

On NSA disclosures, has Glenn Greenwald become something other than a reporter? - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nsa-disclosures-has-glenn-greenwald-become-something-other-than-a-reporter/2013/06/23/c6e65be4-dc47-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html?tid=rssfeed

======
glenstein
Jay Rosen on Greenwald's style of reporting:

>The professional stance that proscribes all political commitments and
discourages journalists from having a clear view or taking a firm position on
matters in dispute (you can call it objectivity, if you like, or viewlessness,
which I like better) is one way of doing good work. A very different
professional stance, where the conclusions that you come to by staring at the
facts and thinking through the issues serve to identify your journalism… this
is another way of doing good work.

>They are both valid. They are both standard. (And “traditional.”) They are
both major league. Greenwald operates in the second fashion, but the language
we have for this style — calling him a blogger or an advocate, hoping that
these shorthands convey what’s different about him — is not very illuminating.
“Blurring the line between opinion pieces and straight reporting…” is not very
illuminating.

"Politics: none", the first kind of journalism, is a _form of persuasion_ that
tries to signal credibility by refraining from taking a view so far as is
possible. "Politics: some" is a form of persuasion where you are transparent
about your commitments and your judgments of the facts. These _both_ have
their advantages, neither is more inherently "journalistic" than the other.

[http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-
tw...](http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-two-ways-to-
excel-in-political-journalism-neither-dominates/)

~~~
namdnay
As Camus said: "le goût de la vérité n'empêche pas la prise de parti" \- (the
taste for truth does not stop you from having an opinion). I don't understand
why this is supposed to be so controversial: newspapers have had opinions for
centuries!

~~~
peteretep
Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support
your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is
controversial.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Selecting facts and presenting opinions while pretending not to have them is
worse.

------
cstross
Ah, the smear begins.

If you don't toe the line on the Washington Consensus you're not a
'journalist', you're an 'activist'.

Hint: 'objectively' reporting on only the approved message coming out of the
government isn't objective _at all_. I'd take this as yet another warning sign
(if more were needed) that mainstream newspaper journalism in America is
deeply unhealthy; who needs the likes of Pravda, Izvestia, or TASS if the
nominally 'free' press is happy to bend over and distribute your propaganda
voluntarily?

~~~
Shivetya
Been waiting for it, going to see the Administrations sycophants in the press
line up and declare those who don't follow the approved script of somehow
being in cahoots with those they report on.

First it was going after the Fox reporter, after all he worked for FOXS NEWS,
now we got a few more targets because the government was caught red handed and
worse, looks inept in grabbing a single person.

Should be fun to see who sides with who.

------
RyanMcGreal
You can't make this stuff up. Now journalists are complaining that this
"blogger" (as the NYTimes called him) has blown open a huge story that was
under their noses the whole time.

~~~
Vivtek
But if they reported on it they might have lost their access!

------
dnautics
This article is really troubling because there is an understated assumption
that 'freedom of the press' is a special right afforded to a class of people -
the fourth estate. This is a corruption of the original meaning of the first
amendment, bolstered by our american language which refers to the journalistic
vocation as 'the press'. The original meaning, rather, is quite literal. The
freedom of the press is the freedom _for anyone_ to use technology to
disseminate factual information, especially any factual information which is
news (time-dependent).

Scary.

~~~
malandrew
Exactly.

I'm curious how people today would characterize Thomas Paine, were we to zap
them back in time to report on the founding of the US. I'm sure they would all
be toeing the King's line and denouncing people like Paine.

------
g8oz
Other reporters, in thrall to the consensus of the ruling classes, are
experiencing cognitive dissonance when faced with someone this effective and
yet so heedless of the red lines.

------
joshuaellinger
This article just shows how compromised the Washington Post is. This is the
biggest news story of the year -- a deliberate subversion of the constitution
-- and they are clutching their pearls because he is acting like it matters.

~~~
ixnu
Imagine if this were a Russian or Chinese story of this magnitude - isn't this
how its press would report the story? Wouldn't we be surprised if the press
did not focus on the circus of the affair and failings of the accusers rather
than the abusive power of the state.

Would not the US press mock the complete blurring of state propaganda and
journalistic ethics?

This is a travesty for an institution that holds a constitutional
responsibility as a check on the state. Our press has mostly turned into a
deliberate pun - The Peoples Magazine.

------
krakensden
This is dumb. Glenn Greenwald's politics aren't the problem, his wild
interpretation of the PRISM slides is the problem. He made a serious
substantive error based on nothing. Being a reporter is a position of trust-
and you probably can't trust him.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Good thing you can read, apply your critical thinking skills, and make up your
own mind then. Itsn't it?

~~~
ianhawes
I think this diagram I created for you may clarify things:
[http://i.imgur.com/o870mrh.png](http://i.imgur.com/o870mrh.png)

------
CurtMonash
The only thing Greenwald has done wrong is be overconfident in his ability to
report accurately on technological specifics he doesn't understand. And I
don't see how the resultant errors have hurt much of anything.

The main impact of his reporting is to get people out of denial about what
they sort of knew anyway, namely that the NSA has access to lots and lots and
lots and lots of otherwise-private information. EXACTLY which kinds of
information the NSA has, and which kinds it's still a few years away from
securing, hardly matter from a public policy standpoint. Little practical harm
is coming to innocent people from the snooping right now; the risks to liberty
over time are horrific, and so something must be done to rein them in; those
things are true under any reasonable theory as to exactly what data the NSA
does or doesn't already have.

------
logn
I suppose it would be better if Greenwald presented evenly balanced quotes and
regurgitated propaganda with no analysis. He might be lucky enough to get a
job at NYTimes then.

~~~
Thomas_Ellers
He only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and
its abuses of power.

------
schiffern
No. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to redefine "journalist" in a way that
is quite frankly un-American. The Constitution enshrines freedom of the press
for exactly this reason.

You see, all the USSR should've done was re-labeled journalists as 'activists'
before having them rounded up. All better! Oh wait, they did…

Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again.

------
runjake
Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines)

We walk a dangerous line when we start playing around with the idea that
Greenwald, a journalist, is something other than a journalist. A journalist is
allowed to have opinions and causes.

A journalist can engage in activism. There's nothing wrong with performing
your work with passion, so why should it be any different for journalists? I
get the creeps when I hear people suggest that Greenwald is just an activist
and not a journalist. That usually means someone is being staged for
oppression (ala Assange).

Members of the US government will suggest anything to get the scandal
spotlight off of them and sweep this issue under the rug. To these criminals,
the US Constitution has truly become a historical document. They pass secret
rulings and laws to justify these constitutional violations in their minds.

------
doki_pen
It's interesting that the Washington Post is now going to educate us on
journalism. Is suppressing information for the government considered
journalism these days? I thought the entire idea behind freedom of the press
was to act as a check to government power. I don't call what they do
journalism, I call it state sponsored propaganda.

------
return0
Why the defamatory article? Journo's can't have opinions because the
Washington post decided so yesterday? On the flipside, why should we trust the
wash-post since they clearly have an agenda too?

------
DanielBMarkham
I think it's becoming fairly clear here that there are two groups of people,
each composing about 10% of the electorate.

The first group views terrorism as a magic trump card. Whatever we do to stop
terrorism is worth the price we pay. (These folks also tend to believe in
other issues as trumping everything else) Most of these folks are plugged into
the establishment in some way -- military, legislative, security, and now
reporters. For these guys, Snowden is the enemy. The story here is all about
him and how we're going to "get him"

The other group of people are technically-inclined folks and, well,
libertarian-type weirdos (And I say that as a little-l libertarian). We view
the enemy as the ideology that enough is never enough: the enemy is the
thought that we should continue collecting and collating data on each American
citizen (and the rest of the world) until we have perfect knowledge about
everybody. For them, the story is the disaster the first group has created out
of the country. Snowden is just an example, a very small piece of a very big
story.

80% of folks, however, could care less, as long as Farmville keeps working.
What we're seeing in the press is this battle between insiders like Gregory
and outsiders like Greenwald for control over the narrative. Is this going to
be just another "bad guy on the run" story? Or will it actually have an impact
on public opinion?

Short run, I'm not optimistic the 80% are going to see the minutely-studied
drones that BigCorp and BigGov are turning them into. But these things have a
way of building on each other. The smart move for government here, if it wants
to remain legitimate, is to make some major concessions right now while
keeping important capabilities intact. It's not an "us or them" posture. But
that seems to be what we're going to get.

I just wish the focus would get off of Snowden and Greenwald. Just like
Assange before them, once the story becomes about the person and not the
issue, the narrative (argument) is lost.

~~~
doki_pen
I don't fall into either of those groups and I care deeply. I would never ever
call myself a libertarian, but I am deeply disturbed by the direction the
world is going in. As the world becomes more extreme, the middle chooses a
side. That is the way it has always been. The only question is, have
oppressive powers finally "beaten" the game? If not, will they ever? That is
yet to be seen.

~~~
siddboots
> _I don 't fall into either of those groups..._

I don't want to speak for you but, given your hackernewsers profile, I think
you fall into the "technically-inclined folks" category.

~~~
doki_pen
"technically-inclined folks and, well, libertarian-type weirdos"

~~~
siddboots
("technically-inclined folks" ∪ "libertarian-type weirdos")

~~~
doki_pen
thanks for clarifying.

------
mtgx
Let's just say that if I had to choose between "real journalists" that take
the side of government no matter what, and "amateur bloggers" that try to
stand up to government abuses, I'll take the latter, every single time.

The "real journalists" from the mainstream media are a _disgrace_ to their
profession these days. Thank god for bloggers who do the real journalists'
jobs.

Plus, it's time to focus on what really matters - the _act_ of journalism.
Whoever is doing it doesn't really matter.

------
lifeisstillgood
On NSA disclosures, has Glenn Greenwald just gotten smeared?

------
jusben1369
So this case is a big case. And it opens up a lot of interesting philosophical
questions that are worth exploring. Try not to shout down anything you don't
like as "Big government lie/smear campaigns". Conceptually, I believe we want
journalists not to be carrying an agenda. Conceptually, I think we understand
that bloggers and non journalists do carry an agenda. This helps us filter the
information we are receiving. What does it mean for journalism that it took an
independent blogger to break it? Does journalism need to look at itself and
re-invent itself if it can't break these stories? The fact that Greenwald so
obviously and openly has an agenda that he pushes - how comfortable are we
with the closed loop information source of Snowden to Greenwald? Do we trust
Greenwald would easily present key facts that contradicted the current story
if they came to light? These (and more) are critical questions to ask.

~~~
return0
Greenwood is not the only reporter in the world, other sources can contradict
him if they have clues.

------
cmdkeen
Well given Greenwald seems to concede that it would be a crime for him to "aid
and abet" Snowden in his activities that means there is a line between
journalist and "something else".

Given Greenwald is a lawyer surely a sensible response to the original
question of whether he has broken the law is an explanation as to why he has
not. Rather than a series of "you're a journalist, you shouldn't ask me that",
"why don't we all arrest Congress for lying?" and "Obama is trying to
criminalise investigative journalists".

His being a lawyer is supposed to be a big part of what makes him a good
journalist. Given an opportunity to explain what aiding and abetting means in
law, and why he hasn't done it, he decided to have a huff. Which is rather
unlawerly.

~~~
waterside81
My take on it was David Gregory was assuming, in his line of questioning, that
Snowden is already a convicted felon so Greenwald is potentially aiding &
abetting. Greenwald began his answer by saying Gregory's assumption in his
question was flawed - therefore he couldn't be aiding & abetting someone who
wasn't convicted of any crime. So while he didn't directly say "No" \- he did
give a pretty convincing answer by dismissing Gregory's premise from the
outset.

~~~
wavefunction
He was also making the point that journalists are supposed to disseminate
information. Snowden broke the law as he distributed classified materials
contrary to his legal access and responsibilities, but Glenn Greenwald has no
such legal liability.

David Gregory has forgotten what journalism is. It's not sitting on TV
bloviating and collecting a fat paycheck.

------
carbocation
Surely the primary difference between Greenwald and journalists who came
before him is the existence of social media.

Previously, investigative journalists would privately muse that they were
doing a public service. Now they can say as much on twitter. I would be
shocked if it were any other way.

This article belongs in an opinion section.

EDIT: I see it's in the "style" section, whatever that means.

------
msg
Groklaw: opinionated, pro FSF.

Beholden to no one. Enshrining important cases in plain text in the public
record. Crowdsourcing prior art and patent busting. Surfacing contradictions
in court cases.

In short, they're the gold standard in IP law reporting. And it wouldn't be
happening without their passion.

------
yownie
Only as much as the NYT has become a subtle propaganda mouthpiece for the
Mil/Ind complex.

~~~
yownie
But hey if you can't attack the message attacking the messenger works pretty
effectively too right?

------
askimto
He has always communicated his own point of view, which I think is fine, even
as a reporter. But in the past I feel he has spun yarns and made connections
that don't exist for sake of a story and his point of view. That does bug me.

------
grandalf
This is probably just an attempt to generate controversy.

------
snowwrestler
Glenn Greenwald has never really been a journalist, he has been a blogger and
op-ed writer from the beginning. Of course he has taken a side--that's his
job. The fact that he so clearly takes sides is why he was able to break this
story in the first place.

Anyway, great journalists throughout history have taken sides. One of the most
celebrated moments in U.S. journalism was Edward R. Murrow's "reporting" on
Joe McCarthy--which took sides against McCarthy and helped bring him down.

~~~
snowwrestler
Edit to clarify: Greenwald has never been a "journalist" in the modern
conception of a totally impartial stater of facts. Personally I think people
with opinions can be journalists too, _especially_ with regard to legal
protections for the press.

~~~
jbooth
Totally impartial stater of QUOTES, actually. 'Facts' implies a journalistic
responsibility to call out quotes that are inaccurate, but they very much
don't ever do that.

------
pdeuchler
TL;DR- No.[1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

