Skip to main content

View Diary: What I Want to Know: 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn't Be Focusing on Glenn F**king Greenwald (722 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ha! (20+ / 0-)

    Sorry - I sort of entrapped you there.  Baited?  Whatever the word is.

    It was the Washington Post that reported the "direct access" concept and walked it back.  Not Greenwald or the Guardian.

    Furthermore, the Washington Post's description, as it turns out, may not have been all that inaccurate in certain cases.

    So...

    Back to my other question about why the Washington Post reporter who reported on virtually all of the same things isn't being demonized along with Greenwald.  

    I basically know the answer to my question, but do you?

    •  There are plenty of Greenwald tweets (0+ / 0-)

      asserting that "direct access" meant direct access.

      https://twitter.com/...

      https://twitter.com/...

      https://twitter.com/...

      As to your question about the WaPo reporter: it might have something to do with the comparative number of times he's appeared on TV.

      Non futuis apud Boston

      by kenlac on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:18:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope - sorry - wrong answer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        Or, you're saying that this is just a personal vendetta against Greenwald which is not particularly valid when we are talking about important 4th Amendment and now apparently also 1st Amendment issues.

        And as I said, it turns out that the government does have what could very reasonably described as "direct access" to the data at some of the companies with which they are working to collect Americans' digital data.

        The Post's revision (which was not even a retraction) gave the inaccurate impression that there is no direct access which is false.

        •  Well, I'm trying to follow you here: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catesby

          first you claimed that Greenwald never said direct access.

          Then I showed you three instances where he did.

          You then said, in essence, that your initial assertion doesn't matter, since it turned out to be true after all.

          I suppose we could continue our debate about whether it did indeed turn out to be true, but based on the merit of this exchange I'm going to pass, feeling that we're both going to be stupider and more angry for continuing.

          Non futuis apud Boston

          by kenlac on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:07:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  His original article in the Guardian did not (5+ / 0-)

            cite "direct access".  That was in the Post's original article.

            Over the course of the days that followed, it turned out that direct access was not actually inaccurate.  Are you following it now?

            The big "gotcha" moment against Greenwald at the outset was that the Post edited their characterization of the "direct access", and people accused Greenwald of having said that in his original Guardian article which was not true. It was Gellman who made that assertion based on what the PowerPoint document said.

            In any case, you're not really playing on the level here if that's all you have to refute Greenwald's reporting - Gellman is the one who asserted it in the Post story, not Greenwald in the Guardian - and it turns out that after all of the kerfuffle that it was an accurate description of the NSA's access to certain companies' databases.

            Finally, I am really sorry you are angry.  I am not.  I don't take any of these discussions too personally.  To me, it isn't that relevant to my emotional life - it is relevant to my freedom, though.

            Justice is my concern here.  Oversight and accuracy in interpreting the data they are collecting is what's important to me.  There are a lot of good reasons to believe that the data could be misinterpreted - not the least of which is that most of the NSA analysts do not speak any relevant foreign languages which should send a chill down your spine if you are really concerned about being protected from terrorist activities and plots.  Just sayin'

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site