Did Greenwald just get 'Greenwalded'?

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 12:38 AM - Edit history (4)

Just hours after last weekend’s ouster of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, one of Pierre Omidyar’s newest hires at national security blog “The Intercept,” was already digging for the truth.

Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site’s “senior policy analyst,” speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a “coup” engineered by “deep” forces on behalf of “Pax Americana”:

These are serious claims. So serious that I decided to investigate them. And what I found was shocking.

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark deep force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

It's going to be entertaining to see how Greenwald responds to this...
=========================
=========================


EDIT: Greenwald's o̶b̶f̶u̶s̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ response -- https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/01/journalistic-independence/
and Pando Editor Paul Carr's rebuttal: http://pando.com/2014/03/01/on-the-importance-of-keeping-investors-out-of-the-newsroom-and-not-treating-your-readers-like-fools/

Just to get everyone up to speed -- There is an ongoing history between Ames and Greenwald (to be fair, Greenwald has a lot of 'histories' with others in the industry and out; many of them are easy to find online), most recently dating back to this piece:

http://pando.com/2013/11/27/keeping-secrets/
and Greenwald's response: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/02-5


Now my two cents:

First off, I didn't post this because I'm some Obamabot, of I'm jealous of Greenwald or I'm trying to discredit the NSA story (although I do have dozens of still-unanswered questions, but those are for another thread), so do me a favor and save the childish namecalling for GD...

To be honest, even though it's newsworthy there isn't even that much 'there' in this story, and Ames does leap to some of his conclusions...I just love this piece so much because it's such a perfect mirror-image mimic of Greenwald's writing "style", and Greenwald's pissy response is so similar to many of his opponents/rivals/enemies, the irony is just too thick to digest in one sitting...Yes, Greenwald and his circle do look like morons for not knowing about this (since Ukraine is only the biggest story on the planet right now), but life goes on and barring any more ugly conflict-of-interest skeletons in Omidyar's closet, they will all survive just fine...

My issue at the moment is with Omidyar himself...Personally I don't believe in miracles and I don't believe in pennies from heaven, so I'm always skeptical when big-business billionaires decide to venture into a new field and throw hundreds of millions around... Bezos buys the WaPo, and Omidyar is dumping $250 mil into an online news site? At that number he could buy any legacy in the world and instantly have a bigger readership than what his site might aspire to in 5-10 years...Something about this just isn't right, folks...No billionaire, however philanthropic, dumps that much into an investment unless he's on his deathbed, or expects to make a return in spades...

[Chan790]

1. Really? I can guess right now.

Glenn Greenwald is the sort of bastard not above offing his parents then begging for the leniency of the courts because he's an orphan. It takes a lot of gall to be "Glenn Greenwald, professional charlatan journalist svengali."

This week he's going to claim it's an effort on the part of his enemies to discredit him.

Next week, he'll claim Omidyar is an NSA stooge and deny he ever worked for him.

[JDPriestly]

5. It's my understanding from what I have read (I have no inside information on this)

that Greenwald's agreement was complete freedom to publish what he wants and believes is the truth. If that isn't the agreement, the Intercept may be quickly intercepted by Omidyar. But
I would really like to see one media instrument that is willing to publish negative stories about anyone including its own funder. That would be media I could trust.

The Intercept is just starting to get interesting. Omidyar may have backed the Ukrainians who want to join the European trade group because he really does believe in freedom and the Western European way. If so, that's fine with me. In the end, the choice whether to go with the East of the West is up to the Ukrainian people. There is nothing wrong with trying to make sure that they really have the choice.

[OilemFirchen]

9. You could try Pando.

From the linked article:

In the larger sense, this is a problem of 21st century American inequality, of life in a billionaire-dominated era. It is a problem we all have to contend with—PandoDaily’s 18-plus investors include a gaggle of Silicon Valley billionaires like Marc Andreessen (who serves on the board of eBay, chaired by Pierre Omidyar) and Peter Thiel (whose politics I’ve investigated, and described as repugnant.)

As to your second point, again from the article:

What all this adds up to is a journalistic conflict-of-interest of the worst kind: Omidyar working hand-in-glove with US foreign policy agencies to interfere in foreign governments, co-financing regime change with well-known arms of the American empire — while at the same time hiring a growing team of soi-disant ”independent journalists” which vows to investigate the behavior of the US government at home and overseas, and boasts of its uniquely “adversarial” relationship towards these government institutions.

[MADem]

18. The problem, though, is that Greenwald's source/story/cash cow is being entertained by

the very enemy of Ukrainian self-determination, in a situation where he can't leave unless he heads back home.

How easy is Putin going to make it for GG to contact his source if he's working for Putin's enemy?

I can't help but notice that GG never has a bad word to say about Putin and the Russians. Wikileaks, too. I don't think this is because they have clean hands. I think there might be some sort of quid pro quo happening there--not sure what kind.

[MADem]

2. WOW. If this is true, this is pretty damn big.

And ya gotta wonder why...? It's pretty easy to start drumming up all sorts of theories, conspiracy or otherwise...

How will Greenwald be able to write his exposes with a straight face if his boss has an agenda? How can he write for someone associated with one crew when his favorite source is being hosted by the "enemy" crew?

Was he gamed into taking that gig? Did he KNOW ahead of time? Does he wish he hadn't severed his ties with the Guardian in such a shirty fashion, I wonder? So many questions!

I'll admit I'm clueless about Pando.com....but I'm not up on every 'new media' outlet. Now I'm going to see if I can find another source for this.

DAMN!

EDIT...RAW STORY and a bunch of others are running with this...I guess it has legs.

[JDPriestly]

6. But his boss's agenda may simply be to give the Ukrainians the opportunity to set the course

for their future themselves. I don't see that this story is such a big thing. We already know that the US has been backing the Ukrainians who want to join the European Union. The Victoria Nuland phone call shows the work being done behind the scenes. I just don't see how this reflects badly on anyone. Unless the DUers who see something negative in this want Ukraine to necessarily join the Russian trade pact. It is undeniable that the US has pushed in Ukraine for joining the European Union. What is new? Where is the scandal? I don't see it.

[OilemFirchen]

10. "I just don't see how this reflects badly on anyone."

Apparently Marcy Wheeler does, though she's awkwardly trying to walk-back her tweets by claiming "context".

[Hissyspit]

13. That's your characterization.

Pando's Paul Carr fell back on character attack, calling her "certifiable," because he wouldn't clarify/answer her questions. Juvenile.

[OilemFirchen]

20. Okay, I read the whole twitodrama.

More's the pity that Carr made that comment, but it's Twitter. That said, the whole bizarre exchange started many hours ago with Ames asking Wheeler one simple question which, as of this writing, she has failed to answer; to wit: was her boss Omidyar the billionaire contributing to "Pax Americana"?

In contrast to Carr's ad-hom, Wheeler's Pee Wee Herman routine is equally juvenile but demonstrably insidious. The fact is, she will never answer the question because she has a clear conflict of interest.

This story has legs, and Wheeler's ankle-biting isn't gonna chew 'em off.

[Hissyspit]

23. And as I said, that's your characterization.

Wheeler asked for clarification and didn't get.

In his article Ames also seems to jump to the conclusion that Omidyar has access to the Snowden files just because Greenwald and Poitras signed on with the new outing. There is no evidence of that at all.

[MADem]

21. Greenwald's boss, and the guy who has personal control over Snowden's cash cow, are at odds now.

I think it has potential to be a huge problem.

USAID in Ukraine was not news--and everyone knew which way USA hoped they'd jump.

Greenwald's boss being associated with funding this effort, in conjunction with USA government or not, IS news--to us, anyway. Might be news to Putin, too...

Basically, if the owner of any media outlet is carrying water for any government, how well does anyone trust their news to be unbiased? If some guy named Ivan Ivanovich was working with Putin to, say, influence activities in Vietnam or somewhere, and he had a media outlet, would you truly believe his reporters were independent, even if they insisted they were? I wouldn't.

I think there's a massive taint (none of that ha ha you said taint stuff now ) over the entire exercise.

Maybe that was the point? It just doesn't help to convince me that they're independent. It's not like this guy started giving the Ukrainians money yesterday--this has been going on for awhile.

And it would be interesting to learn just how well the reporters he hired (all with ostensibly "left" cred, though some might be more Paulbottish than others) are paid. If it's too well-paid a gig, it can start to look, justifiably or not, like a payout.

[JDPriestly]

31. I used to listen to Voice of America and the BBC. They were definitely carrying water for the

US and British governments. RT carries water for Russia. That does not mean that you absolutely have to discount the reports on those radio sources. It means you have to listen to different points of view. As I interpreted the news reports about the Intercept, it was to be truly independent of the political views of the person funding it. I have no more inside knowledge than that. We shall see.

[MADem]

33. That's fine and dandy. But the new owner was a tabula rasa when all that business was being touted.

That independence was the "draw." At long last, everyone cackled, a voice with no biases, no preconceived notions no "interests" or "agendas." We now know that isn't the case AT ALL, because the guy who pays the bill does have an agenda, biases and interests ... and we'll see where that leads.

I mean, come ON. POLITICO was supposed to be "unbiased," too--but we know that the rightwing Albritton nutjobs fund that thing.

Would you buy off on a media outlet run by, say, the Koch Brothers, that purported to be "independent?" Oh yeah, I own it, but I have no say in the ediiorial content....we'd believe that like we'd believe the moon was made of green cheese.

This "independent" outlet now has an overlay of bias, like it or not. Now we have to wonder if reports are slanted to suit Pierre's sensibilities, when previously, we only had to worry about the bias of the correspondent.

[JDPriestly]

37. I don't want to jump to a conclusion about the new media outlet until I have seen what it does

and says. We will soon know whether Omidyar has bought himself a personal mouthpiece or is really trying to free journalism. That Omidyar and his new media outlet don't agree on some aspects of the Ukraine situation, that Omidyar has not silenced the reporters thus far seems to me to be a good sign. I would love to see some media in which different points of view are represented. Maybe that is too much to ask. I occasionally get that on Democracy Now. I like longer interviews and articles. I don't like the headlines news media. I just don't learn enough about a topic from them. Democracy Now had a couple of good videos on experts discussing the situation in the Ukraine. I posted them if anyone is interested.

[pacalo]

7. Adding Matt Taibbi into the new-hire mix,

I wonder if Pierre Omidyar is shielding himself by hiring these watchdogs.

[zeemike]

16. It would not be the first time the left has been co-opted.

If you got a billion to spend you can do most anything.

And it will give ammo to the anti Greenwald and Snowden forces...which will be all over this.

[pacalo]

19. Greenwald, Wheeler, & Taibbi would be astute enough to vet

their new employer before leaving their jobs, but I want to trust those three. This is interesting & I'll be watching for new information.

I hope I'm not disappointed.

[MADem]

22. Wheeler broke the story--apparently the vetting happened AFTER the hiring...?

Now Wheeler has her answer — that, yes, the revolutionary groups were part-funded by Uncle Sam, but also by her boss — one assumes awkward follow up questions will be asked on that First Look internal messaging system.

Whether Wheeler, Scahill and their colleagues go on to share their concerns publicly will speak volumes about First Look’s much-trumpeted independence, both from Omidyar’s other business interests and from Omidyar’s co-investors in Ukraine: the US government.

[pacalo]

29. Interesting. I couldn't agree more about the second sentence.

[JDPriestly]

32. That's a pessimistic view. George Soros made money on the currency exchange market.

Nevertheless, he is a dedicated supporter of democratic movements in countries run by dictatorships. Soros has a history that explains his strong support of emergent democracies. He was raised in the era of Hitler.

George Soros (/ˈsɔroʊs/ or /ˈsɔrəs/;[2] Hungarian: Soros György; Hungarian: [ˈʃoroʃ]; born August 12, 1930, as Schwartz György is a Hungarian-born American[3] business magnate,[4][5] investor, and philanthropist.[6] He is the chairman of Soros Fund Management. He is known as "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England" because of his short sale of US$10 billion worth of pounds, giving him a profit of $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.[7][8][9]

Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal political causes.[10] Between 1979 and 2011, Soros gave away over $8 billion to causes related to human rights, public health, and education. He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89)[8] and provided one of Europe's largest higher education endowments to Central European University in Budapest.[11] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Foundations.

. . . .

Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary, to a nonobservant Jewish family. His mother Elizabeth (also known as Erzsebet) came from a family that owned a thriving silk shop. His father Tivadar (also known as Teodoro) was a lawyer[12] and had been a prisoner of war during and after World War I until he escaped from Russia and rejoined his family in Budapest.[13][14] The two married in 1924. Tivadar was an Esperantist writer and taught Soros to speak Esperanto in his childhood.[15] Soros later said that he grew up in a Jewish home and that his parents were cautious with their religious roots.[16] Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary.[17] Soros took a job with the Jewish Council, which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:

. . . .
Later that year, at age 14, Soros lived with and posed as the godson of an employee of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture. The official was at one point ordered to inventory the remaining contents of the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country; rather than leave the young Soros alone in the city, the official brought him along.[19] The next year, 1945, Soros survived the Battle of Budapest, in which Soviet and German forces fought house-to-house through the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

Omidyar:

Pierre Morad Omidyar (Persian: پیر مراد امیدیار?, born June 21, 1967) is a French-born Iranian American entrepreneur and philanthropist, who is the founder and chairman of the eBay auction site.[3] He became a billionaire at the age of 31 with eBay's 1998 Initial Public Offering (IPO).[2] Omidyar and his wife Pamela are well-known philanthropists who founded Omidyar Network in 2004 in order to expand their efforts beyond nonprofits to include for-profits and public policy. Since 2010 Omidyar has been involved in online journalism as head of investigative reporting and public affairs news service Honolulu Civil Beat.[4] In 2013, he announced he would be creating and financing First Look Media, a journalism venture to include Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill.[5][6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Omidyar

Here is a video Omidyar's group made at the launch of their First Look Media, the organization with which Greenwald is associated. I don't think Omidyar is so stupid that he would have put Greenwald in charge of First Look unless he knew what Greenwald was likely to do and report.

[zeemike]

38. Well there is no doubt that I am a pessimist.

And for every Sorros there are 10 not like him at all. Who think nothing of using their money and power to manipulate things to suit themselves...and it is seldom a good thing for us that suits them...

And co-opting is getting people under your wing by making them tied to you financially most of the time.
It is the reason most TV news people are paid well...because they know that if they don't please the boss they will be back to pounding the street looking for work in a market that is dominated by their bosses...it is a seductive proses that is working well for them.

The most recent example of that I can think of right now is when MSNBC gave Chenk Unger his own show...then brought him in the office and told him "we are the MSM" and basically if you want to keep this hi paying job you will conform....Unger said no to his credit (but if he had said yes we would not have knowen about it)...but he had something to go back to...the innertube show.
Money corrupts...but not everyone...but enough to make things work for the 1%

[JDPriestly]

41. Very true.

[MADem]

25. If they're paid well enough, they can be like dogs with bones, so long as they don't start chewing

on any bones that Pierre has buried!

No matter how "independent" the new hires purport to be, everyone knows how these things have been run in the past. The assumption will be that they will be somewhat constrained by their boss's interests, and sensitive to them, as well.

What's that rather crude, but apt, saying? Ya don't shit where ya eat!

[pacalo]

26. I'm anxious to see how this plays out.

It's interesting that these three public watchdogs, all experts in key areas -- legal, financial, & investigative -- have been hired by this man & I'd like more information about him.

[MADem]

27. I'm curious, myself! There are enough people 'on' it that I don't see it disappearing into the

'nothing to see here, move along, now' ether, as some stuff does.

Time'll tell, though!

[pacalo]

28. Good!

[Cha]

8. Sorry, I can't keep up with greenwald's

shit.. would you mind telling me how he left the Guardian, MADem?

[MADem]

11. He left to go work for this Ukraine-funding guy, who is stinking rich and made all his dough

at eBay.

Shortly after he left, a Guardian reporter put out a book on Snowden--it was one of those typical, whip through all the known information and consolidate it, retrospective type books--slapped together to make a buck, of course, but relying on news reports and the ars technica blogs that Snowden wrote to flesh the thing out. GG got, well, unreasonably pissed. He has a book coming out in a month or two, and I guess he felt the guy was bigfooting on "his" territory--hey, ya snooze, ya lose, as far as most people are concerned. He was pretty shirty about it, like no one else had a right to write about the guy but Himself. He whined, childishly, that it was a bullshit book. Waah! Way to tout your brand, not....

[Cha]

12. "GG got unreasonably pissed"!!!!

SHOCKING! NOT Really! Rofl.

greenwald never changes his MO.. i.e. Ratfucker.

thanks MADem! I knew about Pierre Omidyar but not about the reporter at the guardian writing his own book on snowden. He had to have plenty about snowald in there.

That's hilarious.. Rofl. greenwald calling anything "bullshit".. mr bullshitter himself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. whining childishly pretty much sums him up...

[SoapBox]

17. Ditto, ditto...

[JDPriestly]

34. Which book would I read? Greenwald's of course. At least Greenwald actually met Snowden.

The other book will have lots of gossipy tidbits, but Greenwald can write from his own experience with Snowden. I suspect that most of the internet drivel about Snowden is way off base. Snowden is essentially and foremost a nerd, rather shy, very introverted. Snowden does not strike me as so much angry or fanatical as thoughtful, analytical and principled.

[MADem]

35. That's just lovely, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that GG got unreasonably furious at a guy who--like people will do to make a buck--tossed together a book on a public figure of interest to many. As though he "owned" the rights to Snowden. Which he doesn't.

GG keeps pushing the date back on his own book, now it's coming out in April. Gotta strike while the iron is hot, and the iron is cooling.

From what I understand, GG eventually acknowledged that the book the other guy wrote wasn't a hit piece or anything of that sort, it was just a factual retrospective.

[JDPriestly]

36. On a living person by someone who never bothered to meet or talk to that person.

In other words, a collection of hearsay stories, opinions, etc. Nothing first-hand.

[Whisp]

39. GGs boss was once owner of PayPal... the paypal that had blocked transactions to wikileaks...

go figure.

[MADem]

40. Yes, he pretty much invented it. He created an auction platform way back in the day for the web.

It morphed into eBay.

I suppose if people really want to get curious and wondering, he's also a "Shah" of Paris and America--a Persian-American, born in France. His parents were elites of the day. He's outshined them, at least financially!

I think he's a bit of a philanthropist, as well...

[OilemFirchen]

44. Actually, Peter Thiel cofounded PayPal with Max Levchin.

eBay bought PayPal four years later.

Curiously, Thiel is (or was) an investor in PandoDaily, from whence this column originates. And the author of the piece wrote an incredibly unflattering profile about him for The Nation.

Strange bedfellows, fer sure.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Well Well Well.....

the hens sure have come home to roost haven't they

[OilemFirchen]

4. Apparently,

vintage Pez dispensers are all the rage in Ukraine.

Who knew?

[iamthebandfanman]

24. ukrainians are trading

one corrupt government for another.

the opposition does have ties to the CIA and mobsters across Europe .. according to wikileak documents that is :p

as far as greenwalds concerned.. his motivations and intentions will be out soon enough

[aquart]

30. You are talking about Europe, right?

You are talking about a former Soviet-dominated entity, right?

And you think there is the smallest, tiniest possibility that any government established will NOT be corrupt? The Easter bunny is going to lay you a big chocolate egg.

Nonetheless, DID YOU SEE WHAT THE UKRAINE'S PARLIAMENT DID? They refused to vote themselves a police state. That's a beautifully western-government thing to do. I could love them for it but I historically dislike Ukrainians and I doubt we'll ever be friends. That one act was way better than nothing. It was as good as it gets and I don't care who passed out the money.

International relations is not for the faint of heart. (Which is why I hope Snowden rots in Russia for the rest of his life.) In fact, I think the best way to understand it is to use the Texas definition: An honest politician is one who stays bought.

Dealing with the devil to achieve necessary ends is what politics is about. The definition of "necessary" is what we argue about. Until we get up the courage (remember, they can afford to hire excellent killers) to end billionaires and their control of the world's wealth, we will all be going hat in hand to them for every damn big thing we need.

[Whisp]

42. Update: Greenwald addresses the Pando story:

UPDATE: Greenwald has addressed the Pando story, saying that the Omidyar Network’s funding in Ukraine won’t affect his journalist independence:

I was not previously aware that the Omidyar Network donated to this Ukrainian group. That’s because, prior to creating The Intercept with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, I did not research Omidyar’s political views or donations. That’s because his political views and donations are of no special interest to me – any more than I cared about the political views of the family that owns and funds Salon (about which I know literally nothing, despite having worked there for almost 6 years), or any more than I cared about the political views of those who control the Guardian Trust.

There’s a very simple reason for that: they have no effect whatsoever on my journalism or the journalism of The Intercept. That’s because we are guaranteed full editorial freedom and journalistic independence.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/28/report-glenn-greenwalds-boss-helped-u-s-fund-ukrainian-opposition-groups/

“Of the many problems that poses, none is more serious than the fact that Omidyar now has the only two people with exclusive access to the complete Snowden NSA cache, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras,” Ames went on to write. “Somehow, the same billionaire who co-financed the ‘coup’ in Ukraine with USAID, also has exclusive access to the NSA secrets—and very few in the independent media dare voice a skeptical word about it.”

[OilemFirchen]

43. That's nice.

Curious that Mr. New Journalism didn't know anything about Omidyar's 2012 contribution, but hey... nobody's perfect, despite what they may assert otherwise.

Now... where's Ms. Wheeler's statement? Has she answered Ames' question yet?

[joshcryer]

45. So will he accept that as a legitimate defense for, say, the protesters?

If they come out and say "hey, we didn't know the money was coming from USAID"?

I suppose Libertarians don't give one shit where their money comes from, as long as their pockets are lined.

[Blue_Tires]

46. Monday kick

[Blue_Tires]

47. The battle continues:

Glenn, Intercepted: Pierre Omidyar’s quarter billion dollar journalism project seems to have stopped publishing
http://pando.com/2014/04/13/glenn-intercepted-pierre-omidyars-quarter-billion-dollar-journalism-project-seems-to-have-stopped-publishing/


And this piece from Poynter proves I was pretty damn accurate with my original assessment last Fall about the dangers of not having a proper focus, trying to be 'all things to all people' and throwing all the traditional rules of professional journalism out the window in some faux anti-establishment gesture...

Omidyar’s First Look Media looking to find its focus, target an audience
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/246566/omidyars-first-look-media-looking-to-find-its-focus-target-an-audience/