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

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site