General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Glenn Greenwald Survey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
26 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
I have a generally favorable opinion of Glenn Greenwald | |
15 (58%) |
|
I have a generally unfavorable opinion of Glenn Greenwald | |
8 (31%) |
|
I have a generally neutral opinion of Glenn Greenwald | |
3 (12%) |
|
Being completely honest, I have little to no idea who Glenn Greenwald is | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't know how many times we have to say that!
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)And who is this "we"?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)My apologies, your majesty.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats....not Democrat Leaning Independents or support the Libertarian Glenn Greenwald.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)A survey of GD posts seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps we're talking at crossed purposes?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)a survey mostly THEY answered...
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)
A quick DU search will likely point out where the obsession lies.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)go ahead and search!
I haven't written a single OP that is for sure...
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)just like the one above. I'd be willing to bet OPs from Greenwald detractors far outnumber OPs from supporters. Hell, Prosense alone must have made a hundred.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I just respond to what is being discussed....
I've made plenty of posts about a lot of other things too....
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You dislike the "Greenwald obsession"? Talk to your pals.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats don't give a shit about him!
NOW how did you feel about that latest CT coming from the Intercept that claimed NC homeless were being taken to FEMA camps and are being microchipped against there will!
Please enlighten us!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Interesting! As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're babbling about.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Here, let me help you out.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?s=FEMA
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)It's probably why I stay out of most of the Greenwald threads.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)done something outstanding to benefit this country and DARES to say so, is that what you are calling 'obsession'??? Really?
Why does it bother YOU so much that Greenwald has gained so much respect, not just among Democrats but all over the world. He was just a blogger less than ten years ago, like many others. But he was SO GOOD at exposing the TRUTH about BUSH/CHENEY that he gained a whole lot of respect from Dems, and a huge amount of HATRED from the Right. Who on EARTH would any DEM join that right wing army that hates Greenwald???
Can you explain that?
I've never seen a constructive criticism here from those who hate Greenwald, just personal, silly, childish attacks with no substance regarding what the issues he has always focused on. .
Greenwald has turned out to be a fantastic journalist, courageous and truthful, and no matter how much the haters try to discredit him, they simply cannot. THAT must be frustrating, but should not be unexpected, because what he is doing is what ALL the press should be doing, what WE said we wanted them to do.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)People who haven't read Greenwald's book and only listened to the mainstream trash media and the sold-out politicians don't like Greenwald.
Wait until the movie, Citizenfour is really out there. A lot of hearts and minds will change.
Citizenfour grossed $125,172 from five cinemas in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C. for a screen average of $25,034, the best showing for any documentary since Waiting for Superman in 2010 ($34,758).
Radius-TWC, a division of The Weinstein Co., is handling the controversial film in the U.S. Until this weekend, Harvey Weinstein, a longtime supporter of President Obama, has remained silent on the subject of Citizenfour. He had previously been critical of Snowden's actions.
. . . .
Speaking Saturday at a PGA conference in New York, Weinstein said Citizenfour changed his view of Snowden. He then went on to praise Radius-TWC co-presidents Tom Quinn and Jason Janego for buying the doc.
. . . .
"This film is unlike any I've worked on and is as paranoid-inducing as any movie I've ever seen. It's totally exhilarating," Quinn said in an interview Sunday. "It will ignite a response and haunt you for a long time. A door has been opened that is never going to be closed again. Look at Harvey; he had said before that Snowden was a traitor."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/harvey-weinstein-edward-snowdens-citizenfour-744007
Harvey Weinstein's opinion counts. He has shown over and over that he gauges the reception of the American public to ideas, art and film pretty accurately.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It is a work of art. A wonderful film. Featured most prominently, of course, is Snowden but Binney makes significant contributions. In the credits, 3 people are featured at the top, Snowden, Greenwald, and Binney. You can tell Poitras has a deep respect for him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have so much to hide. They need all the support they can get.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)However, I've largely stayed out of the Greenwald threads, and I like to survey.
I've tried to keep the selection options straightforward.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . the only poll that could ever be posted here is one in which the subject is DU itself.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)This is intended to be a politically liberal message board. Liberals in general don't disparage whistleblowers and investigative journalists.
This is a thread just for you http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025726338
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Also, trees.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)I just tried to go to the link in your sig line, and my anti virus said that it tried to download a Trojan to my PC.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)But I will see if I can switch it with a different one.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Sorry.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)..which is the most probable cause. I just thought you should know.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And I understand the abject fear of whistleblowers and investigative journalists. They disrupt the comfort of some people's denial bubble.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)bag. it's not the content that makes him so.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)breaks on the surveillance state than just about anyone else alive. He is also someone that those here on DU who are attacking now would be giving standing ovations to if there was a Republican in the White House.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Read the following:
Last month, Greenwald published an article on The Huffington Post, featuring another document from Edward Snowden about how NSA exploited the internet porn habits of six suspected terrorists. The Huffington Post, of course, merged with AOL, another corporation accused of supplying data to PRISM.
And now weve learned through former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds that Pierre Omidyars PayPal also provided customer data to NSA. As has been widely reported, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have partnered with Omidyar to form a $250 million news outfit.
An undisclosed retired NSA official apparently contacted Edmonds, who runs a news site called Boiling Frogs Post, and tipped her off that the documents stolen by Edward Snowden and handed over to Greenwald and Poitras contain information about PayPals cooperation with NSA surveillance and data collection.
snip:
For someone who routinely hectors others, demanding unequivocal ideological purity, Greenwald seems to be knee-deep in lucrative business relationships that run contrary to his lofty standards, and which also represent obvious conflicts of interest.
Indeed, Greenwald has accused anyone who merely voices an opinion about a few of the positive benefits of NSA signals intelligence and data collection or how the law permits it and oversight supervises it of being drooling shills for the vast and pernicious security state. Even if that opinion is prefaced with a desire to implement some reforms, its simply not good enough for Greenwald and his supporters.
But meanwhile he himself is taking money, a lot of money, from corporate entities who reportedly operate in direct conjunction with NSA SIGINT operations he claims to loathe.
Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/paypal-owned-by-greenwald-partner-pierre-omidyar-handed-over-customer-data-to-nsa/#tdGfSKEAkBx7UDHa.99
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Inserting all those "facts" into the discussion. You should know by now that those who "idolize" him are going to be awful upset with you sine they will never see the truth about this man no matter what the facts show.
Good post by the way.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And living in abject poverty. Only then are his reports worthy of attention...
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...rides again
baldguy
(36,649 posts)by doing exactly the same thing he's excoriated others for doing is a "strawman"?
merrily
(45,251 posts)But the important thing to get across is that making it about Greenwald is laughable.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Your hero has feet of clay - not to mention a heart of stone and a head full of rocks.
merrily
(45,251 posts)please don't try to pull that babyish smear tactic on me.
I just don't like fact free posting, to put it kindly.
But no, Greenwalds motives are not relevant. Yes, they are wholly irrelevant
Either what gets published under his name is true or it isn't. That is what is relevant
A lot of the attacks on him here are a direct result of his publishing Snowden's revelations about the NSA, which no one here would have criticized, except he did it while your hero was President Those were true. Trying to make the story about Greenwald and his motives is a transparent attempt to deflect from the real story, which is what our government is doing to us, on our dime and in violation of our Constitution.
DUers can try to make it about Greenwald all they want. It isn't.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's not relevant that I've absconded with confections belonging to infants myself? That statement is beyond bizarre.
There's an old saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Greenwald has been throwing bricks.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Of course, they shake the authoritarian foundation.
Shoot the messenger and all will be well.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Being that he gets his support from RW libertarians in attacking a sitting Democratic President.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)domestic spying isn't conservative as is his economic policies that bail out banks and spit on people that have lost their homes.
I think that Brennan, Clapper and Alexander are very conservative as are almost all of Pres Obama's appointments.
I think the president's pro fracking is conservative as is his promotion of Free Trade and the TPP. And how about his continued drone killing and war in the middle east.
Seems to me that those that try to disparage Greenwald just don't like his message.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What does Paul have to do with Pres Obama's conservativeness?
Not that you don't know, I am not a libertarian and don't support libertarians.
I think if we don't get someone besides conservatives like Obama and H. Clinton in the presidency, the middle class will be dead by 2020.
But I am guessing that isn't important to the conservatives here that apparently support the trickle-down theory.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)That he gets any support on the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND is appalling.
The fact is Obama & Clinton are moderate, center-left mainstream Democrats in the moderate, center-left mainstream Democratic tradition, and always have been. They appeal to the moderate, center-left mainstream Democratic majority. And most of all THEY WIN ELECTIONS! No amount of RW lies coming from the likes of GG will change that.
GG's guy Ron Paul is a RW nutcase who would sell public institutions off to the highest bidder, totally eliminate any social safety net, and allow the corporatocracy to run rampant over civil liberties.
If you promote GG you **ARE** supporting libertarians.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)not liberals when it comes to environment, Free Trade, defense spending, wars in the middle east, the economy, etc. Even in the areas of social issues Pres Obama is reluctant. His DEA is still persecuting marijuana users and what the hell is Arnie Duncan doing to our schools? If this message is presented by a libertarian, it doesn't mean it isn't true. It looks to me like some don't like this message. They don't like to think their Democratic leaders are strongly conservative so they disparage those that try to say so.
I don't promote Greenwald. I will defend him against the hate spewed by the Ruling Oligarchs, their Corp Media, and followers. I promote transparency, liberty, and freedom. I don't echo the hatred against investigative journalists, whistleblowers, protestors, and others that dare to stand up to the Oligarchy.
If one doesn't like the message, and has no reasonable argument to counter, then the messenger is attacked.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)What a bunch of twisted, tired nonsense.
Well said, and I agree.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It doesn't do any good to win if your candidate continues supporting the conservative values like fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street dominance, continuous war, high defense spending, and an unregulated Security State. These values are killing the middle class and our democracy whether it's Republican or Democratic Conservatives.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)litany of strawman arguments.
The 2,546th version of the same post.
Yes, he nailed it. Reread his post and respond to what he actually said instead of dragging out the same old, tired strawman.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)areas of foreign policy, environmental, and economics. They might be left-center on some social issues, but not on education and the war on drugs.
How can you call someone "moderate" that kowtows to Wall Street, supports fracking, supports Free Trade, supports a strong defense budget and continued war in the middle east? That's not moderate.
You won't respond because it's far easier to kill the messenger. To attack journalists, whistleblowers, protestors, OWS, and all that dare to speak truth to power. It's far easier to have ad hominem attacks on Greenwald than discuss what he says.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)of the reasons I just gave.
Add another....putting words in my mouth.(or keyboard, as it were).
Annoying beyond belief.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's best to be ideologically pure & stay apart from the hoi-polloi & the unwashed masses.
You're exactly the kind of "liberal" the GOP loves. Thankfully Elizabeth Warren isn't - and she's supporting Hillary for Pres in 2016.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)behind the Conservatives.
"It's best to be ideologically pure & stay apart from the hoi-polloi & the unwashed masses." I would say this statement is pure projection. I stand with the masses while the conservatives of our party stand with Wall Street.
If standing against fracking and Free Trade is trying to be "ideologically pure" then I am guilty. What do you stand for other than whatever Obama says?
Funny how the conservatives disparage the left for wanting a better life for the masses. The conservatives will say it's pragmatic for the masses to live in poverty while the 1% get their "trickle up."
H. Clinton is a candidate for Goldman-Sachs and not for the people.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)
The fact that they can't get legislation passed to fix your pet issues - mainly because of obstruction by the very same people Greenwald supports - doesn't stop them from being liberal.
Can you see how this works? You support Greenwald; Greenwald supports Republicans; Republicans obstruct any real efforts to help people; then Greenwald attacks the Democrats & you follow right along. Rinse. Repeat. This is the kind of shit Republicans just LOVE.
Just what is Greenwald's position on fracking, BTW? Or the TPP? ACA? Min wage? Voter suppression? Hmmm? You're assuming he agrees with you but you really have no idea. That's what projection really is. So stop falsely accusing others of what you're guilty of yourself.
This is the problem with Greenwald: He has no foundational values other than his own narcissism. He's convinced himself that throwing spitballs at the people who do the hard work is constructive & meaningful instead of vacuous & destructive. And he's seduced a few low-information bomb-throwers into believing the same. Again: Republicans just LOVE this shit.
And Elizabeth Warren thoroughly disagrees with you about Hillary:
More projection from you. Warren's loudest supporters on DU don't seem to be listening to her. She understands that to be able to get any sort of progressive legislation enacted into law, we need to have Democrats in office. Period. To that end, she will be supporting the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, no matter who she may be - no hedging, no equivocation, no spoiling any candidates before the primaries even start - and Warren sees the best candidate right now is Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for the presidency. Just how low have we sunk to accept someone that supports most conservative issues like fracking, Free Trade, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street bail outs, deregulating banks, continuous war in the middle east. And of course she chose to openly stab Democrats in the back when she chose to back the Iraq War. She has no integrity.
Of course Sen Warren says nice things about H. Clinton. She isn't an idiot. It's politics.
"Just what is Greenwald's position on fracking, BTW? Or the TPP? ACA? Min wage? Voter suppression? Hmmm? You're assuming he agrees with you but you really have no idea. " I DON'T CARE WHAT HIS STAND IS. He isn't running for president. But I think it's very important to recognize that H. Clinton's stand on these issues is the same as the conservatives.
"The fact that they (liberals) can't get legislation passed to fix your pet issues " There are very few liberals in Congress. People that support "fracking, Free Trade, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street bail outs, deregulating banks, continuous war in the middle east" ARE NOT LIBERALS.
My pets issues? What issues do I support that you don't support? Single payer health insurance? Making SS and Medicare stronger? Reducing defense wasting? Making corporations and the 1% pay their fair share? Ending legislation that gives tax dollars to corps that move jobs to China? What are my pet issues that you don't agree with?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)I'm sure he'll let you know as soon as Rand Paul gives it to him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He isn't part of our government. You worry about him but turn a blind eye to those in our government that support fracking.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why do conservatives hate OWS and Code Pink? Do they upset the conservative denial bubble?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Interesting post
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The Daily Banter and Cesco have been discredited as legitimate sources. Citing a gossip sheet is pretty lame.
Laughable, even.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Snowden had any information about PayPal.
Going by the documents that we have seen to date and going by the articles that have been written by ALL news sources from around the world, it appears that the information that Snowden copied was about spying through our communications systems not through our financial systems. That may be the only kind of data that he had access to and other NSA facilities deal with finance.
Greenwald has stated that he has no doubt that PayPal has co-operated with the NSA (and, as William Binney states, all major financial companies have, so likely PayPal has, as well) but Greenwald has also stated that the documents in his possession contain nothing about PayPal.
So Edmonds is making these accusations on pure speculation. She also speculates that Snowden must be livid over Greenwald's association with Omidyar but apparently Snowden is not as both Laura and Greenwald have visited with him after the announcement of the venture.
I really appreciate the work that Edmonds has done over the years but she is losing my respect by basing her conclusions on speculation rather than fact. AND she has said some rather vile homophobic things to and about Greenwald via twitter. People have called her on it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I think that says it all.
I always thought he was an arrogant ass, then and now.
Can you cite any posts of yours from that era where you were expressing such a sentiment here?
But then again he wasn't being held up as some kind of "hero" by so many back then. Now it's like idol worship around here whenever someone disagrees with loyal followers about how great he is, they get attacked for daring to speak out against the great one!
Is it some kind of a requirement that one has to have voiced disagreement with him during the Bush years, and posted that here, before they can claim he has always been an arrogant ass?
Marr
(20,317 posts)It wouldn't take much searching to find posts from people who now pooh-pooh the topic of NSA abuses, who were livid about it at the time.
Greenwald's articles were regularly cited here on DU during the Bush Administration on that topic and the Plame outing, but no one called that "hero worship". The change has been in the people who suddenly stopped caring about NSA abuses when their guy got into the White House.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)regularly cited around here without drawing a crowd of attackers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I realize you don't like Glenn Greenwald, and that's fine-- but let's at least acknowledge simple reality and not exist in some comfortable, fantasy bubble the way Conservatives do.
Greenwald had more than two bestsellers on political/foreign policy issues during the Bush Administration. That's not a "non-entity", which is what you claimed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is his contribution, that's what made him famous and it is what he continues to do.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Party over everything.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)approach Steve Leser.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)dude is on Fox News a lot ... right?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Out of 300 million people that isnt making a particularly big impact. As I said, he was a non-entity who had no impact on politics at all.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)top 100 thinkers.
And I am looking forward to your posting that you have sell out crowds in venues all over the world when you speak.
And I am looking forward to when your journalistic endeavors win top prizes.
And I am looking forward to the day when you can report that a whistleblower trusts you with the information that they have.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and the non-entity claim was the one being addressed.
Don't know about you, but I'll hold off scoffing at having two books on the Best Seller list after I've managed that and found it unimportant.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)He was also covering NSA warrantless surveillance at the time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is all???
Are you saying their were no other surveillance of regular citizens going on under Bush?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:36 PM - Edit history (2)
I don't even know what you're trying to say there.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are you trying to tell me that Bush didn't and that is why he didn't?
Or was it because he ACTUALLY supported President Bush's policies?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)was that Greenwald was covering NSA warrantless spying during the Bush Administration.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Then he went on to write two more books highly critical of the Bush admin and Republicans in general.
Are you still going to deny that he wrote numerous articles critical of the surveillance state while Bush was in office?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"his support for the Iraq war"
I thought that was the bain of y'all's existence!!!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Haha nice play!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I've never seen anyone post quite the way she does.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wtf does that even mean?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I'll likely vote for the opponent.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Shame on you.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it's just not in the nature of the Greenwald smear team.
I'm just posting this for the people who have some regard for truth
Marr
(20,317 posts)The smear squad never, ever acknowledges their own... I'm going to be generous and call them "mistakes", though that seems a bit kind given that they only repeat those same "mistakes" over and over.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)
ReverendDeuce
(1,643 posts)n/t
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't know why Greenwald generates so much hate among some people. He seems like a regular human to me. He has some things worth saying, he says some stupid things. He does some useful things, he does some useless things.
He generally seems to be on the 'left' of the political spectrum, but he gets as much hate from the center-left of the political spectrum as he does from the center-right or the far right.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I know little about him as a person, but in general I have appreciated his reporting and publishing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)
detractors. I never paid much attention to him until some DUers went on the attack against him. The community of his detractors is for me utterly without merit due to their embrace and use of attacks on him based on his sexuality, which at times extend to attacks on other gay people. Not only was that done many times, but the larger 'anti Greenwald community' stood by and allowed it without a word of criticism. It is very easy indeed to say 'I hate his guts but attacks about his sexuality are not relevant nor fair' but they did not.
When they were forced to stop the direct anti gay language they went with GiGi, because that's just the thing to do to sound less homophobic.....
So I watch myself around the big Greenwald haters, just as I would around any other group with a known propensity toward bigoted views and homophoiba.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I don't believe it is explained simply as politics, or even as cult worship of someone Greenwald criticizes.
It is a deep gut hatred-- the deepest we currently see on DU. Deeper than hatred for everyone except even Cheney or Bush. Not explained by Greenwald's actions. If it is not homophobia, what is it?
Marr
(20,317 posts)It follows from cult worship of people Greenwald criticizes. These people have a lot of emotional investment in the idea that Obama is infallible, or at least unerringly on their side. Not unlike the Bushies of a few years ago, they have a whole mythology built around that one assumption. If someone shines a light on a crack in that story, they freak out.
2banon
(7,321 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I believe that some others are exploiting that cult worship -- some cynical others whose objective is simply to protect the surveillance state. They exploit the true believers in Obama's greatness.
But there could be an undercurrent of homophobia in some. The visceral gut hatred comes from somewhere, and it isn't from a place of reason or thoughtful response.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I think nashville-brook hit the nail on the head when talking about the propaganda machine overall:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5688165
37. eggsactly -- the hope is to keep us in our lower brain functions - limbic systems rather than cerebral cortex.
This is the Two Minutes Hate, updated for 2014. Corporatists and their mouthpieces hope to orchestrate a visceral reaction to what Snowden did, to drown out any thinking response.The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
-Orwell, 1984The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden at DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592
KoKo
(84,711 posts)How people live with that much hate for even their Orwellian 2 Minutes is beyond me. And, that some Dems even buy the "Corporate Produced Hate" when we all raged here for so long against Bush Policies that we unfortunately have seen repeated in many ways. Whether it's through coercion or poor policy judgement--when Dems join that way of thinking and it gets cheerleaded because it's "Our Party" doing it......it doesn't help our Party move forward. We end up with malaise.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and no one among them feels compelled to stop them. It's been going on for years on DU.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I just think he's a cynical self-promoting opportunist and a hypocrite who is willing to expose state secrets (selectively, I might add-why is he the guardian of this treasure trove of state secrets that low-level corporate/government contractors have obtained for him?) but isn't willing to be transparent about his own connections to secretive tech company billionaires.
Notice that Google, Facebook, et.al are up to their eyeballs in collecting data on people and tracking them for marketing purposes? Many if not most or all of the tech companies have actively and willingly cooperated with the NSA. Why should these private, unaccountable corporate entities be trusted any more with Big Data than the US government?
Believe it or not, but it is possible to oppose NSA spying without succumbing to the selfish libertarianism of Snowden-and Greenwald, apparently. I don't trust Greenwald, or anyone else in this saga with ulterior motives. If it sounds too good to be true-it very likely is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Greenwald so frequently that I am certain it is part of the Smear Campaign that was being prepared by one our 'Security Contractors' for BOA to try to discredit him, when it was exposed by Anonymous.
But no one ever explains it. That is how you recognize talking points. They are repeated and repeated and repeated so that others will pick them up and repeat them over and over again. But no one ever explains them.
If I have a criticism of someone I don't repeat someone else's talking point. I criticize them in my own words.
So could you explain that talking point so that we finally know what it is supposed to mean and maybe actually DISCUSS something rather than simply throw out baseless, and they are baseless without something to back them up, talking points.
As for why the people need to know what the NSA was doing, They are DOING IT IN OUR NAME, paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS, BILLIONS OF THEM. The people have a RIGHT TO KNOW what their government is up to and what they are doing with OUR MONEY.
Google, FB are not the government, they are private entities and NO THREAT TO OUR RIGHTS, since we DON'T have to participate in private businesses if we don't like their practices. '
Surely you know the difference between the power of a private corp and that of the Government?
Greenwald is an exceptional journalist, he was from the day he began blogging about Bush/Cheney's lies when he was merely an obscure blogger, hated by the Right, loved by the Left.
I wondered if he would be discovered back then when our media like today, merely dishes out propaganda and bloggers like HIM were who we turned to for FACTS. I am thrilled to see his success and the respect he has now all over the world.
How any democrat could possibly join the smear campaigners from the right wrt Greenwald is a mystery to me.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)I don't like the guy because he's a pompous jerk, but I could care less if he's gay. It doesn't figure into my equation at all.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)You say "I don't like him because he's a pompous jerk". But even Bill O'Reilly, the most pompous of jerks, does not attract the same kind of HATRED. The only possible explanations have been cited here. Either it's protection of the surveillance state or this administration, paid protection of the surveillance state, ignorance, or homophobia.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)you don't need to pay people to not like him. His personality alone is bound to draw ire. I think hatred is too strong a word.
your mileage may vary, and I can only speak for myself.
JEB
(4,748 posts)A very valuable voice.
julio_maracas
(34 posts)but vocal.
As shown in the poll.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Welcome to DU!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)vocal worshipers.
As shown in the poll.
I didn't get a chance to vote, but I don't particularly care for him or his tactics. So...put me in the "hater" column, I suppose.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)See Ellsberg, Snowden, Assange, and Manning for precedents.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Same with Snowden, same with the CIA, same with the WH and Congress and the SCOTUS. Same with X, Y and Z. Depends on the circumstances.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)put me down for not giving a crap. I am so sick of the infighting about this one person and losing sight of the topic in dispute. Feh.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Sorry
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'm in and out of the place so I just didn't get to it in time.
Cheers.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)but did his blog really publish that crap about fema camps- if so- WFingF?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)my opinion is confined to the admission that he's a colorful guy. Occasionally he writes some provocative stuff that invites buzz, good and bad. Greenwald is certainly entertaining.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)there are such cultish and rabid reactions to him, it's kind of fascinating to watch. it's like he is either a messiah or a charlatan depending on who is talking around here. maybe he's a bit of both. I just don't get the fandom, and accusations of Obama worship or homophobia if you distrust him. I don't trust or worship anyone, LOL. So, fo rme- it is all pretty strange stuff!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)All you have to do is consider the source of those comments, bettyellen. Lord knows every other thinking person does.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hating on Obama and fellow DUers, than they are about loving GG. Perhaps those two things go hand in hand, but the rabid anger seems to be there and overwhelm the discussion. I think it doesn't serve anyone well.
If anyone made homophobic remarks, that is really fucked up and I hope they got hidden here. However I see quite a few of the "hide nothing" or ignore racist and sexist stuff complaining about it here, and I wish they gave a shit when it came to sexism or racism here.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)but now that the lie has been told, look to it being spread far and wide.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?s=FEMA
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)have any suggestions on how to shut those lies down on DU? Especially that you were willing to buy into the lie with doing no research on your own.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)No, it's just asking a question. That is how I usually get answers around here if I'm not invested enough to do my own research. And I wasn't.
If you think it's a wide spread misconception, why don't you start a thread on it?
merrily
(45,251 posts)massive, secret violation of our rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by the government whose bills we pay.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)government tried to raise its fist against him. And I defended those who were reporting the story at the time. I did similar when Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate.
I refuse to allow the propagandists and the apathetic drive the narrative.
I fought it then and I fight it now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.
He is a journalist. He has a responsibility to publish. Also, it probably made him richer and more desirable to his publisher--not that there's anything at all wrong with that.
Do I know, though, if he is generally a kind person or not? No clue. Do I know how much he gives to charity? No clue. Those are the kinds of things that would cause me to have a favorable or unfavorable general impression of him.
Was I glad to get the information he published? YES.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)All he does is criticize The President. And people who post his dribbles of excrement here, claiming to be "liberals" are no liberals.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?32833-Good-Ron-Paul-Article-by-Glenn-Greenwald
Funny that GG's fans seem use the same arguments to support him as the Paulites do.
merrily
(45,251 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)ACA? Supporting gays rights? Pulling the troops out of Iraq? Anything?
And when was the last time he actually deigned to find fault with any Republican?
merrily
(45,251 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)The fact is he hasn't.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to beat the band.
You said he hated Democrats, loved Republicans, etc. remember? That is what I said was untrue. In other words, I called bs. So, you go ahead and prove what you first posted before you demand that I prove to you something I never said in the first place.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Extra points if one of his worshipers posted it here on DU. Given his vast body of work, that should be a rather easy task for you if I'm lying.
I won't be holding my breath for an actual reply, though.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's how it works. you say something, someone calls bs and the ball goes straight to your court to prove what you said.
Instead, you backpedaling and started challenging me to prove things I never said.
But, I wasn't holding my breath waiting for you proof. As for you, you're probably just out of breath from backpedaling so much.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)always nice to have confirmation. Have a great evening.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)The poster is demanding (DEMANDING!) that I prove a negative. To do so I'd need to refer to every article, interview, book, blog post & random tweet he's ever done. This is logically impossible. All I have is a preponderance of evidence.
All the poster needs to do to prove me wrong is to present something - anything - in which GG says something positive about Obama or the Democratic party. Should be a rather simple proposition, wouldn't you think?
But of course, you're one on the side championing GG. You aren't required to think.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Go ahead, try to figure that one out too...
You clearly lost the train of thought on this thread.
Good luck with that.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Everytime I think Greenwald can't set his hypocrisy bar lower, he outdoes himself! What a shameless shifty lowlife piece of money-grubbing shit
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Matt's project is just that... Matt's project. And in fact, Glenn retweeted Matt's frustration with Paul Carr.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)What work? Where are his Wall Street expose stories that we knew and loved at Rolling Stone? Taibbi's been there since February, and what has been accomplished?
Are you saying Greenwald doesn't run the show at First Look? He is indisputably the public face and most-frequent public spokesman...And even if GG technically isn't Taibbi's "boss", his bullshit about how "transparent" and "independent" his little clubhouse was going be has been exposed as a lie...
I've asked Taibbi for a response to that tweet and he has been silent -- Carr has some serious, legit allegations which ought to be addressed, and he isn't the only one asking about them...Given how much shit Greenwald gave Carr over Sirota leaving, he really isn't in a position to complain...
But then I remember that Glenn Greenwald has always been one of those dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it type of cowards...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Greenwald doesn't even run The Intercept. He, Jeremy, and Laura were tasked to build their reporting team for their particular division of First Look.
Matt is tasked for building the reporting team for his particular division of First Look called "The Racket."
Are there problems going on at First Look? It appears so for Matt's division and I hope that Matt lands on his feet spectacularly.
Are there problems going on at The Intercept? Doesn't appear so as articles are being published regularly by more than one person.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but if you think for one second that Greenwald actually takes orders from Cook (or is paid less), I've got a bridge to sell you...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I've a bridge to sell you.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
if the allegations are true about FLM trying to control what he wrote, and he's pissed off to the point of walking away like Jay Rosen...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)et. al., has been only tasked with building his media team for his particular division of First Look... The Intercept.
Greenwald has no authority over Tiabbi because he has nothing to do with Tiabbi's division of First Look.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He was the *first* person ever hired for the new venture...And if Greenwald is THAT hands-off with other "divisions" (for all practical purposes there are no other divisions since Taibbi, you know, has yet to WRITE something), then he shouldn't be commenting on the situation, even in his little trademark passive-aggressive manner on twitter...
Either way -- If it is proven that all of Greenwald's bullshit about Pierre not interfering with editorial content was a lie, then FLM has been indisputably exposed as a fraud, and Greenwald knew it...Because this would be the second domino to fall, since Greenwald's claims about openness and transparency were pretty much destroyed in the first month (you'll notice that "transparency" isn't something he boasts about anymore)-- FLM is easily the MOST secretive, insular and incestuous big-budget media organization I've ever seen...In the irony of ironies, they have more in common with the intelligence services than they'd care to admit...
But the bottom line is it will all come out...It always comes out sooner or later...The really fun part is the writers at New York magazine said that today was the tip of the iceberg and they will be revisiting this story in the very near future -- Can't wait...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)How you can declare otherwise is a mystery because, from the beginning, the relationship has never been described, outside the right-wing-nuts, otherwise.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He needs to start acting like one...
Please tell me what kind of "reporter" has the authority to make hiring decisions as Greenwald does?? I'd have thought FLM's board of directors might have taken offense at Greenwald speaking for the entire company all those times like he's running things...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who was working on a contract to SMEAR GLENN GREENWALD and PROGRESSIVE GROUPS, pitching his contract to such wonderful 'allies' (thanks for helping them) as the Chamber of Commerce and BOA.
The world knows what happened, thanks to Anonymous, who exposed where these smear campaigns COME FROM.
For once, thanks Anonymous, the GOOD GUYS, that would be Progressive Orgs and people like Greenwald, WON. We KNEW that the sudden smearing of people like Greenwald, was suspicious, the same old talking points repeated over and over again.
It's useless to keep it up. Greenwald is where he should be, but might not have been, had Aaron Barr not been so sure of himself that he challenged Anonymous leading to them posting all of his emails online for the world to see.
And what we saw confirmed the suspicions of many that there was more to the sudden attacks on Greenwald than just a few disgruntled online right wingers.
It's astounding though that ANYONE on the LEFT is still trying so hard to continue that smear campaign when the FACTS are out there.
Why did they want to smear Greenwald?? Because he is a REAL JOURNALIST, NOT on the payroll of the Corporate Media, determined to TELL THE TRUTH no matter what.
Snowden and Greenwald are heroes. The majority of the American people now support Snowden, despite the desperate attempts to smear him and the courageous journalists who have refused to be intimidated by LIES and SMEARS.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . but count me as among those who hold a generally favorable opinion of Greenwald!
(But if anyone can tell me why I can't vote, I'd love to know).
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . I realized that after I had posted my message.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)72 hours - like all dumb things - seemed like a good idea at the time.
clg311
(119 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)In the spirit of Halloween, this thread rose from the dead, but the poll ended.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)seem to agree with the corporate media on the subject.
Of course I understand those that dont like Greenwald and Snowden, they are conservatives that don't like anyone that speaks out against the authoritarian leaders. They disparage whistleblowers and investigative journalists, protesters like OWS and Code Pink.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)visceral
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)My dog largely interacts with the world using his mouth--no opposable thumbs. Similarly, our drunken Irishman here appears to interact by focusing on violent fantasies. It's not my dog's fault that he isn't possessed of opposable thumbs--he's just a dog.