Conflict-Ridden CBS 60 Minutes 'Journalist' Defends NSA Propaganda Piece By Insulting All His Critics

from the how-convincing dept

We recently wrote about 60 Minutes' laughably bad propaganda piece for the NSA, done by "reporter" John Miller, who has spent much of his time working in various high level positions in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. That he's expected to be rejoining law enforcement in an intelligence role shortly and that reports suggest the deal was negotiated long before his NSA report was completed only add to the questionable nature of allowing someone with such an obvious conflict of interest to handle that report. And, given that Miller appeared to only toss ridiculous softballs, failed to challenge any of Keith Alexander's highly questionable statements, and that the entire 60 Minutes team (in a "behind the scenes" clip posted to the web) seemed in awe of the NSA from the word go, the idea that this was nothing more than a infomercial for the NSA has plenty of credence.

After a week or so of silence, Miller finally decided to respond to his critics, by insulting them all and claiming that only the great and mighty John Miller does real reporting. Everyone who criticized the report is nothing more than angry bloggers in pajamas. David Carr, at the NY Times spoke to Miller:

Mr. Miller was more than happy to explain his N.S.A. segment, which he said he would not change if he had the chance.... He is nothing if not confident, dismissing his critics as ankle-biting, agenda-ridden bloggers who could not be compelled to get out of their pajamas and do actual reporting.

“I fully reject the criticism from you and others,” he told me. “The N.S.A. story has been a fairly one-way dialogue. There has been no conversation and when you do hear from the N.S.A., it is in a terse, highly vetted statement.”

“We went there, we asked every question we wanted to, listened to the answers, followed up as we wished, and our audience can decide what and who they believe. As we constructed it, the N.S.A. was a story about a debate, not a villain, and we added to that debate with important information. I fail to understand how a shrill argument for the sake of creating televised drama would have accomplished anything.”

Nearly everything said above is wrong or misleading -- like the comments he got from his buddies at the NSA. Many of the people who criticized Miller's infomercial are well-known and successful reporters with long histories of investigative reporting. For example, New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza absolutely trashed Miller's report, and Lizza recently wrote what I think is one of the absolutely most comprehensive and well-researched pieces on the NSA stuff. Other critics included Glenn Greenwald, who, it's difficult to argue, hasn't done some rather impressive reporting recently on these subjects. Then there's Spencer Ackerman, who has done amazing investigative work concerning the intelligence community and law enforcement for years. And he did a wonderful piece totally debunking the lies the NSA told in the 60 Minutes piece -- that is, the stuff John Miller let go through without questioning any of it. To argue that real investigative reporters weren't criticizing his piece is just wrong. Sure, some of us may be bloggers in our pajamas (guilty!), but to pretend that's where all the criticism came from isn't just lame, it's wrong. Besides, I really thought we were past the age where complaining about "bloggers in pajamas" was considered a thing to do.

As for the idea that the NSA story had been a "one-way dialogue," that's also just ridiculously false. I mean, when a large part of the federal government is on your side, the idea that the NSA's side of the story wasn't being told is laughable. Each week on the usual Sunday talk programs, NSA defenders seem to dominate the airwaves. While it might not be Keith Alexander or James Clapper directly, plenty of surrogates are out there listing out the talking points.

But it's that final paragraph that's really the most maddening -- this idea that "well, we asked questions and now it's up to the audience to decide who to believe." That's bullshit. That's not reporting. Reporting is about uncovering the truth. Bad reporting is, as journalism professor Jay Rosen (who also criticized Miller's reporting) calls it: "he said, she said" journalism where you write down what everyone says and then let the public sort it out for themselves who's full of shit. In this case, it was even worse, because Miller didn't even do the "she said" side. He provided the "he said" without any pushback to clearly bogus statements, and now wants to claim it's okay because the public can figure it out? Really?

Furthermore, what "important information" did they add to the debate? There was nothing in the report that revealed anything new or valuable at all. There was a scare-mongering story about a "BIOS" attack that was quickly shown to have been reported incorrectly (one security expert noted that it was gibberish, rather than anything real). That was about it.

I can understand Miller's desire to hit back at his critics, but name calling and refusing to respond to the direct claims of things that were clearly misleading or erroneous in his report, doesn't help his credibility. Oh, wait, I mean his credibility with the public who get news from him. I'm sure it helps his credibility quite a lot with his former and future bosses within the law enforcement community. And that's why 60 Minutes is a laughingstock for allowing someone so conflicted to put on such a bogus infomercial love letter to the NSA.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bloggers, cbs news, infomercial, insults, john miller, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda
Companies: cbs

CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest

from the journalism! dept

Last night I started seeing a bunch of folks on Twitter absolutely trashing 60 Minutes. We had mentioned last week that 60 Minutes would be doing something about the NSA, including the revelation that some NSA officials favored granting Snowden asylum, and that Keith Alexander ridiculously stated that people should be held accountable for their actions -- without recognizing the irony of that statement when pointed at himself. What we didn't realize was that the episode of 60 Minutes would be a complete propaganda infomercial for the NSA. Among the many, many, many issues with the program:

• The reporting was conducted by John Miller, a former intelligence community official (who worked for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NSA) in a spokesperson role and a variety of historical roles in the intelligence community. While he does "disclose" the ODNI role upfront (but not the others), he left out that he's about to be hired in an intelligence role for the NYPD, a deal that has been described as "a 99.44 percent done deal." Also, in the past, when he also worked for the NYPD, he had a bit of a problem with telling the truth. Miller is, clearly, an intelligence industry spokesperson at heart, pretending to be a journalist here.
• There was not a single hard hitting question asked throughout. It was all softballs. Seriously. Many of the setup questions were the same bogus strawmen we've seen the NSA focus on in the past -- concerning things like "is the NSA listening to everyone's calls." But that isn't what people are actually concerned about. At no point did they appear to even attempt to ask followup questions when the NSA people made clearly misleading statements, such as those concerning the surveillance of "US persons."
• Not a single critic of the NSA was shown during the entire episode. Seriously. Not a single claim by the NSA was refuted or pushed back on. At all. Basically, Miller served up softballs, the NSA hit 'em back, and the "investigative journalists" at 60 Minutes said, "Wow, isn't that amazing!"
• They admit that they did this piece because the NSA "invited them in." In other words, this was purely a propaganda piece from the very outset. The most hysterical thing to watch is the "overtime" bit that they have on the website in which they explain how 60 Minutes got to do this story on the NSA, which reveals that basically the NSA asked them to do this puff piece and then controlled every second of the process. There are even a few outtakes where the NSA "handlers" cut off parts of interviews to tell people what to say.
• Miller claims he spoke to NSA critics and asked them what they would ask, but that's not reflected in the questioning at all. He then defends the piece saying that his goal was to let the NSA explain its side of the story, which he argues wasn't getting enough attention. Seriously.

  Because this is really the side of the story that has been mined only in the most superficial ways. We’ve heard plenty from the critics. We’ve heard a lot from Edward Snowden. Where there’s been a distinctive shortage is, putting the NSA to the test and saying not just ‘We called for comment today’ but to get into the conversation and say that sounds a lot like spying on Americans, and then say, ‘Well, explain that.’”

  Try not to laugh at that. He even claims that he didn't want it to be a puff piece -- which is exactly what it was.
• The one big "revelation" in the piece involves NSA people implying, but never actually saying, how they stopped some sort of plot to turn everyone's computers into bricks by infecting the BIOS. But, as lots of people who actually understand this stuff are noting, that segment was pure gibberish:

  There are no technical details. Yes, they talk about "BIOS", but it's redundant, unrelated to their primary claim. Any virus/malware can destroy the BIOS, making a computer unbootable, "bricking" it. There's no special detail here. All they are doing is repeating what Wikipedia says about BIOS, acting as techie talk layered onto the discussion to make it believable, much like how Star Trek episodes talk about warp cores and Jeffries Tubes.
  
  Stripped of techie talk, this passage simply says "The NSA foiled a major plot, trust us." But of course, there is no reason we should trust them. It's like how the number of terrorist plots foiled by telephone eavesdropping started at 50 then was reduced to 12 then to 2 and then to 0, as the NSA was forced to justify their claims under oath instead of in front of news cameras. The NSA has proven itself an unreliable source for such information -- we can only trust them if they come out with more details -- under oath.
  
  Moreover, they don't even say what they imply. It's all weasel-words. Nowhere in the above passage does a person from the NSA say "we foiled a major cyber terror plot". Instead, it's something you piece together by the name "BIOS plot", cataclysmic attacks on our economy (from the previous segment), and phrases like "would it have worked".

• Part of the piece, bizarrely, focused on smearing Ed Snowden based on a completely out of context statement about how he would work at home with a sheet over his head to keep work secret. Given the realities of what the NSA is doing, and what Snowden was up to, that doesn't sound so strange. Yet, Miller (not the NSA), made it out like Snowden was a wack job for this:

  John Miller: At home, they discovered Snowden had some strange habits.
  
  Rick Ledgett: He would work on the computer with a hood that covered the computer screen and covered his head and shoulders, so that he could work and his girlfriend couldn't see what he was doing.
  
  John Miller: That's pretty strange, sitting at your computer kind of covered by a sheet over your head and the screen?
  
  Rick Ledgett: Agreed.

There was more, but it's more of the same. You have the producers of the episode oohing and ahhing about how the NSA's headquarters looked like something out of Star Trek, and how they had to fight hard to get the NSA to open a door for the NSA's "black chamber" -- showing a couple of cubicles.

Coming so soon on the heels after 60 Minutes totally bungled a report on Benghazi, you would think that the once respected news program might try a little harder not to post something so obviously ridiculous. But, apparently not. While many have suggested that the NSA communications people should get a raise for pulling off such pure propaganda, some are pointing out that the whole thing was so obviously a bogus puff piece that no one's buying it. Anthony DeRosa has put together a series of tweets about the episode and hasn't yet been able to find a single person who reacted positively to it. Not a single one.

It's no secret that the NSA isn't very good at PR but, in this case, not only may they have harmed their case, they helped CBS News shoot themselves in the foot, yet again, over whatever shreds of journalistic credibility they may have had.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, cbs news, conflict of interest, ed snowden, john miller, journalism, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda, surveillance
Companies: cbs

UK Spy Chief Says Al-Qaeda Loving Snowden Leaks, But How Would He Know Unless Viable Intercepts Are Still In Place?

from the are-al-Qaeda-ops-sending-him-mocking-Vine-videos? dept

This short blurb from the current Parliamentary inquiry into the UK's surveillance programs just doesn't add up.

"The leaks from Snowden have been very damaging, they've put our operations at risk. It's clear that our adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee, al Qaeda is lapping it up," John Sawers, the head of MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence service, told parliament.

Either Sawers is simply assuming al-Qaeda members are relishing the leaks or MI6, GCHQ, etc. still have viable intercepts. The talking points have always been: a) it's legal and subject to oversight and b) the leaks have aided our enemies. Sawers is going with the latter. Here's more:

Lobban said terrorist groups in the Middle East and Afghanistan had been discussing the revelations in specific terms and had discussed moving to other “communications packages”.

If anything, the leaks may have pushed a few operatives off compromised services, but it's highly unlikely those in control of these operations or anyone with any common sense was using widely available commercial services to collaborate and plan further terrorist activities. It's not as if al-Qaeda members thought no one was paying attention to their communications and activities until June 6th of this year. Statements like Sawer's make that assertion. His further comments indicate that intelligence agencies are still picking up useful data. The agencies know which "communications packages" they're tapping and should be able to react by looking towards those they don't. At best, the leaks have only sped along the inevitable. Spying of this magnitude wasn't going to stay secret forever and these agencies should be feeling a bit more grateful Snowden went to the press, rather than the enemy.

Much of what's been uncovered has been speculated on heavily for years. Snowden isn't the first whistleblower to expose surveillance programs. His leaks may be the largest to date, but information has leaked out over the past several years that has, at the very least, indicated most major phone services are compromised (which would lead one to believe data carried along those same lines is similarly compromised). Earlier leaks also pointed to intelligence efforts to install software backdoors in widely used products and, for as long as the NSA has existed, defeating encryption has been a priority, which means any system or service relying on it was likely a target.

There will still be "surface skimmers" that expose terrorist operations by failing to stay below the surveillance radar. Much of what's been exposed by the leaks deals with major corporations and popular services. The NSA is intercepting data from Google and Yahoo, not stuff routed through "darker" alternatives. (Not that it doesn't want those as well...) To state these leaks have aided terrorists is to assume (like others have) that al-Qaeda relies on Google products and compromised telecommunictions services.

Sawer's claim plays to those who buy into the fear these agencies desperately need to sell to avoid losing any of these unfiltered intercepts -- intercepts so "important" to national security that they can't be bothered to be operated with any sort of finesse. The blunt force trauma of these data smash-and-grab programs has done little more than give UK and US agencies way more data than they can feasibly use and turn the public (and the communication services it uses) against the intelligence community.

It serves a double duty for intelligence agencies by turning Snowden into the enemy -- a careless terrorist sympathizer. If these agencies "know" terrorist entities are loving the leaks, then they have viable intercepts still in place. Either that or they're just telling convenient untruths. Either way, it does them no favors. We're well past the point of buying the flimsy justifications and the tired assertion that our nations can only be ensured safety if we cave to intelligence agencies' every demand carries absolutely no weight at this point.

Filed Under: al qaeda, gchq, john sawers, nsa, propaganda, surveillance, uk

UK Gov't Losing The Plot: Now Claiming Snowden Leaks Could Help Pedophiles

from the wtf? dept

Having already gone down the crazy path to arguing that journalism can be terorrism if it's "designed to influence a government," in the David Miranda detention lawsuit, the UK government is also claiming that the Ed Snowden leaks may help pedophiles. This seems to be a dystopian updated version of copyright maximalists trying to use child porn to support their own arguments. The general thinking is "just make some sort of nonsensical connection to child porn, and that'll show people how serious this is." The reality is that since most people can think, they realize that there is no connection to child porn, and thus the claim makes no sense. Same thing here, but at an even more bizarre level of insanity.

Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain’s surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper, the government has claimed.

A senior Whitehall official said data stolen by Edward Snowden, a former contractor to the US National Security Agency, could be exploited by child abusers and other cyber criminals.

How? Uh, don't ask silly questions like that. The government has said "child abusers" so shut up and be scared. The Telegraph article, by David Barrett, admits that the government didn't explain how it made this connection, but then attempts to connect the dots for you:

it is well known that many paedophiles use the internet to share child pornography and to groom potential victims. They also use “peer to peer” groups on the web to communicate with other child abusers.

Any clues about how to evade detection which have been provided by Mr Snowden’s leaks could help paedophiles to cover their tracks.

But, under that argument, any privacy or encryption could be lumped into that same camp. Does David Barrett or the UK government refuse to use SSL on webpages, since encryption can be used to cover the tracks of pedophiles? The argument shows just how painfully desperate the UK government is in this case -- and also how petty and jealous it appears the Guardian's UK competitors have become, in that this is reported as if Snowden's efforts seriously would "help pedophiles."

Filed Under: ed snowden, exaggeration, leaks, pedophiles, propaganda, surveillance, uk

The Best Comments From The Worst Video: The Internet Vs. The NSA's Charm Offensive

from the patented-internet-'Preparation-H8'-does-nothing-for-agency-asshurt dept

The NSA continues to battle for hearts and minds, mostly aiming for those that matter (elected officials), but occasionally stepping down to street level to tell everyday Americans how they've got the spy agency all wrong.

To that end, the Dept. of Defense produced an incredibly awkward video featuring Captain James Tiberius Kirk General Keith Alexander answering a series of questions from a supposed interviewer (although her voice is never actually heard). It's all shot in a "look how open we are!" sort of way, which means seeing glimpses of the recording crew, extension cords, the back of the "interviewer's" head and, most surprisingly, Alexander without a tie.

In a thirty-minute version of the Official Talking Points, Alexander talks about how spy people are the best people and compares the Section 215 program to being forced to take a bath. He invites a discussion on how to better surveil the world while also recommending journalists publishing leaked documents be "stopped." Sadly, he doesn't invite too much discussion on this topic, although he does use the royal "we" when detailing who should be preventing journalists from performing journalism.

"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policymakers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on."

The strained informality of the video isn't fooling anyone. Currently, it sports a gaudy "dislike" ratio of 57:1 (280 "likes," 15,381 "dislikes").


There are also more than 4,000 comments on the video, almost every single one of them disparaging. The comments range to-the-point "screw the NSA" variations to longer, unhinged spiels tying the NSA leaks to the commenter's pet conspiracy theory. One commenter was moved to give the NSA frontman both barrels of his (presumably British) derision.


Between the expected flow of vitriol (mostly deserved), all-caps screeds/Illuminati rantings (because this is the internet) and ways to earn money at home, there are a few hidden gems.


That faux-openness? Fooling nobody. But it's amazing what a single unbuttoned button does for someone's public persona. Sure, you might feel you could have a drink with the Chief Spook, but I imagine you'd take your wallet, phone or purse to the restroom with you when nature called.

Another commenter feels the removal of the necktie doesn't go quite far enough towards making General Alexander a man of the people.


And the music (ffs!). Motherboard calls the video out for its pseudo-NOVA episode feel, asking simply "Why?" in its one word critique of the soundtrack. Alphaville refers to the music as "narco-ambient." A (misspelled?) Alex Vance gives credit where credit is due, however.


But maybe there's more to the music than simply being the first track off the first library music album grabbed by the DoD's producers.


Beyond critiquing the video's look and soundtrack, some commenters offered their impressions of Alexander himself...


as well as Alexander's preferred nickname…


and the sort of reaction the queasy music and queasier talking points recitation has on the average viewer.


I, for one, am looking forward to more awkward openness from intelligence officials in the coming months. The power of social media should be harnessed by the NSA and others (but from the outside, like the rest of us), if for no other reason than it provides immediate feedback on the credibility of the talking points. Sure, the NSA may learn nothing from this experience, but if it thought the country was fairly evenly split on the merits of intrusive surveillance, it can look to its 57:1 dislike ratio for further guidance. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry's atrocious presidential campaign video only sports a dislike ratio of 29:1, and that video criticizes gays in the military and complains about the separation of church and state.

Perhaps the next video could be Clapper, Comey, Alexander, Michael Hayden and Stewart Baker "casually" discussing the merits of broad surveillance programs while playing poker, sitting on lawn furniture, taking a nature hike or closing a field office. Maybe some "citizens" could be on tap to ask "natural-sounding" softballs about how 9/11 was caused by civil liberties groups or how basement-dwelling losers shouldn't expect to be allowed into "adult" discussions on intelligence policies -- you know, whatever it takes to turn public opinion around.

Filed Under: dod, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, propaganda, youtube

Chinese Propaganda: The US Military Is Making Master Chief Armor; Me: Awesome!

from the fake-it-until-you-make-it dept

For some reason, the propaganda machines of the Far East appear to operating as though their singular mission was to make me, personally, laugh myself to death. I admit this is an enticing military strategy, but so far the laughter hasn't led to death just yet. That said, I appreciate it when, for instance, North Korea does Photoshop so poorly that it ends up looking like the world's most boring Warhol painting.

But there's an arms race for everything, apparently, including in the arena of doing propaganda hilariously wrong. That seems to be the only explanation for why China's state media would up the nerd-quotient in their attempts by making it clear the United States military is pumping out new armor identical to that of Halo's Master Chief.

The program was New Defence Observations, a military show (read: propaganda), on Channel 7. On the October 19 episode, which is recently causing a stir in China, a segment talked about the "smart amour." The program compared the new U.S. military tech to Iron Man, using an image from Iron Man 3. In the upper corner, it clearly says, "movie image" (电影剧照). Then, the show flashes to the image below:

Yeah, that's The Chief, alright. What the report called "U.S. Military Concept Armour" is actually a promotional shot from the fan-made Halo film, 405th, which I'm at least somewhat certain has not been contracted by the U.S. government to do anything at all. That said, this report raises several questions. What good does China telling its own citizens that America has kick-ass new space-marine armor do? You'd think it'd just scare the hell out of its citizens and instill in them the belief that their own military was behind the space-marine-ing times.

Also, why the hell doesn't the U.S. military have this awesome armor yet? The Covenant might be just around the corner, you fools!

Filed Under: china, iron man, master chief, propaganda

Chinese News Photoshop Fail Turns Chinese Men Into Chinese Friendly Giants

from the BFGs dept

The being-bad-at-Photoshop arms race continues! For some reason, there appears to be a culture of "fake it 'til you make it" going on with some of our international rivals. Previous iterations include Iran's using Photoshop to ensure that everyone knows one of their new jets can't actually fly, as well as North Korea (of course) transposing several national leaders into photos to pretend like they opened a school for children (like anyone would believe that).

And now we can add China to the list, given that they're piss-poor attempt at manipulating a photo to look like leaders visited a really old women somewhere resulted in the insinuation that Chinese men have been eating their Wheaties and have turned into big, smiling giant-folk.

According to China News (via HugChina), the above photo supposedly features the vice mayor of Ningguo county and other officials "visiting" a 100-year-old woman—a very small one hundred year old woman, surrounded by a halo and giants.

Quick, someone save that happy old lady from the uber-men surrounding her! And these aren't even your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Chinese mega-men, either. They're ghost giants, as evidenced by that last guy on the right how appears to be made of a non-corporeal substance the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Ghostbusters were still employed!

Now, the image and the report have reportedly been taken down to ensure the Chinese people don't fly into a panic about the ensuing gigantic dominance, but wouldn't it be easier for the Chinese government to have actually visited this sweet old lady rather than parry the ensuing laughter over this poor propaganda attempt?

Filed Under: china, news, photoshop, propaganda

International Crisis: North Korea Is Getting Even Worse At Photoshop

from the fake-it-until-you-make-it dept

There's something of a saying that goes "fake it 'til you make it." The idea is that you look and act as though you've already achieved some goal. For instance, let's say you want to graduate from that annoying weird nation all the other nations put up with but kind of hate to a big boy nation where everyone respects and fears you. Well, North Korea has been faking it 'til they make it. The problem is that they suck at faking it. They fake being an existential threat to America using video game footage and soundtracks. But threatening America is the big time, requiring big, complicated faking-it efforts. What about the little stuff? Say, head of party Kim Jong-un's required appearance for the opening of a children's hospital?

Er, that's an interesting picture. I really like the way the people in the picture pop, you know? Perhaps it's because of the colors, or maybe it's because this is one of the worst attempts at photoshopping I've ever seen.

But did you look at the shadows and the lighting? The figures appear to be superimposed—something that internet commenters in China were quick to notice. Online in neighboring Japan, amused internet commenters showed how easy it was to add individuals to this scene.

Oh well, back to being the weird kid, North Korea. Maybe when you learn to lie like the rest of the world you can come back and play with our toys.

Filed Under: north korea, photoshop, propaganda

Turkish Government Aims To Create 6000-Strong Social Media Propaganda Squad

from the getting-the-message-out dept

In the recent demonstrations in Istanbul, the Turkish government may have had superior police and security forces on the streets, but one area where it lost the battle was on social networks, which anti-government protesters used adroitly to get their viewpoint out to the world. It seems the Turkish government has learned its lesson, and has decided to fight back according to this report in the Wall Street Journal:

The Justice and Development Party [AKP], led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is recruiting a 6,000-member social-media team to woo citizens and fight critics, party officials said.

The AKP is gradually bringing young, tech-savvy party members to Ankara to train them in classrooms to act as volunteer "social-media representatives."

The youth will be charged with sharing news and images, mainly on Twitter and Facebook, but also on Instagram and YouTube, that promote the party perspective and monitor online discussions, a party official said.

The Turkish government certainly isn't the first to adopt this form of digital propaganda. China led the way with its "50-cent party", named for the amount of money that its members are allegedly paid every time they steer discussion back towards the official line. More recently, it has emerged that Israel will be paying university students to post pro-government messages online, but without identifying themselves as part of a propaganda team. Given the importance of social networks, and their ability to help shape political debates, it seems likely that this tactic will become increasingly common around the world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: propaganda, social media, turkey

Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange

from the journalism! dept

We've already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so:

In case you can't see that, it says:

I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.

This isn't just cheering on despicable government actions -- including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist -- but it's saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he'll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today's modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he's directly letting the government know that he'll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don't agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.

Of course, this isn't new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In "defending" his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans' rights if it means stopping terrorists.

Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it's despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald "gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in." Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was "dumb."

Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization -- one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?

Filed Under: drones, extrajudicial killing, journalism, julian assange, michael grunwald, propaganda, time magazine