Skip to main content

View Diary: Guardian teams with the New York Times in effort to protect Snowden documents (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that GG's claim of government plant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, yorkiedoglover

    is pretty stupid, but a closer review of how he's handled this whole thing since it first started getting attention in June (bragging that he worked with Snowden from before he stole the materials, then walking that back; using Hong Kong as a safe haven only to find it wasn't the best choice; having Wikileaks/FSB help get Snowden to Russia and the loving arms of Putin) hasn't been what one would call playing smart.

    As for what's being reported - Greenwald is quick to point out that he alone knows what Snowden is doing and whom he talks to.  As has been pointed out, the more he blurs the line between activist and journalist, the more he hurts his own cause.  One can't be a catalyst or drive the narrative and a believable objective reporter of that same narrative.  For example, his obsession with trying to get as much TV time as possible while claiming this story isn't about himself.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:30:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Greenwald hurts himself, but that's nothing (0+ / 0-)

      new.  He isn't great about self editing - he tends to say what's on his mind without thinking about it.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he's not telling the truth.  I actually think he often "over shares", as it were.

      There have been a few things along the way that he has said that would have made me nervous if I had been one of his sources.  Not to mean that I think he's said anything to reveal sources, but I have heard him say some things where it sounded like he was offering up more information than was required at the time.  Maybe it was strategic and smart in ways that we do not know right now, but it seemed to me like he was unnecessarily tipping his hand.  The Times story about Poitras and her means of moving information also sounded like she's incredibly naive, but maybe she had a reason to have that story documented publicly.

      My guess is that this saga is going to go on for some time to come and that it will get weirder before it gets clearer.

    •  Glenn wants more info too... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart, Nada Lemming

      He's not asking the Independent to out their source, but they can clear up the confusion:

      The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following:

          "For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government."

      Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site