Washington Post Makes Bizarre, Factually Incorrect Claims About Glenn Greenwald, Can't Figure Out How To Update
from the keep-working-at-it.. dept
The Washington Post's institutional jealousy towards the Guardian and its role in the Ed Snowden leaks continues to be quite bizarre. At the same time that some of the Post's reporters are doing excellent work on the story, including breaking a few of the stories themselves, the old timers seem to be reflexively attacking the Guardian for doing the same thing -- and, at the same time, attacking Snowden himself for being a source. The latest example is Walter Pincus, the octogenarian and long-term Washington Post "national security" reporter, who wrote a bizarre column "asking questions" of Ed Snowden, and by association, of Glenn Greenwald, filmmaker Laura Poitras (who has assisted both the Guardian and the Washington Post with the Snowden story) and Julian Assange. Pincus makes a bunch of "connections" that he finds concerning about the Snowden ordeal, suggesting strongly that the whole thing was somehow orchestrated in secret by Julian Assange.The only problem with this is that a very large number of the factual claims made by Pincus are complete bunk. Not only that, but they're such complete bunk that even a basic fact check would have told you they were complete bunk. It's a perfectly legitimate journalistic practice to ask questions based on information presented -- but when those questions are based on complete falsehoods, it makes you wonder. Much of Pincus' piece is based on the incorrect claim that Greenwald has a close connection with Assange and Wikileaks, stating, falsely, that Greenwald "wrote for the WikiLeaks Press's blog about Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. government officials." That's completely untrue. Greenwald wrote his piece for Salon not for Wikileaks, and has never written for Wikileaks in any manner.
Greenwald confronted Pincus about this and other inaccuracies in the piece, leading Pincus to grudgingly admit that it was a mistake, but saying his confusion was because the Salon piece "was carried on the Wikileaks Press page without attribution to Salon as the originating venue."
Of course, there are a number of other pretty big factual errors by Pincus, which he has refused to acknowledge. For example, the claim that Julian Assange "previewed" the first Snowden leak a week before Greenwald published it in the Guardian. However, as anyone following these issues knows, Assange was talking about a completely different NSA surveillance program (Stellar Wind), which had been leaked many years ago and was shut down a few years back. Instead of admitting this error, Pincus is doubling down, telling Wemple that perhaps his point was "badly phrased," but Assange and Greenwald were talking about the "same program."
Except, they're not. They are both NSA surveillance programs, but Stellar Wind was revealed years ago. The Greenwald revelations were much more detailed and were about very different programs, many of which came after Stellar Wind. Considering that Pincus is supposed to be the Washington Post's "national security" expert, you'd think he'd recognize that. Instead, he tells Wemple that the complaints are "argumentative." Pincus also, falsely, suggested that Snowden only worked at the NSA for 3 months, ignoring -- as has been widely reported -- that Snowden worked at the NSA as a contractor for four years. He merely switched which firm he was contracting for (from Dell to Booz Allen).
Again, asking questions is a perfectly reasonable activity. But those questions should be based on facts. And... when those facts are shown to be wrong, you issue a correction. And, once you've admitted you're flat out wrong, and say that you'll fix it, it shouldn't take over 24 hours to do so....
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, erik wemple, glenn greenwald, laura poitras, walter pincus
Companies: the guardian, washington post, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he waits long enough, then almost all of the people who are ever going to read his story will have already done so and will have moved on to the next day's news. Not too many people are going to come back and look to see if there are any changes after a day or two. By delaying, he is able to leave group of readers who were not really informed on the situation with the same incorrect beliefs he wanted them to have in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why so long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so long?
http://cl.jroo.me/z3/r/5/p/d/a.aaa-corrector-on-monitor.JPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why so long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stenographers
Just take a look at their editorial pages to know what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stenographers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love how Mike, who is too chicken shit to do actual journalism, is on the soapbox telling real journalists how they should act. Classic douchebaggery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, why bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Remove the **'s.)
ROFLMAO. Wow. Just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bawwwwkkk. Bawwwkkk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky sob
Oh, Jesus Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I win. And you know it.
Why are you acting like a Chinese dictator, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick, chubby, block and censor!!!
LMAO @ Censoring DB Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You still don't get how this works.
You are not being "censored" (I can still read your crap), the users of the site report your posts. When you get enough reports your posts get minimised to stop them from irritating everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But whatever you do, don't engage on the merits!!
Why does honest conversation about issues that matter scare you so much, Mike??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not in the way you'd like, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LMAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
After this, people will just (rightly) just skip them, as it's likely just more of your spam (which, at this point is just that, it no longer even qualifies as trolling).
So kudos for streamlining the way people use the comments section, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where was Pincus in 1991?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where was Pincus in 1991?
Being an curmudgeonly octogenarian columnist for the Washington Pravda is just Pincus' way of postponing retirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where was Pincus in 1991?
he has been 'covering' the national security beat for decades, it would not be surprising if he was not still an 'asset' of one stripe or another...
(it was bernstein who reported that there were HUNDREDS of mainstream media droids who were direct or indirect assets of 'the company', and some were out-and-out cover jobs for 'real' spooks...)
*AT THE VERY LEAST*, he has become dependent upon the very people he is supposed to be 'investigating', so i have ZERO doubt he is being fed bullshit and lies to spew about Snowden and Greenwald, et al...
of course, the graham family which owns the post has been spooked up for generations; katherine graham has famously said that us 99% do not DESERVE or NEED to know all the skullduggery done in our names, with our money...
'cause -you know- that is the province of elites like her...
nowadays, their mighty media empire is crumbling, but they are rising pheonix like from the ashes to be one of the top educational ripoff companies -kaplan- to take advantage of the testing regimen, etc...
(oh, if you want to know who 'leave no child's behind left unspanked' is meant to benefit, you only have to look at the companies who make tests, etc... THEY are the only ones who benefit from this madness...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure why it should take so long, through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The correction has been made, sort of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The correction has been made, sort of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/30/with-journalism-persecuted-the-united-states-is-now-at-event-horizon-to-a-police-state/
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]