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).
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.