General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald Praises Russia Today Anchor Who Spoke Out Against Invasion Of Ukraine
Russia Today Anchor Speaks Out Against Invasion Of Ukraine: 'What Russia Did Is Wrong'The Huffington Post | by Catherine Taibi
3/4/14
<snip>
A news anchor for Moscow's English-speaking television network spoke out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine in a move of journalistic bravery Monday night.
Russia Today (RT) anchor Abby Martin spoke into the camera during her broadcast just seconds before cutting to commercial and said that she needed to express something "from her heart."
"What Russia did is wrong," Martin said. "I will not sit here and apologize or defend military aggression."
The Kremlin-funded network has been criticized for manipulating news in defense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The network has been slammed for it's "shameless pro-Putin propaganda."
Martin condemned Russia for what she called a "terrible situation" and said she would "keep telling the truth as I see it" if that's what it takes to "prevent a full-blown cold war."
<snip>
Greenwald:
...
When that sort of commentary and reporting appears frequently on major American television outlets, American celebration of its own “free press” can be taken seriously. Or, put another way, until hosts of major U.S. television programs do what Abby Martin just did on RT in connection with a major American military intervention, American commentators’ self-justifying mockery of Russian media outlets will continue to be as persuasive as the condemnation of Russian imperialism and aggression from the David Frums of the world."
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/russia-today-anchor-abby-martin-putin-ukraine-rt_n_4895679.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
snooper2
(30,151 posts)to prove that RT is a legitimate "news" source and isn't biased
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is also a 9/11 truther, thinks that flouride is poisoning Americans and the Freemasons and Jews are controlling the world. In other words, she's a Russian Alex Jones.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43135_In_Which_Glenn_Greenwald_Praises_a_Lunatic_9-11_Truther_as_a_Hero_of_Journalistic_Independence/comments/#ctop
sibelian
(7,804 posts)1. He's a narcissist
2. RT is a state-funded propaganda machine
3. Putin is super-nasty guy
4. Poor gay people
5. There will be something regarding Abby Martin, of absolutely no pertinence to her position, that will materialise very soon, no doubt
6. "America bad, everyone else good" people are just as silly as the naughty Neocons, you know
etc.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the real "twisty turny crowd" is the group always trying to spin Greenwald's moves as pure.
"Glenn Greenwald Praises Russia Today Anchor Who Spoke Out Against Invasion Of Ukraine "
Yeah, he's praising a Russian propaganda channel because...a host.
Greenwald weighs in on Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024602743
mimi85
(1,805 posts)I truly cannot stand the man.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,525 posts)You're the Pro
How is praising the anchor for speaking out against the invasion by her country, unscripted, which very well may get her in hot water if not fired be defined as praising the pro government news organization that she works for?
Its like if Megyn Kelly suddenly had an epiphany (fat chance but..) and went off script and admitted that she's been carrying water for the Republicans all along and that they are behaving childish and she can't stomach it anymore.....and if GG were to praise her for being brave and risking her job, you and your ilk would be screaming about how GG is praising Fox News!
Truly Twisty Turny
sigh...I guess I'll never understand those that have this irrational fear of "the messenger". Or else its that GG looks funny, or is too popular, or he doesn't dress properly....? I have no clue at this point where some of you come off.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Ya never lets us down!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)among other things...which I've pointed out on a pretty frequent basis...
If you're a fan of his I'd have thought you'd hold him to a high standard? Or at the bare minimum at least a consistent one?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)But that's not because I think there's something wrong with him.
I'm not a fan of politically active figures. I do not believe it is a good idea to have warm fuzzies or boaky fits over political figures. I just have absolutely no patience left whatsoever with people who judge what is said depending on who said it. I didn't even particularly despise Bush. I mostly felt sorry for him. It was obvious that he was way out of this depth.
I can't be bothered with people who witter on about Greenwald's supposed failings as a person, I couldn't care LESS. What did he SAY is what interests me, is it true, is it false, what does it mean.
Everybody's wittering on about Putin at the moment and his obvious personality flaws, pfffeh. so what. What did he DO? What was the CONSEQUENCE, why does it MATTER, what will he do NEXT, these are proper questions not look how flabby his pecs are. I poke fun along with everyone else, sure... but I place no value in doing so. It's for fun, not for political analysis. "Ooooooh, he's a NARCISSIST!" It has zero value politically. And it's ACCEPTED as having political currency on this site, which as far as I'm concerned is fucking mess.
I don't hold Greenwald to "standards" of any kind. I have no internal ranking system of political figures against which I could rate him honestly. There are people who say true things and people who say false things. Their pole-dancing girlfriends and/or supposed hypocrisy don't interest me.
I listen to what they SAY and watch what they DO. I don't care about high school level popularity contests.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We have a propaganda machine.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)It's hilarious that Greenwald does everything to slam Rachel Maddow, only to turn around and hype Russian propaganda.
The guy is a complete tool.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)promoted by the non-existent Pootiebots.
I love this picture:
"Look! Pretty girl in fur coat not riddled with bullet holes! Sleep now comrades! All is well!"
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)In fact, he just Tweeted a Maddow article as I was typing this:
@ggreenwald: Rachel Maddow on the spectacle of John Kerry and other American dignitaries condemning Russia http://t.co/Xu7p82i1Ra
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He's pushing a Russian propaganda channel and criticizing people who spoke out agains the invasion before he did.
Everything since he posted that piece is CYA, including his updates.
Rachel Maddow opposed the war.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"How does praising someone critical of Russian policy equate to advancing Russian propaganda?"
...asking a question that my comment answered. I repeat...
He's a hypocrite and an opportunist.
He's pushing a Russian propaganda channel and criticizing people who spoke out against the invasion before he did.
Everything since he posted that piece is CYA, including his updates.
Rachel Maddow opposed the war.
Like I stated here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024604241#post2), it's highly likely that part of the reason that Martin is on RT is the propaganda aspect of her 9/11 trutherism.
Greenwald weighs in on Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024602743
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are invited. Eg, the ONLY place I saw daily coverage of the anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia was on RT. Didn't make him look very good, but it was news so they covered it.
Which is why I have to laugh at the knee jerk reaction to them.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Was he wrong about that?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Russia's policies on RT.
We'll see if she gets fired. If she does, then he is right, if not, then I guess he's wrong.
I didn't notice too many of our intrepid MSM reporters speaking out against the Iraq invasion when we went there.
Wait, a few who made not very 'supportive' comments, like Donohue, also like this woman a talk show host, was taken off the air. And Ashley Banfield was removed from her job on the air after speaking about her role as an embedded reporter in Afghanistan not being allowed to show what happened 'after the bombs fell'. Not even on the air, but at a private function.
Maher too was cancelled, airc for 'inappropriate' comments.
So we'll see. Countries do get sensitive at times like this and tend to turn to censorship unfortunately.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)And Abby covers many issues on her show that are controversial enough they will offend someone somewhere. She speaks her mind.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Brave implies there was some risk or danger in doing it.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of the Alex Jones variety.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
's cali
(114,904 posts)C'mon, Glenn. Amy Goodman ring a bell? and there were others.
This kind of sums up my problem with Glenn.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(129,635 posts)So she did get radio play.
BainsBane
(56,928 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Is it a standard PBS station?
BainsBane
(56,928 posts)I forget which one, but it's not longer offered by Comcast. Now it's broadcasted by a local station.
reddread
(6,896 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)She still is on TV
http://www.linktv.org/programs/demo
I gotta say, I don't understand why people don't research before making a declaration.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
And Christiane Amanpour was sidelined for some of her very 'measured' but 'inappropriate' remarks.
Sean Penn lost a multi million dollar contract for his opposition to the war. He sued airc and won later. And other 'left' celebrities got the message and faded into the background, ONCE THE TROOPS were on the ground.
Amy Goodman is not part of the Corporate owned Media.
Nor will she ever be. Don't believe I have ever seen on the Corporate media. I have seen her on RT though.
ReRe
(12,082 posts)CNN, MSNBC (not as much as CNN), also on the old Current. But not recently, I don't think. She's too busy with the real news. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)She should be a prominent journalist along with several other great reporters, Chris Hedges eg, who I have also seen on RT btw, on any credible news organization in this country. But she will never be that. And you are being kind, the reason she is not on the Corporate Media is because she is a real journalist not, as Colbert said, a 'stenographer'. She would not be able to play that game, for one thing, so that makes her ineligible for the current state of our 'news' media.
I have not seen any real journalists on the MSM in a very long time, but it's possible. I have seen the likes of Breitbart before his death and the other moron, treated as if he were a 'journalist', who was given so much credibility for the lies and deceptions he was spreading, that it brought down ACORN.
I have zero respect for our Corporate Media and was totally unable to watch it during the Bush years, it was so disturbing to see them supporting Bush's lies that led us into war.
reddread
(6,896 posts)There are some serious fingerprints all over that mess.
Fingerprints? I'm not too good at interpreting insinuations. Please expound. Thanks.
reddread
(6,896 posts)plenty of dirt to dig through
https://www.google.com/#q=pacifica+crisis
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/06/the-new-crisis-at-pacifica/
https://www.google.com/#q=kpfa+mary+frances+berry&revid=1295192048
https://www.google.com/#q=mary+frances+berry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Chadwick_(radio)
https://www.google.com/#q=pacifica+manager+lynn+chadwick
http://freestone.com/kpfa/kpfapacificachronology.html
https://www.google.com/#q=kpfa+mama+oshea
https://www.google.com/#q=kpfa+jerry+brown
yeah, you got me. Im really opposed to a free press.
in case you need this-
reddread
(6,896 posts)thanks go to MSNBC for handling that for US.
What has gotten into you today? Sounds like you have an ax to grind with anyone who believes in freedom of the press. What is your feeling on Democracy, in general? 
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Oh, right -- He can't commit to an opinion without compromising himself further so he has to straddle the fence...Of course that doesn't prevent his ego from believing the general public gives a good goddamn about HIS opinion of OTHER people's opinions on the issue...
If he supports Russia, it's more fuel on the 'Greenwald-is-in-the-tank-for-Russia' fire...
If he criticizes Russia, he'll be angering the government providing a safe haven and 24-hour protection for his gravy train...In case anyone missed it, this is why Greenwald (who is gay and a journalist) has refrained from having any opinion whatsoever of Russia's very public crackdown of gays and journalists -- And this is one issue where he can't play the "But the U.S. is even worse" -card...
(And this is before even getting into Omdiyar's financial support of the Ukrainian opposition, which is an even stickier entanglement)
There is no "Greenwald-is-in-the-tank-for-Russia' fire", except maybe in your imagination.
There are a huge number of issues on which Greenwald has not published an opinion. Fracking, for example, or the anti-gay nonsense in Arizona. Those are not the issues on which Greenwald is focused, and that's okay. As a journalist, Greenwald gets to decide what to write about and he can't write about everything. Nobody can.
You're childish vendetta against Greenwald is...childish. It's like you're just chomping at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to disparage his character.
He's praising a journalist for taking a risk and speaking out on an issue in a way that may anger her employer. In an era of corporate mouthpieces masquerading as journalists, this is behavior that should be praised. Why criticize Greenwald for it?
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)so it's not exactly analyzing the School Board Elections in Peoria...And he has no opinion whatsoever? Right...
I have no "childish vendetta" and I don't need to "disparage his character" when he's doing that to himself -- All I'm doing is pointing out *very* obvious contradictions in what he says versus what he does, which becomes remarkably easier with each passing day...If Greenwald can freely critique others in the media and expose LOL hypocrisies, then I can damn sure critique HIM (In fact, I'm probably more qualified than most in this thread to do so)...
On the surface of things, I have no problem with Greenwald praising RT...For the sake of consistency (there's that word again) it would have been nice if he printed a disclaimer about his ongoing relationship with RT, or if he mentioned his column is an indirect refutation of a Buzzfeed piece, and it would have been nice had he said something when RT fired that gay contributor last summer...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)But we both know my critical assessment of Greenwald is accurate -- Feel free to search for and post some facts that say otherwise...
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)No he's not.
He's attempting to belittle U.S. media by making provably false comparisons. It's one of his raisons d'etre, and yet another embarrassing spectacle in his, thus far, failed campaign.
ReRe
(12,082 posts)You get an award of some kind, all proud of "US media." You are the first person I've heard on DU to iterate support for the MSM in the USA. Take a bow! Seriously, you really think US media is all that great? I place it at the top of the heap of all ills in our country!
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)But glad to have added a boost to your step.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Absolute garbage on the average with diminishing quality seemingly throughout.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Today's Corporate US Media is easy to "belittle",
and should be belittled and worse.
It should be put in the dock and SHAMED in the Public Squares.
I'm old enough to remember the Media BEFORE it was coporatized and concentrated into the hands of about 6 very RICH people,
back when we had Investigative Journalists,
and the News Division was operated as a Public Service and not expected to turn a profit.
There were standards back then,
and those Journalists would spit on what passes for "News" today.
Who could have foreseen that when the regulations preventing the consolidation of all of our diverse outlets into a few RICH POWERFUL hands
would deliver out "US Media" into the hands of a few, RICH POWERFUL hands,
who would then use this to advance the agenda the Rich and Powerful.
Who could have foreseen THAT?
Almost everybody.
Thank You, Bill Clinton
(Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowing the almost unrestricted consolidation of news (Media) outlets)
St Ronnie of Reagan
for trash canning the Fairness Doctrine
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)I said nothing about the "mainstream" or "corporate" media.
Your reflexive presumptions are very telling.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There is no use denying it now.
It is STILL right up there in post #54 for anybody who cares to look.
SEE? ^ Right UP There.
Exact Quote from OilemFirchen post #54
[div class="excerpt"
[font size=3]"He's attempting to belittle U.S. media"[/font]
Unless you are going to try to pull a Bill Clinton and parse out the meaning of the phrase "US Media".
Expecting a Weasel Dodge like that from you,
I specifically used YOUR term "US Media" in my rebuttal of your ridiculous post.
Your latest post is like that laughable moment when a parent comes into the kitchen and finds their 5 year old sitting on the kitchen floor with the cookie jar between his legs,
crumbs all over his face and hands,
and the 5 yr. old looks up and says,
"No I didn't".
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)The poster stepped in it and is now denying the shit on his/her shoe. I for one am sick of the sloppy crap posted on DU and the poster denies he/she said it. You nailed it bvar22. Thank you.
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)I specifically did NOT say "mainstream" or "corporate". That's not parsing, pal, that's literal. I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, I didn't make any reference to it whatsoever.
Curiously, you did NOT use "my" term. You alluded to "Corporate US Media". Your assertion otherwise is "parsing", to be generous.
Please, for your sake, drop it. You sound ridiculous.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
It is right up there. ^
...but please indulge us.
Tell us more about the distinction between the "Corporate US Media" and the "US Media".
I would like to be able to understand what the meaning of what the word "is" is.
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)Not sure why that's so complicated for you.
I'm no longer sure what you even mean by "Corporate US Media". In my sphere it's shorthand for the half-dozen large corporations that own most broadcast and cable television, radio, newspaper and magazine publication. That's clearly the largest penetration, but is dwarfed by the many thousands of media outlets independent of these behemoths, many of which are incorporated. That includes, BTW, First Look Media, an incorporated 501(c)(3), for which Glenn Greenwald is an editor.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Oh dear you are really spinning now.
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)For fuck's sake. Is it soooo taxing to understand what you're reading before mouthing off mindlessly?
Here's what i said:
"That's clearly the largest penetration, but is dwarfed by the many thousands of media outlets independent of these behemoths..."
That's goddamned arithmetic.
I'm beyond tired of having my intelligence insulted by these idiotic attempts at gotcha rejoinders. Done with this "conversation".
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)My reading comprehension is excellent. Graduated top of my class at CAL because of that skill. It wasn't the connotation of your words, that I was commenting on it was the denotation. Your use of the word dwarfed and your argument are deeply manipulative. Glad to see you bow out, I have no use for word deceivers. You aren't very good at it anyway.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...was captured by the Corporations after the Telecommunication Act of 1996,
clearing the field for Big Dollar Corporations like Clear Channel to buy up and consolidate all the local independents, then I am unable to help you.
You are trying to force a distinction where none exists.
[font size=3]The US Media = The Corporate US Media[/font].
This INCLUDES the so called Public Stations who were defunded and forced to rely on Corporate Sponsors.
The few independents are relegated to small, backwater channels, or foreign owned outlets like RT (Russia Times) and Al Jazeera.
Pop Quiz just for YOU.
How many US Media Outlets covered the 3rd Party debates in the USA in 2012?
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)That said, see above.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)How many US Media Outlets covered the 3rd Party debates in the USA in 2012?
Answer that question,
and I'll BUY you a Bumper Sticker.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)as Snowden's.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Can you document your claim that they are getting a "paycheck-- which comes from the same place",
or
are you just making stuff up again?
*How Would a Patriot Act? (May 2006),
a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power;
*A Tragic Legacy (June, 2007)
which examines the Bush legacy;
*With Liberty and Justice For Some:
How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/glenn-greenwald
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)undermine US intelligence gathering and cybersecurity policy, and somehow it all relates to BRICS nations. Snowden: Trained in India, fled to China, then to Russia, wants to go to Brazil. Glenn Greenwald--Brazil. I'm sorry, that's just too fucking weird. I think what Snowden stole is being used to drive a wedge between the American left and Obama in order to weaken intelligence gathering laws (opportune timing, wouldn't have worked with a Repub Prez), and also a wedge between Israel and America, and Angela Merkel/EU and America, to weaken those alliances to the benefit of BRICS nations. The most damaging info revealed involved Merkel and the President of Brazil.
So Snowden is being hosted almost exclusively by BRICS nations, Greenwald is his mouthpiece and his connection to lefty media and blogs to make him a "hero whistleblower" instead of a spy. Snowden must still be useful, because Russia hasn't ended him yet--I notice his more recent revelations involved financial/business secrets. But yeah, of COURSE Snowden is a spy and Greenwald is his accomplice--both are expats now and couldn't give two shits about America's constitutional laws and privacy ('cause they don't live under them anymore) except in terms of how they can be exploited and altered to the benefit of their new host countries.
Sounds like a crazy theory, but I can't ignore the coincidences, and what's happening now with Greenwald and Russia/Ukraine and Pierre Omidyar. The only thing Greenwald is consistent about anymore is how terrible America's intelligence and defense policies are. He even wrote a column last year about how America shouldn't engage in cyberwarfare at all. Of course, China and Russia won't be constrained, will they? He's a joke, and I used to read him regularly.
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)I've believed and said, from the outset of this spectacle, that Snowden is a dupe and that Greenwald is a ratfucker. The rest, I suspect, is useful coincidence, though Snowden's thin resume is certainly a curiosity.
BTW, the latest missives from Mr. "I took a job at BAH to expose the NSA" are about British intelligence. Go figure.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
So in YOUR imagination, Snowden is a spy.
In my imagination, you watch too much TV, and this has separated you from reality.
Both of these fantasy statements from our imaginations are equally valid,
and have the same amount of documentation.
Cheers!
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)shouldn't trust it. That's worth something to Russia, certainly, so they allow him to stay. At some point, he will wear out his welcome and his usefulness, especially if no laws are changed and everyone stops paying attention to him, and then... so yeah, he was a spy and is now a propaganda tool.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)He doesn't sit in Russia by choice.
He sits in Russia because the US Government has a BIG RED ASS that Snowden told the truth.
Snowden saw what happened to Chelsea Manning (and others), and wisely has decided to stay away.
He enjoys the freedom of communication in Russia, which is much more freedom than would be allowed if he returned to the land of "Freedom & Democracy".
The information revealed by Snowden has been worth so much more to Americans than to the Russians (who already knew about our spying capabilities),
unless you are one of those who believe that we shouldn't know about our government spying on its own citizens?
Yes? Is that it?
Snowden is a legitimate Whistle Blower and a Patriot who is current being forced to live abroad by OUR government.
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)a propaganda tool, sponsored by BRICS states, fed to America via our comparatively wide-open and uncontrolled internet and media. I never knew the reach of Russian propaganda until this Ukraine blowup--the scale and pervasiveness is really something, right here on DU. All the stuff you posted just sort of confirms my suspicions. I have my own opinions of the NSA, constitutional questions, etc. But I can also see how very easily people's opinions can be manipulated against their government and country. And of course Snowden is a spy/anti-American propagandist, and no, Russia isn't the land of the free and the home of the brave.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Their Editorial Staffs have studied this information,
and decided WHAT to release through their outlets.
You can't indict Snowden without also indicting these News Organizations.
No one had documented ANY release of information directly to Foreign Governments.
If you have any documentation supporting the claim that Snowden gave classified information directly to foreighn governments,
please produce that documentation.
#2) Snowden released previously undisclosed information through the NY Times and Associated Press as recently as December, 2013, and he says he has much more.
I believe he does, or the USA wouldn't look like desperate Keystone Kops trying to catch him.
New documents released by Edward Snowden reveal NSA spying on online gamers
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-documents-released-by-edward-snowden-reveal-nsa-spying-on-online-gamers
So your claim that he serves only propaganda value is as BOGUS as the other claims you have made in this thread. If you are going to enter these discussions,
PLEASE do try to Keep Up.
#3)I fully support the slow trickle release of this information.
It gives the Media and the Citizens of the USA the time to explore and digest all the implications.
A full document dump at the start would already be Old News.
#4)Your "suspicions" and personal "opinions" are completely unsupported by the known facts.
Your unsupported "suspicions" bear NO weight in this discussion.
They have exactly the same weight as mussings from your imagination.
Your "suspicions" say more about YOU than they do about the outside World,
(That is WHY I don't post my embarrassing unconfirmed and unconfirmable "suspicions" at DU.)
I really don't care WHAT your "suspicions" are.
If you are going to enter into a discussion with me,
you had better have Documented Facts that support your "suspicions" at your finger tips,
otherwise, you are just Making Stuff Up.
You haven't sourced ANYTHING that supports your own, personal, imaginative, weightless "suspicions".
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)they're credible. We're founded on freedom of speech and press, and our news outlets are also businesses for profit, so that's why they release this material and "scoop" each other--but also because it's about the workings of the government and that automatically serves readers' interests. I'd bet the most damaging national security secrets are being given directly to host countries to use (and held closely, no doubt), but the stuff that MERELY damages the American government's standing with its own citizens, and world allies, is what's prominently leaked to the press--not the nitty-gritty of actual names, locations, plans, etc. Many reasons, too, why the trickle of news is better for Snowden and his host countries than a dump, as you say--why would they blow it all in one shot? But don't tell me it's for America's good, that's laughable. None of this is for America's benefit, even if it's enlightening.
But Snowden (thanks in part to Glenn and the blogosphere) is also marketed as a folk hero and was named immediately a whistleblower instead of a spy, so that's the meme that stuck. This means idiots like SXSW will hire him to talk about American Constitutional and privacy concerns...from RUSSIA. His audience, connections, and held-back material are what keep him valuable, alive and/or out of prison. When that dries up, I wouldn't want to be him. The good news is, Obama is largely not overreacting to any of the revelations, and America can absorb the news without overreacting as well.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..or other mussings from your imagination,
only some real sour grapes that Snowden is hailed as a Whistle Blower.
Snowden is hailed as a "Whistle Blower" precisely because he IS a Whistle Blower by all definitions of the term "Whistle Blower".
Your accusation that he is NOT a Whistle Blower is NOT supported by the facts.
Can you tell us WHY you are so resentful about this earned label?
Can you support your "suspicion" that Snowden does not qualify for Whistle Blower status?
I don't believe that JRR Tolkein or J. K. Rowling have ever been asked to support their fantasies.
They get to write out all their fact free fantasies....and nobody objects.
Maybe you should consider a career in Fantasy & Fiction.
I only pray that I would have that courage to act as Snowden did under the same situation,
because you and those like you clearly would not.
I understand.
It is so much easier to just:
*Do as you are told.
*Sit Down and Shut Up
*Don't rock the boat
*Collect the Pay Check
*Go to the Beach on the weekend.
Thank GAWD for people with the courage of Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg, and the rest,
because THEY are the protectors of our Democracy (what little is left of it).
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy and protect the Whistle Blowers, TwilightGardener,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Fuck Libertarians and all those that provide cover for their ratfucking operatives.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Leaving aside that Arnett wasn’t a host, this perfectly proves the point I made, since both Donahue and Arnett were fired because of their opposition to the U.S. war. Arnett was fired instantly by NBC after he made critical comments about the war effort on Iraqi television, while a memo from MSNBC executives made clear they were firing Donahue despite his show being the network’s highest-rated program because he would be “a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war”.
During that same time, MSNBC’s rising star Ashleigh Banfield was demoted and then fired after she delivered a stinging rebuke of misleading pro-war TV coverage by U.S. outlets, while Jessica Yellin, at MSNBC during the time of the war, admitted in 2008 that “the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings” and that executives would change stories to make them more pro-war.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Cable TV is a corporate wasteland, investigative journalism has been assaulted with surveillance and abuse of the Espionage Act, and now they are coming for the internet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488117
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)In this case, rather than waiting for others to note that he was wrong, simply change the subject and add caveats.
BTW, one journalist who did NOT contemporaneously speak out about the invasion of Iraq? Greenwald.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)At the time, he was a partner in a porn business.
Of course, ex post facto he penned the following, now quite infamous paragraph:
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
ReRe
(12,082 posts)In 2002, Greenwald was offered the partnership in a consulting company, Master Notions Inc., by a friend, Jason Buchtel. The pornographic website, owned by Peter Haas, was a client of Master Notions. Greenwald and Buchtel agreed to help Haas's site in return for 50% of the profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
ReRe
(12,082 posts)... with Master Notions, Inc in relation to this porn website? I'd be interested in his reply. I'm not willing to throw him to the wolves because he had some porn link in 2002. Look it, if the general public knew what guys do on the computer,
re. pornography, none of them would be employed. 
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)Nor do I take issue with his defense of Matt Hale. Somebody has to fill the void.
As I learned from an old car dealer friend: "There's an ass for every seat."
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)But you used the information to smear him on DU. SLOPPY. Very sloppy.
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)Just out of curiosity, how am I "smearing" him when I explicitly stated that I have no problem with it?
OilemFirchen
(7,287 posts)It's not as if Donahue was executed on the spot. And, last I checked, Banfield (and Amanpour) are still employed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sorry, but that is what I expect at this point.
For the record, good for the journo and for Greenwald to bring it up to our attention. It takes some steel ones to do that when your country deploys troops, insert country here.
soundsgreat
(125 posts)This woman is dangerous!
I bet her criticism is pure tactics to promote her conspiracy theories!
/sarcasm
frazzled
(18,402 posts)from someone who, demonstrably, and by his own admission, supported the run-up to the war and defended its early execution ... despite the fact that many of us were able to muster opposition to both the Iraq War Resolution, the UN negotiations, and the steps that led up to Shock and Awe.
We weren't getting our information from nowhere. There was Knight-Ridder's excellent reporting from Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, there was the Baltimore Sun's publication of Scott Ridder's arms inspection insights. And these were indeed brought up by certain hosts on MSNBC, which in addition had on "guests" such as Michael Moore or Tim Robbins or Janeane Garolfalo to spread the word. And then there were the well-publicized remarks by the UN inspector Hans Blix just before the war, which contradicted the Bush administrations claims about the existence of WMDs.
There was enough reporting and information out there that hundreds of thousands of us participated in anti-war marches before the bombs dropped. There was enough for a young state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama to give a speech to a large crowd proclaiming that while he wasn't against all wars, he was against "stupid wars," and who went on to enumerate the reasons why the invasion of Iraq was unjustified.
What's different between Iraq and Ukraine is that there were months of discussion that preceded the IWR, and months after that in which we could voice our opinions about initiating military action. For better or worse, it was debated in the UN: it was controversial well before it happened. Russia responded with immediate action and no warning after Yanukovych fled. So the media reporting is very different here: in this case, we are still trying to figure out what the facts are and to react to a sudden and ongoing situation.
So if what GG is trying to say is that he was duped by the general bad reporting of the US media (in comparison to one minor reporter on RT making one statement here, which nobody much will know about), he wasn't reading very much or watching very far. We knew: a huge number of us knew.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)that the entirety of U.S. media are longtime mouthpieces and stenographers for the White House/Pentagon/CIA/whatever, and that he's the last 'real, independent' keyboardist left on the planet and sole savior of the industry...
And for the sake of transparency (There's that word again -- Funny how it just keeps popping up), it would have been nice if Greenwald mentioned how accommodating RT has been to him and his 'circle' with regards to Snowden and the NSA story...Just so the uninformed reader doesn't naturally assume Greenwald doesn't have a personal stake in this...
I've long maintained that Greenwald is a subpar journalist (and I've cited dozens of examples which have generally been ignored on DU), but between this and Friday he's just blatantly fucking up on the Journalism 101 level stuff...
frazzled
(18,402 posts)and say that he's not actually a journalist. He was trained as a lawyer and started writing a blog from a libertarian perspective, eventually moving to do opinion-type pieces on Slate, etc.
That's a tricky thing these days, because anyone who writes anything on a blog or message board gets to be considered a journalist. But he certainly is not a journalist by training (which is why I guess he fucks up the Journalism 101 level stuff). That's true of a lot of people writing and yakking these days, though. Paul Krugman wasn't trained as a journalist either. Here's the difference, though: Krugman rightfully remains on the Op-Ed page, and he confines himself almost exclusively to commentary on economic issues (which, of course, can embrace a wide range of topics, but at least it's a subject he is eminently qualified to expound on, being a Nobel Prize winner in the area). So he's not really a journalist either, he's an opinion writer. GG, by contrast, is not presenting himself as an opinion writer, and does not confine himself exclusively to legal issues. He makes use of "first amendment" arguments to expound (not report) on subjects about which he has little professional knowledge: including national security and foreign policy. He's an opinion writer, not a journalist.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He defends civil liberties, but he has never called for deregulation, tax reform, privatization of the commons or any other common Libertarian demands.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)his original blog, Unclaimed Territory: it was a hotbed for libertarians.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the sixties and Hillary was a Goldwater Republican. You still holding that against her?
I've read Greenwald extensively since at least 2006, and have seen no Libertarian view presented by him.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)A decent investigator and columnist on occasion, but nothing more...He breaks too many rules (I'm talking hard-and-fast rules of professionalism which would have gotten him fired from any publication) and gets too incestuous with his stories...And I'm saying this all as a former journalist; because it pisses me off to see him earn so much sycophantic praise for essentially winning the lottery...
The media industry shares a lot of the blame for this...When the online thing started, people were in such a rush to bury the old print media they threw the baby (namely the good practices) out with the bathwater...Even Greenwald himself has put forth the argument that all journalists should be openly biased advocates since it's impossible to be unbiased (which in and of itself is pure bullshit, but DUers still lapped it up)...So as a result, there's a whole generation of people coming up who don't know what "good" journalism is anymore; only if they like it or not...Greenwald and Assange among others, while they both have their good and bad points, have been leading around the clueless like pied pipers...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think he doth protest too much....
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)of Greenwald or his circle gets the full wrath of the internet on their heads...It's like he's Don Corleone or something...I'm disappointed he hasn't written a column yet to specifically try to debunk the things I've written here, but I'm sadly too small a player in this game...
Of course Greenwald loved Buzzfeed in December when they printed that flimsy, sloppy, un-sourced "U.S. Government Wants To Assassinate Snowden" silliness...The number of people who unquestioningly lapped that bullshit up was depressing, to say the least...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of a few Internet critiques.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)and was immediately fired
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)In all seriousness, how does Greenwald as a gay man blind himself to what has been happening to his brethren in Russia without saying a *single* word? Especially since he has an opinion on pretty much everything else going on in the world? Is there an iota of dignity or self-respect remaining inside? Or has his soul been replaced by the dollar signs of a book+movie deal and his ego is big enough to help him sleep comfortably at night?
I used to take a bit of fun exposing Greenwald in front of his cultists and sticking pins in him, but he's just making this too easy for me now...I kind of feel sad now...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I wonder what Glenn has to say about that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
joshcryer
(62,534 posts)But yes there were many who spoke out about the Iraq war. GG was not one of the them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)he is being upset that people are criticizing Republicans for cheering Putin.
<...>
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/440844871364907008
Bullshit false equivalency. There were no Democrats lauding Saddam.
Rallying around the wrong president
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024601848
joshcryer
(62,534 posts)GG is posting a stupid straw man.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Was out of the spotlight for 1 second, so he had to chime in.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...having the SAME opinion as the Democratic Party Leadership during the run up to the invasion of Iraq?
Filed under Things that make you laugh at other people.
"Isn't it ironic that Greenwald gets attacked on DU for....having the SAME opinion as the Democratic Party Leadership during the run up to the invasion of Iraq?
Filed under Things that make you laugh at other people."
...that spin should be in the file. Greenwald not only didn't share the same "opinion as the Democratic Party Leadership," but he is also criticizing people who opposed the invasion long before he did.
Greenwald weighs in on Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024602743
Busier than a cat trying to bury poop on a linoleum floor.
You never cease to delight.
Weren't you the one trying to sell the
Its not MY fault I voted to authorize the WAR.
I'm so stupid that Bush was able to FOOL me into voting FOR "the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq?
Weren't you pushing that ridiculous meme recently?
Do you really believe that someone can win elections and make it all the way to Washington,
and NOT be able to spot a LIAR as bad as Bush the Lesser?
or are you just trying to sell that NonSense on DU?
If someone is so naively stupid that The Idiot from Texas was able to fool them into voting FOR a FREAKING WAR, then that person doesn't have any business being anywhere close to the levers of power in Washington.
I would be relieved to hear at least one of them admit,
"No. Bush didn't fool me.
I was more concerned about my political career than I was about the many thousands of people I was condemning to death, and I deeply regret it."
With THAT admission, redemption is possible,
and trust is again possible.
But... I'm so dumb that Bush fooled me..??
Well, you can't fix stupid.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Positions held by another person. Glenn Greenwald is a lying, manipulative hypocrite and is being called out on it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)damned Porfirio Diaz's while lumping together the fratricidal radicals into a "Revolutionary Family" to buttress their murderous 20s regime (from Graham Greene)
DonCoquixote
(13,929 posts)I may hate this creep for his defense of Citizens United, something that I will never forgive him for, but, I can admit it took a lot of courage to speak on this. RT is like a soup kitchen that is the only food in town for those who refuse to sell out to either the Fox right wing, or the MSNBC fake left fifth column wing. I do like my Thom Hartmann. That being said, neither Thom nor Ted Rall had the courage to say what needed to be said.
So here are some laurels for you Glenn, you earned them.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Back in the USSR! 
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)
Autumn
(48,441 posts)That the natural order of things.
QC
(26,371 posts)Wouldn't surprise me! 
Autumn
(48,441 posts)I've never known it to be wrong yet.
QC
(26,371 posts)Autumn
(48,441 posts)And 911 tapes
QC
(26,371 posts)She's a poopiehead.
Autumn
(48,441 posts)with Rand Paul, or his Dad the old Dr who likes to get paid with chickens but for the life of me I can't remember his name.