Skip to main content

View Diary: Not at all making himself the story, Greenwald to make shocking NSA revelations . . . in a book (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's the point, isn't it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, RocketJSquirrel

    We ALL draw conclusions about the quality and credibility of any particular claim he makes.  We use different metrics, however, in drawing our particular conclusions.

    I draw my conclusions based on the veracity of the claims being made.  You seem to draw your conclusions based on what you believe his political leanings are or based on what you consider to be his unadulterated anti-Americanism.

    Am I getting this at least partially correct?

    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:14:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not really. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Reggid

      I often find his information useful.  I am just fully aware of his agenda and willingness to lie and corrupt information for it.  But his material fills a useful niche, as long as one keeps in mind that he's a propagandist rather than a journalist.

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:19:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm surprised by how much resistance... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, Victor Ward

        ...you experience in trying to open peoples' eyes to that fact.  I mean, a reporter with an agenda.  Clearly, Greenwald has filled the void in journalism created when Robert Novak kicked the bucket.

        I think Chomsky should add a chapter regarding this type of propaganda in the next printing of Manufacturing Consent.

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:32:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never watched Novak enough to say for sure. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Reggid

          I think a more appropriate analogy would be Jonah Goldberg.

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:42:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not particularly interested... (0+ / 0-)

            ...in your insights regarding who you would compare Greenwald to.  Which is not to say that you don't have a right to state YOUR reasons for characterizing him as you do and for using a jaundiced eye to read what he writes.  You've repeatedly made yourself clear.

            Nor am I interested in sharing with you MY opinions of Greenwald.  Not because I adore him, but because, as you stated, I find his reporting useful and informative.  Beyond that, I have little use for him.  

            I only care about what he's reporting.

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:06:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why are you commenting in a diary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reggid

              that's about Greenwald trying to once again make himself the story?

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:15:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a paradox. (0+ / 0-)

                I am generally interested, tangentially, in the lengths some will go to in registering their skepticism of those who report inconvenient truths.  Call it a morbid curiosity.  It amuses me.

                all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:33:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Greenwald is not some dubious commentator (0+ / 0-)

                  with a tilt - he's a lying bigot whose single overriding agenda is smearing Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.  The fact that he uses left-wing excuses doesn't make him any more of a moral voice.

                  •  And yet, the price of rice in China... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RocketJSquirrel

                    ...hasn't fluctuated.

                    You see what you did there?  You ascribed a motive to Greenwald that even if true doesn't invalidate the veracity of his reporting.  What he writes can be and is corroborated by other reporters.

                    Maybe he does hate the Democratic Party.  Maybe he would love to see Obama impeached.  Maybe he does cravenly exploit left-wing causes as a means to that end.  He may have even illegally picked, encouraged, groomed, and paid Edward Snowden to do what he did.  He's a bigoted,  anti-American, agenda-driven propagandist who will lie and encourage others to break the law.  I hate his fucking guts and don't trust him any further than I could throw him.  I concede every point to you.  

                    Please point to the lies in his reporting now.  I'll be here...waiting.

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                      •  I read that diary... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RocketJSquirrel

                        ...when it was originally published.

                        This about sums it up for me:

                        Actually, you've found relatively little (13+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Agathena, Laconic Lib, PhilK, Shotput8, Willa Rogers, joanneleon, 3rdOption, Colorado is the Shiznit, priceman, Panama Pete, ffour, cslewis, aliasalias
                        compared to the volume of what he's written which can be dismissed as totally at fault, or false. Some things you can say "well, how did he know that" but then again if you see Jesse James has robbed a bank you can figure Jesse James thought to himself beforehand "let me rob a bank."

                        If anything, you've shown that he makes mistakes now and then; that his opinions are stronger than you think is warranted; that you don't agree with his sense of how things connect to each other; that sometimes he exaggerates.

                        Quibbles.

                        I can say things like that about almost everyone I've ever read, including my favorite reporters and politicians.

                        You've done nothing to show the main gravity and thrust of his work is irrelevant or too false to be considered.

                        We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges
                        by Jim P on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:20:16 PM PST

                        Still waiting for something other than an opinion piece.  

                        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                        by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:45:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If it's not enough, then nothing possibly can be. (0+ / 0-)

                          I showed that his content is routinely deceptive and counterfactual.  That's kind of the definition of being an unreliable primary source.

                          •  Excuse me, Waiter... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RocketJSquirrel

                            ...there's a hair in my wife's soup.  I demand this restaurant be shut down!

                            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                            by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:59:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you found hair in the soup on a weekly basis (0+ / 0-)

                            for four years?  Yeah, that would be a matter for health inspectors.

                          •  This is VERY serious business. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, RocketJSquirrel
                            I am mindful that these 30 articles, as numerous as they sound, only span a period of a few weeks, and as such I've gone through different pages of the archive at random looking for evidence of some major change in the pattern, but neither that effort nor my experience from prior run-ins with his content tells me there is anything unusual about the examples highlighted below.  Content such as this is ubiquitous, and he has continued writing like this after departing Salon to work for the Guardian
                            This is called Confirmation Bias.
                            Total articles reviewed: 30
                            Articles with identified problems: 10
                            Total problems identified: 26
                            Lies: 2
                            Innuendos: 13
                            Contradictory statements: 3
                            Hypocritical statements: 2
                            Personal smears: 4
                            Unsupported claims: 2
                            His writing / blogging, reporting span 2 administrations -- administrations that we hoped would have been as different as night and day when it comes to transparency, and, (based on candidate Obama's own statement in the heat of a campaign) the idea that we need to trade off our civil liberties in order to guarantee our safety from terrorists (I believe he said that it was a false choice which the previous administration laid out -- and that he intended to correct that).

                            BUT, even given the extraordinarily LOW number of articles reviewed in your admittedly unscientific experiment, AND given your eagerness to cast ANY questionable statement ever made by Greenwald in the most UNFAVORABLE light when there are different, more charitable ways to interpret what he's saying, I'm amazed at how FEW examples you were able to uncover.  Really, I'm not impressed.

                            I mean, there are real shitbags calling themselves reporters for prominent media outlets -- but they all eventually get caught when they maliciously fabricate facts to fit their agendas.  And their readers and defenders are among the least informed people on the planet.

                            I'm not sure that readers of Glenn Greenwald are ill-informed, and that's actually a testament to his persistence, doggedness, and uncompromising ethic to report the story regardless of which administration has to take the hit.  

                            You can continue to watch Ed Shultz or Chris Matthews or Melissa Harris-Perry to your heart's content.  They are all partisan hacks who subscribe to the notion that this president (and Democrats in general) can not be wrong and eagerly defend it when they believe it is unfairly under attack.  I get it.  I watch them.  Sometimes I even agree with them.  I also read Glenn Greenwald...and I know I'm more informed because of him.

                            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                            by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:58:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your characterizations are just wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Reggid

                            I looked at 30 articles whose content I did not know in advance, and found over two dozen problems that would have gotten a college journalism student failed.  It doesn't matter how far you expand the scope or what selection criteria you use - you find basically the same results.

                            I mean, there are real shitbags calling themselves reporters for prominent media outlets -- but they all eventually get caught when they maliciously fabricate facts to fit their agendas.
                            You mean, the ones who don't suit your agenda.
                            I'm not sure that readers of Glenn Greenwald are ill-informed
                            Are you joking?  They live in a Limbaugh-style alternate universe where Obama is a totalitarian dictator.  All that's missing are the words "Muslin" and "Kenyan."
                          •  You make me smile... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.  Sounds so ominous.

                            Please don't quit your day job in pursuit of employment as a media critic.  

                            I've confessed to sometimes agreeing with the MSNBC administration cheerleaders masquerading as journalists who pride themselves as being the 'liberal' counterweight to Fox News.  No agendas driving the 'reporting' over at MSNBC.  :)

                            My politics are issue-driven, not character-driven.  It's different for some, and I accept this.  I really don't care to change how they approach politics.  If they feel they are constantly under siege and have a bunker mentality, I'm not about to join them in their Fox Holes.  They can enjoy their war, truth be damned.  

                            My only agenda is to advocate for the issues and causes I believe in, and if that means that I sometimes have to confront self-described 'progressives' defending policies which belie the label they've attached to themselves and their political leaders, so be it.  Sometimes you and I will agree on issues and in our opinions regarding media personalities.  Sometimes we won't.  What's amusing is that when we disagree, my bona fides as a real liberal or a real progressive creep into your arguments.  If we disagree, I'm a dishonest broker with a nefarious agenda to smear Democrats and discredit the administration.  Why should I be concerned with anything you have to say once you have established this as your position?  Are you going to convince me or anyone reading our exchange of anything they didn't already believe about me or about Glenn Greenwald?

                            This kind of back-and-forth is fun though.  I enjoy it.  I don't get all worked up and hide comments or cry foul or rant about whose team you're on or whine about thread-jackings.  It's sport sparring with you.  Nothing in the real world changes because of anything you or I write here.  

                            Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand -- what he writes on the internet -- it DOES make a difference in the real world.  And I believe that's why you resent him.

                            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                            by 4kedtongue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Personally, Sir... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RocketJSquirrel

                            ...I find the food to be delicious, and the service is generally quite good.  As with any restaurant -- even a top-notch restaurant -- the occasional mis-hap may occur.  But shutting it down over a single hair -- I'll be sure to ignore your restaurant reviews in the future.

                            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                            by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:02:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  And if you repeat "bigot" often enough (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    4kedtongue

                    Maybe someone somewhere will believe you.

                    Greenwald has done more for progressive causes than all the troubadours on dKos,  before breakfast.  I detect jealousy disguised as a smear.

    •  You don't think one influences the other? (0+ / 0-)

      My metrics are based on the unadulterated pile of steaming anti-progressive, anti-Democratic, Obama Derangement Syndrome tripe that Greenwald has consistently posted for years.  Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh with a clean slate and a fresh hope each day that today will be the day he supports progressive causes?  Or does the past inform the present?

      •  And that makes what Greenwald has... (0+ / 0-)

        ...written regarding what the NSA is up to false.

        Gatcha.

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:07:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It makes it suspect; and his motives questionable (0+ / 0-)

          What is so controversial about that?

          •  Not a thing. I think a lot of people... (0+ / 0-)

            ...determine what's truthful and what isn't based on who happens to be speaking rather than actually comparing and contrasting what the person is saying about whatever it is he's talking about.  I simply do not measure the veracity of a statement based on political affiliation or based on the speaker's progressive bona fides (if they match mine, SUPER -- if not, Oh Well).  Basically, I listen to or read what the 'speaker' has to say and then determine if what he or she has said is the truth by comparing the statement to the events which it refers to.  

            But I see how you make such determinations.

            I'll stick with my way -- I just think it's the better way to determine who's telling the truth and who's lying.

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:15:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (26)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Elections (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Media (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • Barack Obama (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site