Shameful: Other Journalists Now A Part Of Ridiculous Smear Campaign Against Glenn Greenwald
from the digging,-digging,-digging dept
This is just getting ridiculous. We've covered the various stories of politicians and journalists suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested and charged for merely doing investigative journalism and reporting on the leaks of Ed Snowden. However, Greenwald himself has now revealed that a variety of mainstream press outlets are working on stories that are clearly designed to smear him, digging into minor events from over a decade ago to somehow attack his credibility. Greenwald is (smartly) getting out in front of these by revealing the details ahead of time, though it's ridiculous that he should need to. We won't even mention what the "issues" are, because they're trifling nothings from a decade or so ago that weren't newsworthy then and are not newsworthy today. What they are, clearly, are attempts to attack Greenwald's character for merely being one of the key reporters who has helped to expose massive government overreach in surveillance.The actual story is about the government's overreach. But, rather than deal with that, reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to write Greenwald into the story? Really? We have a huge opportunity for journalists to dig into the real story: just how much spying on people various governments around the globe are doing today. And yet, instead, they want to focus on minor quibbles from a decade ago involving the reporter who actually did the work they failed to do? It's a shameful reflection on the state of much of the media today.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, glenn greenwald, journalism, nsa, nsa surveillance, smear campaign
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're missing a verb there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Greenwald, v. - To publicly stand up as a member of the press for the Constitutional rights of the public despite the opposition of the government and members of the established media that are trying to villify you for such actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He also lives in Brazil due to your primitive discriminations against gay rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm Catholic and therefore at odds with gay marriage. Nevertheless, as far as Constitutional rights are concerned, nobody's rights should be violated regardless of their race, sexual orientation or whatever. I also don't believe that the government should be intruding into our personal lives to the extent that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When trying to justify LEGALLY why something should be, you just can't use "God says so" in your argument. Laws are secular, keep them that way.
And when your "moral standards" are an assault on another group of American citizens, I'm sorry, but your standards deserve to be suppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps the fact that marriage was purely an invention of the government in the first place? The connection to religion was a matter of political convenience.
Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Replace marriage with a form of incorporation that confers all the same legal features that can be entered into just like any other contractual arrangement. This would give the huge benefit of easing all kinds of other problems, such as caring for an unfit parent (you and the parent incorporate so you can act completely on their behalf), etc.
Marriage can then be a social and ceremonial thing, to be entered into (or not) according to the customs of the people involved.
The law is a rulebook of arbitrary design. The law and morality are largely independent of each other. This is by design: if you're going to legislate morality, then you enter the nightmare of deciding whose morality you're going to favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Greenwald, v. - To publicly stand up as a member of the press for the Constitutional rights of the public despite the opposition of the government and members of the established media that are trying to villify you for such actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any outlet that publishes one of these is an outlet you know is in bed with the secret police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens when the spy agencies decide they don't like someone. And that's much of why this massive surveillance is so scary. If the government becomes at all annoyed with you, they can dissect your entire electronic life, going back forever, and use it to discredit or destroy you. Voila, no more threat, secret surveillance state preserved.
Just how much of what these papers are publishing is coming from the NSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Succinct version, respun slightly]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymouse [Redacted]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might agree with the justifications or you might not, does not matter what you agree with or not, or if you think there is some other justification.
Unless you are willing to challenge it in a court, or you are a part of the Supreme Court, NO ONE CARES about your specific opinion. (well some might, but they don't matter either).
The rule of law, the constitution, and the legal system is NOT based on a popular vote, they are based in law.
IF it were based on a popular vote, it is clear you would lose that vote that it is not required and it is not constitutional. So basically your screwed !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're right that they don't care much about my opinion individually. But laws can be changed with enough popular support, and these programs are explicitly designed to disrupt and destroy the networks needed to form that popular support. They're also tailor-made for destroying charismatic individuals.
Think about Martin Luther King a little. Do you seriously think the civil rights movement would have succeeded if the government had had these powers at the time? He and his entire network would be in prison or in forgotten graves, and blacks would still be second-class citizens.
This is the real reason they're going after these powers. It's not to protect you from terrorists. It's to protect them from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The justification for national surveillance is national security because the law?
I care about my opinion. I do not care for yours. An apologist that can not think past the letter of the law would just as soon bludgeon the spirit of the law, which, ironically, is what has already been achieved. Fait accompli
The spirit of the Constitution has been bludgeoned, if not the letter.
Read up sidearm, there's a lot of history to absorb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
The story is losing focus. Initial rage is being diffused. The NSA as such is out of reach, the corporate co-conspirators are no longer even mentioned, politicians are justifying past abuses and calling for worse. People are left confused, frustrated, feeling powerless, and now aware how extensive the spying is so will self-censor and further stifle dissent. Textbook psyop.
In short, this isn't surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
Who are you and what have you done with the real OOTB.
[Also why was this flagged? If it was flagged because of the comment this whole article should be flagged.. If on the other hand as i suspect it was flagged because of the commentators name then that's just plain wrongful and highly unethical. Yes I barely agree with how he carries on etc but that is no excuse to flag willfully all comments of his no matter what the content/context, that's just vindictive *sighs* ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limited hangout moves toward its purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoTW redux?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NoTW redux?
A decade ago it was 10 giant corporations that owned 90% of the media.
Half a century ago it was 50 different corporations/businesses that owned 90% of the US media.
US media is mostly all the same these days as a result. If you want real journalism or news from a different perspective read foreign news websites.
I read Al Jazeera English almost every day for that reason. Despite the US media's demonizing of them as radical US and freedom hating Muslims, they're actually VERY Liberal, and strong supporters of Women's Rights, Abortion, and even Gay Rights, despite many of them being devout Muslims. Not coincidentally, the very same big 5 US news corporations have fought tooth and nail to keep Al Jazeera English's cable news channel off the air in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NoTW redux?
There's other Muslim media which are not supporting terrorism, why do you support one that does? Just because it doesn't do it all the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So unlike the Post he did not filter Snowdens data dump.
With the MSM now lining up with the Obama administration as usual, of course they are going to castigate Glenn Greenwald.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]. I've read him for years, and he's always struck me as someone who believed very strongly in the US and civil liberties and the Constitution in the US.
So unlike the Post he did not filter Snowdens data dump.
That's 100% false. I mean, not even close to true. He released 5 out of 41 slides from a presentation. And he has released 3 other documents out of "thousands" that he claims to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he wants to smeer, expect it in return
what a loser !!!, and after all it's only fair, and what is wrong with reporters actually REPORTING, after all here on TD you say that is what they are supposed to do, so other reports are allowed to do that as well ??
or is it ok to 'be the news' and be spared from it yourself ?
The hypocrisy here is unbelievable.. not that I believe much from here anyway..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
In other words: where's your citations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
The circular motions from the action of flushing are the only way to stimulate the massive pile of shit he uses for a cerebral cortex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
Hell, out of your front door would be an achievement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: he wants to smeer, expect it in return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it so surprising to people when Hollywood, who owns damn near every news agency out there, returns the favor by reporting misinformation to the public?
Goodness, isn't it time people starting seeing the big problem that's right in front of their face?
I don't come to Techdirt to get news. I come to Techdirt to escape from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
According to me, you are a fuckwit. but that's just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
Funny how everything to make copyright reasonable makes you mad enough to go on a badly punctuated rant on Techdirt, every time. How this applies to solar panel engineering, I have no idea, but then again, there's no explanation to the inner workings of a completely and thoroughly unimaginative turd-twat. Do solar panel engineers have such a horrible command of the English language, or is it just you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
does not include meta (billing) data stored and OWNED by phone service providers regarding your phone usage.
That IS NOT your property, it IS the property of your phone company, you can gain access to your own phone records (with your phone bill), but it is NOT YOUR'S.
It is certainly not part of the group that comprises your "persons, houses, paper or effects".
It MIGHT be considered your 'papers' once you receive your printed bill, but you are just given a copy of the actual record, a record that belongs to the phone company. Along with many other details about you, that you probably do not have access too.
(like the amount of times you have contacted the phone company, the dates you payed bills, the method of paying that bill, the location where you paid that bill and so on).
There is a great deal of information about you, that YOU DO NOT OWN, and do not have access too, it's not yours.
So in this case clearly the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY.
Show me the case and file number where this has been challenged in the Supreme Court and where the SC has made a ruling ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
Discuss: how you feel "green fields" does not also apply in this situation ?
Anyone can cut and paste the results of a Google search, (just like Masnick does for a living), but it takes some work to understand at least the basics of what you are pasting.
Google search is not a replacement for thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
Are those records part of your "persons, houses, papers or effects" ?
Those records are not created by you, owned by you, stored by you, or accessible to you, you don't have any right to them, nor do you have any right as to how they are used.
They are the property of Google.
Also, "Unreasonable" is NOT a strict definition, it is up to interpretation, specifically by the Constitutionally appointed and created Supreme Court, who have the Constitutional authority to define 'unreasonable' and in the light of the terrorists fears (justified or not), they have interpreted this to be 'reasonable'.
Not everyone agrees with that, but not everyone agrees with ANYTHING. If you don't agree you just have to accept that fact of life.
If you want to stand up for the Constitution, you have to stand up for IT ALL, not just the bits you agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
Please cite the case where the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, rules on the constitutional reasonableness of these searches. (Hint: you can't because it doesn't exist)
These were not warrants issues based on probable cause and they did not explicitly state the places to be searched and the things to be seized. They're general warrants that support dragnet surveillance and that's a flagrant violation of the 4th. The 4th was explicitly intended to prevent these kinds of general warrants where the government can just search everything for things they might be interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what "reporting misinformation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought you were going to make a big issue about the leaks, now I see you are just like everyone else, you cant make money on the contents of the leaks, so spend all your time talking about the 'reporters' and law breakers (alleged) but NOT THE STORY, fight for the storyteller..
Are the leaks that insignificant ??
clearly they are, or you would write about them more (or even SOME).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being a non American I have actually refrained from commenting in the last 2 weeks on anything to do with the NSA fiasco that TD has fully covered ad infinitum that has 90% been about the message of the wrongful abuses amd nonfeasance that the NSA has perpetrated and how the USG has willfully allowed it.
Your an idiot and a fool... though I repeat myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Though I might need a lot of resources, an NSA computer, a few liters of honey, some Ducktape, an anthill in the middle of the Simpson Desert and a couple of wooden stakes to hold him down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
bad lands ?? Scab lands ?? ohhh Death Valley, "New York"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Retarded puppies would take pity on you, then poop in your ear so at least you'd still have some brainpower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
Have you considered that Greenwald is just someone trying hard to get his 15 minutes to fame, so he can convert it into a career giving presentations and appearing on Fox News awearing the "liberal commentator" that they will pin on him?
When you measure this sort of thing against Watergate (which required actual effort, not just waiting for a data file to be transferred) you can see the difference. Clearly, this guy is no Woodward.
PS: Yes, another day of Techdirt censorship of my posts. It's nice to know that Mike Masnick considers censorship as a solution. A salute to you comrade, you have outdone the communists this time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media smear artists
So in both cases, Murdoch is innocent, but there is reason for us to suspect administration meddling. I expect they've leaked Greenwald's student loan and IRS records. Pretty tame stuff, really -- he must not have any real dirt in his past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media smear artists
Greenwald has more stones than 90% of the US media and 99.5% of the current US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because this has been going on so long, the public no longer trusts the MSM to give it the facts and ever large portions of citizens are seeking their news elsewhere. This will increase the rate at which MSM goes under.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15778-as-trust-in-u-s-press-plummets-journali st-seeks-truth-in-media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that's handy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It must be hard to be in his position right now. We must help as much as we can by exposing this absurd and educating people who are buying the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Darryl, this country hasn't had a balanced budget since the Clinton administration.
Therefore, we are taking out MORE than we are paying back. In effect, we are really not paying back, but owing more year after year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's how it always goes with these revelations - the big news outlets gradually spins the story to be about the persons involved with the story, rather than the story itself. And once the news is all about the people involved, then the smear campaign begins. Subtle at first but gradually the people who broke the story are portrayed as criminals, sexual deviants or whatever bullshit the media can sell to the public. It's a remarkably well oiled propaganda machinery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, because it highlights how the purpose of the news organizations these people work for are really geared towards promoting divisiveness along "party" ideologies. Something increasingly difficult to do in this situation because of how clear it is that both parties of in support of this behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]