
Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian - duck
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/my-statement-and-guardians.html
======
gkoberger
I'd assume wherever he's going (some people are saying it's his own
organization) will be well funded -- he'll need a good team of lawyers
watching his back. Now probably isn't the time to "go it alone" for him.

The Guardian sent lawyers to take care of the Miranda airport incident, and I
presume they've been working around the clock to keep him protected with the
Snowden stuff.

EDIT: he'll be head of building an "entire journalism unit" for a general-
interest (sports, etc) organization, and it is well funded by a "particular
backer": [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2013/10/1...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2013/10/15/glenn-greenwald-bolts-the-guardian-for-some-fabulous-
media-organization/)

~~~
dmix
> When asked whether the new organization would have a big video presence,
> Greenwald said it would be “very innovative — very, very innovative.”

I hope it's not too video oriented. I rarely consume journalism/news via video
anymore unless it's real life footage of some incident.

Hopefully it's NYTimes style innovation, utilizing good modern web design.

~~~
grandalf
yes, great web design without subservience to powerful interests would be
ideal.

------
buro9
The original source of the leaked story:

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-
greenwald-w...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-
will-leave-guardian-to-create-new)

The headline:

 _" Glenn Greenwald Will Leave Guardian To Create New News Organization"_

All of the info being quoted elsewhere stems from that story, and is now
confirmed by the post on Glenn's blog.

~~~
driverdan
Since when does BuzzFeed break real news and not just blogspam? That's
newsworthy itself.

~~~
dailyrorschach
They actually break quite a bit of news, along with clogging the internet with
blogspam. It's a pretty fascinating business model.

------
stfu
I can definitely see that working. The mainstream-critical news field seems
very populated by extremely polarizing figures. On the libertarian side there
is very little between full blown conspiracy theory mongers (ala Axel Jones)
and those more affiliated with one political who pick up the stories that
advances their viewpoints (Drudge, Mother Jones). Greenwald brings the right
level of mainstream credibility to carve out a new brand in that space.

~~~
Steko
"(Drudge, Mother Jones)"

Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and
linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.

~~~
dbrower
MJ "leans in" pretty hard too. The recent story on Elon Musk tries very hard
to be a hatchet job, and comes off badly because of the forced angle.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_Drudge Report_ is largely a link aggregator, though; their spin is pretty
much limited to how they write their headlines and what they choose to link
to. _Mother Jones,_ as the parent said, does their own reporting and a lot of
it, and they're arguably one of the few organizations that really gets into
serious investigative journalism.

To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which
they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the
work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is
hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon
Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may
think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being
deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask
uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful,
but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.

------
chipotle_coyote
The (apparent) sponsor of the new venture is Pierre Omidyar, the original
founder of eBay.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-
gr...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-greenwald-
idUSBRE99E18D20131015)

------
llamataboot
I have heard speculation that it is Omidyar, which feets his personality and
post-ebay activities. He has been funding investigative journalism in Hawaii
for a few years now, has a ton of $$$, is interested in changing the world,
etc

~~~
andrewcooke
i just searched for the name (since it meant nothing to me; turns out he
founded ebay) and there are reports saying this -
[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/uk-usa-security-
gre...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/uk-usa-security-greenwald-
idUKBRE99E18E20131015)

------
frabcus
Philanthropy is one of the few credible models left for good journalism. (The
other being pay-for niche, like the Economist).

So I like that another really excellent philanthropically funded news
organisation is starting (Pro Publica has been good).

~~~
pekk
I suppose it is also "philanthropy" when a very wealthy donor pays for
journalism which reflects his political views or objectives.

As long as you share those political views or objectives, that is, then it is
"philanthropy" rather than journalism bought and paid for.

~~~
alex_doom
That's pretty cynical, I highly doubt he's going to be asked to shape a story
to fit someone political viewpoints. Unless you think he's going to work for
Fox News ;)

~~~
pekk
He already shapes stories to fit someone's political viewpoints.

If we are going to be cynical about Fox News and everything else, why should
Greenwald be the one exception to our cynicism?

~~~
intslack
Who is that someone?

I didn't know releasing the facts, and not halting the story just because the
IC asked him to was shaping the story to fit someone's political viewpoints.

~~~
dublinben
>Who is that someone?

That someone is Glenn Greenwald.

~~~
intslack
You're making the false assumption that only Glenn Greenwald is doing the
reporting and shaping of the stories, instead of teams spanning news
publications, dozens of people at the Guardian, Laura Poitras and Glenn
Greenwald.

That said, can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look
like? Exactly how were these stories shaped that rubs you the wrong way?
Because all I see are facts, his editorials are just a side note.

Just because he isn't doing the IC's bidding doesn't mean he's shaping the NSA
stories to his own political views.

~~~
dublinben
>can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like?

There's no such thing as impartiality. Every journalist has bias. I'm sick of
people pretending that GG doesn't, just because they agree with his bias.

~~~
intslack
Exactly, but Greenwald et al are just reporting the facts. They've even agreed
with the Intelligence Community to not publish some things and have asked for
comment on every story.

I'm just trying to figure out what rubs people the wrong way about his
reporting, or why some people would rather remain ignorant of what there
government is doing. 'Because if we know, the terrorists know' doesn't cut it.

------
ThinkBeat
Is it possible that the Guardian cannot afford to keep him on anymore?

I would bet the English/US government has been leaning very heavily on the
organization, legally, financially, intimidation, blackmail?

It might have reached a tipping point?

~~~
DanBC
I think the Guardian would have published any details of government pressure,
and other UK media would have joined in with strong condemnation.

Our publishing industry does have problems, but we're not that bad yet.

~~~
summerdown2
There's certainly government pressure, which seems to be ramping up. Even if
you ignore the destruction of media drives (and relocation to America), and
detention of Miranda.

1\. Pretty well all parts of the story have D notices in the UK:

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-
bbc-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-
censor-surveillance-security)

2\. The Home Affair's committee is looking into the Guardian:

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-
investiga...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investigate-
guardian-edward-snowden-leaks)

and

3\. They've been criticised by the Prime Minister:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24555955](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-24555955)

------
vpeters25
I hate to be a conspiracy nut here. I think I've watched one too many
political thrillers where they get rid of the nosy reporter by offering him a
job he just cannot refuse.

Edit: grammar

------
oskarth
Interesting. If it indeed is a new venture, which seems likely, where's the
money coming from? Benevolent billionaire?

~~~
martythemaniak
He could crowdfund it by selling yearly subscriptions. I'd easily pay $60 a
year for a investigative-minded digital magazine with Greenwald as Editor-in-
Chief.

~~~
zmitri
Hey, if you don't mind, would you take a look at this
[http://www.beaconreader.com](http://www.beaconreader.com) and let me know
what your thoughts are?

Readers pay a single $5 a month fee, but get access to everything on platform
(Over 40 professional journalists). Example of an article
[http://www.beaconreader.com/eric-randolph/what-one-
refugee-s...](http://www.beaconreader.com/eric-randolph/what-one-refugee-
story-says)

~~~
adventured
I really like the concept. It desperately needs a new name.

Beacon is a weak word, and Beacon Reader flows really poorly. It doesn't
convey impactful journalism. It'd be proper for the #3 newspaper in Sioux
Falls (if there were such a thing).

My two cents for what they're worth.

~~~
ParadisoShlee
Baconreader... I'm not going to lie.. I expected this to be a reddit or rss
feed.

------
glomph
Does anyone think this might be because the UK has such a terrible record on
the free press front in recent months? Such a shame if it is costing UK papers
serious talent (which I would not be surprised at).

I mean why the hell work for a UK paper when you could work somewhere else
given we have the internet now.

~~~
lostlogin
Where is good? A friend who works for Al-Jazzera recently described going
through customs in Israel and the US. It's blatant intimidation as far as I
see it. Kids with gun holding him in hot rooms while interrogating him when in
Israel and only a little better when in the US. Given the way most countries
kowtow to the US and Britain, where could one work from without problem? And
even then journalists usually need to travel and you're back at the mercy of
other countries.

------
arca_vorago
I can't wait to find out what it is and what kind of participation is
available. GG has been doing some of the best reporting on a variety of issues
for at least a few years.

------
Myrmornis
Ugh, I don't like the sound of this. But he is one of the people I respect
most on the planet so I suppose that means I should have faith that he's doing
the right thing. Call me unimaginative but I thought it was an extremely good
thing to have someone with his views at a respected, establishment media
organization.

------
dombili
So, if he's launching his own thing, then it's going to be like Democracy Now,
except Greenwald's project will be privately (?) funded. That's good, I guess.
Greenwald has my respect as a journalist and I can't wait to find out what
he'll do next.

------
comice
If it's funded by advertising, it will still have pretty major journalistic
limitations. I for one hope it's funded some other way (and no, not by Bezos
either!)

~~~
Glyptodon
So maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, then?

------
ethanhunt_
Statement of the Guardian's Jennifer Lindauer: "Glenn Greenwald is a
remarkable journalist [...]"

Better late than never, I guess.

------
pcrh
Holy cow... The implication is that he is aiming set-up his own news
organization.

~~~
latj
I didnt get that at all. He could just be joining a venture with other
journalists? Similar to propublica.org.

~~~
redthrowaway
He's stated he's forming a new organization "with serious backing":

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-
greenwald-w...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-
will-leave-guardian-to-create-new)

~~~
latj
Yes, I understand. However the article didnt impliy he was starting his own
organization- he could be joining other journalists to start a new
organization.

My example was propublica.org -- a news organization that was founded after an
angel donor provided funding to form an organization for investigative
journalism after Rupert Murdoch bought the wall street journal.

I'm not saying its not the case, I just didnt see that implication.
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for him to start "his own"
organization. First, it would be hard for him to keep doing what he's good at
as he would be pulled in more directions and into more discussions about
organization, money etc. Secondly, I think a "G Magazine" would not have
nearly the impact that a propublica-clone would have.

We need less personality and more people willing to grind the shit out.

~~~
pcrh
The implication comes from the phrase " _I was presented with a once-in-a-
career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly
decline._ ", i.e. he isn't being fired or something.

------
ereckers
Is he looking to fill that huge hole left from the shuttering of Current TV?

------
swalsh
Who leaked the news that he was leaving?

~~~
gkoberger
Snowden.

~~~
kmfrk
He just can't help himself.

