Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian
ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br
ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br
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...
However, the first interview by Greenwald was given to the Washington Post -- which Bezos just purchased.
Snowden provided material to both Washington Post and the Guardian, but it was the Guardian that chose to really dive into it and milk it all the way -- Washington Post hesitated. A lot of people are hungry for Greenwald giving them more Snowden leaks, the backer probably understands this.
The understanding with Greenwald is he's not afraid to piss off people -- if he gets more leaks in his hands, he's going to let the public in on it. It's hard to imagine Bezos getting himself into this kind of public hot grounds, so I think it's highly unlikely that Bezos is behind this.
edit: small grammar fix; thanks cpeterso
Did you mean "highly unlikely"?
I listened to his interview with CBC Radio(no one listens to CBC Radio), and he is just so articulate and calm.
His defence against the douche bag on CNN(OR NBC) was inspiring, this is what people should be taking example of.
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.
Somehow, when I read this, I imagine this guy :)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
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.
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.
Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.
Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.
In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public.
Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual.
I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics.
The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others.
EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?
Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought.
Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time.
The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.
Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.
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.
The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief.
This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-gr...
So I like that another really excellent philanthropically funded news organisation is starting (Pro Publica has been good).
As long as you share those political views or objectives, that is, then it is "philanthropy" rather than journalism bought and paid for.
If we are going to be cynical about Fox News and everything else, why should Greenwald be the one exception to our cynicism?
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.
That someone is 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.
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.
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.
That's not how these things work anymore. It is more of a case of funding "useful idiots." You find someone who has a viewpoint that aligns with your financial interests and then you fund their work to promote their viewpoint and your financial interests just tag along for the ride.
There are a lot of pundits and even elected politicians who appear to be nothing more than corporate shills, saying whatever gets them paid. But, for the most part, that's untrue. They genuinely believe in what they are saying, they aren't hypocrites they just have a viewpoint that is convenient for the people funding them.
With hundreds of millions of adults in the western world, there will always be some number of people who are reasonably eloquent, plausibly logical and authentically believe in nearly any philosophy.
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?
Our publishing industry does have problems, but we're not that bad yet.
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...
2. The Home Affair's committee is looking into the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investiga...
and
3. They've been criticised by the Prime Minister:
Edit: grammar
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...
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.
I would expect the organization to uncover wrongdoing irrespective of political affiliation or national origin. I'd expect it to push extremely hard for transparency, forcing transparency where possible. Any news organization that leaves no rocks unturned where people can hide their weaseling is awesome in my book.
Basically, I'd pay very good money for an investigative news org with journalistic might equivalent to the military might of US Armed Forces.
People in politics, finance and all sorts of equivalently powerful organizations need to feel as naked and vulnerable from and information security perspective as we do after learning about myriad NSA surveillance programs.
In his interview with Smith, Greenwald said it would have major financial backing and would have hubs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. He disclosed no further details, but called the venture "momentous" and said it will be "be unveiled very shortly.”
1) DHH is a huge fan of Greenwald and very political.
2) Peter Thiel likes to make bold bets in the future of our culture (e.g. Ron Paul donation).
Paul and Greenwald are only on opposite teams if you believe in myopic labels like conservative vs. liberal (respectively). They're both ardent civil libertarians, and in Greenwald's case, that's the biggest part of his platform. Paul not so much, but it's still a major part.
What is hard to get is brand recognition and mainstream credibility, which you can't get unless you break something extraordinary like CNN did in Gulf War I and Al-Jazeera in the post-2001 invasions. Greenwald's name should help in that regard.
I mean why the hell work for a UK paper when you could work somewhere else given we have the internet now.
Better late than never, I guess.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
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.