Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonnybgood | Hacker News Reader

I'm very skeptical of Glenn Greenwald. I'm surprised by how many will readily accept whatever he says. That's kinda scary. There's a question of credibility when you don't fact check[1]. Makes you wonder what else is Greenwald exaggerating or not fact checking.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/1...

View on HN

That article is textbook character assassination based on an unimportant nit-pick the washington post itself couldn't even "fact-check". Instead, Booz Hamilton provided Snowden's base salary - not how much he actually earned, which could have included overtime, bonuses, any other kind of allowance. It seems entirely likely to me that Snowden's actual take home could have been well above the base rate. Certainly no-one has tabled any evidence otherwise.

So you're basing your skepticism on what? That he used the word salary instead of income? That's why he has lost all credibility? Not to mention this personal detail has nothing to do with the actual allegations.

Congratulations, you swallowed this textbook hit piece hook, line and sinker. Its entire purpose was to make people "skeptical", of course, and it obviously worked.

Broadly stated: independent sources cross-confirming each other is the best way to ensure reliability (an old scientific, police, historian, and journalist principle). Simply because we agree with a single source's statements and viewpoints doesn't guarantee the single source is right.

However, a variety of people over the years (Drake & others) have also remarked on the over-the-top surveillance. It's also true that the NSA has admitted certain of Greenwald's accusations. So at least in principle, Greenwald has been confirmed.

But the NSA has not admitted certain of Greenwald's accusations[1]. Greenwald's journalistic integrity has also been questioned before[2]. So, as I stated, makes you wonder what else he can be exaggerating or (intentionally?) not fact checking. I honestly can not see how someone could not be skeptical Greenwald.

[1] http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-un...

[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/08/1192256/-The-Final-...

From [2]: "...he mixes high-concept political commentary with the lowest forms of tabloid propaganda in service to a religiously anti-Obama narrative" yea, this person has no idea what Greenwald is about.

Well, the big problem is that the default state of a secret spy agency is to deny everything and to classify everything. So their denial means very little. I would expect them to deny what they could. GG may, in fact be right in part but wrong on some details; he may be right in principle but wrong in fact; or he may be wrong, period. The preponderance of evidence of NSA behavior (going back to the 90s), the previous whistleblowers, and the admissions to date indicates that in principle, GG is correct. He may be wrong in detail or in facts, but his story is generally consistent, if more than expected.

Of course, it would be nice if Congress forcibly opened the archives and let the truth out into open air - then we could see clearly and make educated decisions! Until then, we have to rely on the somewhat foggy environment of leaks, whistleblowing, and journalists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com