.

And yes, a number of the fan club are present in this thread.

[Jakes Progress]

86. I guess that is what makes DU so inclusive.

That a third of a forum for Democrats would vote against democracy.

Sure. A little overstated, but the Democrats that I grew up with, that I campaigned with, that I marched and got arrested with would side with openness every time. They would not be in favor of trashing someone who exposes government lies.

To each his or her own.

[sabrina 1]

109. Well, that was when there was no Third Way/DLC, the right wingization of the

Dem Party. It is very instructive to see how deeply the party has been infiltrated. And that part of the Dem Party is what made Bush policies possible. Back then we were puzzled by votes from Dems supporting Bush policies. Now we know how that happened. And now we have to decide, before it becomes 50%, what to do about it.

[War Horse]

92. I chose 'pass'

Some good, some bad. He has a horrible MO (like posting hyperbole with a modifier buried in the 24th paragraph), but has launched (or re-launched, rather) and important debate as well. 70% bad, 30% good, IMHO. Or maybe 60/40. Dunno.

[MirrorAshes]

94. I think he's a pompous ass.

And a hell of a journalist with balls of steel.

Is it alright to hold both those opinions at the same time?

[JackRiddler]

110. Sure. Except for the balls part.

This isn't simply a matter of bravery. I'd say he has a steely devotion to his principles, and the courage and persistence to stick to them.

[JackRiddler]

111. As of Oct 8, the results...

111 - Good for world and Americans (68%)
39 - Bad for world and Americans
14 - Not of great impact

[JackRiddler]

114. He's back in the news, damn him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3893858

[JackRiddler]

115. Reviving May 14, 2014, because...

the Greenwald hate is out in force again today, with a latest set of irrational or ahistorical talking points. Let's not allow a vocal and agenda-driven minority to create the wrong impression about how DU members stand.