Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:39 PM

mimi85 (1,805 posts)

Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story

I searched for this story and the other one I posted awhile ago and the advanced search is moving VERY slowly, so apologies if this had already been posted. The piece is about Glenn Greenwald, who, I must admit is one of my least favorite people.
------------------------------------
Some reporters who helped break the National Security Agency surveillance story reject the impartial journalistic stance that was a fundamental principle for a previous generation of reporters.

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times
June 17, 2013, 8:28 p.m.

Edward Snowden may represent the archetypal leaker of the Internet age — a tech savant who justifies his civil disobedience as a righteous rebuttal to the big institutions he believes have intruded too far into ordinary people's lives.

But it's not just the mole in the National Security Agency surveillance story who is operating in new channels. The reporters who brought his account forward also represent something distinct in journalism. In some cases, their profiles loom larger, particularly on the subject of security and spying, than those of their publications. And a couple offer full-throated attacks on unchecked government surveillance, as they reject the impartial journalistic stance that was a fundamental principle for a previous generation of reporters.

That combination means significant parts of official Washington have attacked not just Snowden, but some of the reporters who brought forward accounts of the NSA's vast trove of telephone and Internet data. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) has called for the criminal prosecution of Glenn Greenwald, the columnist, author and lawyer who first broke the story for the Guardian of London.

Some journalists had complaints about the stories as well, a few because of what they said was imprecise reporting but others because of details the stories did not disclose. They wanted to know more about the kind of individuals whom the security agency investigated and why.

------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nsa-media-20130618,0,1314321,full.story

55 replies, 8716 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

55 replies	Author	Time	Post
Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story (Original post)	mimi85	Jun 2013	OP
That's been my only agenda from the start.	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#1
You have provided a perfect example of what the article is saying. Both Clemons and Greenwald	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#7
+1 Thanks, Sabrina	magellan	Jun 2013	#9
Excellent response	malaise	Jun 2013	#10
No, they are not well respected just on your say so (Greenwald.Clemons).	Whisp	Jun 2013	#11
Good god. Could you not get ANYTHING right?	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#13
I don't have anyone on ignore, I love debate, even more with those who 'can't get anything left'.	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#14
Cite one instance where I've declared anyone's political philosophies.	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#18
Matt Rothschild and Ruth Conniff	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#19
May they rest in peace	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#24
Lewis Lapham	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#25
Lewis Lapham MSM??	grasswire	Jun 2013	#27
As I said above..	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#28
How odd that you omit his largest accomplishment.	grasswire	Jun 2013	#29
I didn't omit shit.	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#30
Not to mention Greenwald character assassinates anyone who disagrees with him.	JaneyVee	Jun 2013	#31
Most of those you mentioned are either dead or they are not who the general public get their	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#39
"Greenwald needs to be careful."	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#44
Found anything yet?	OilemFirchen	Jun 2013	#38
My feelings exactly	mimi85	Jun 2013	#2
Thank you Mimi, that was an interesting read. Rec'd n/t	Catherina	Jun 2013	#3
There are agendas here, and it's going to bite someone in the ass.	randome	Jun 2013	#4
Imagine finding you here slamming Greenwald? Who would have thought? Lol!	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#8
Advocacy Journalism and Muckrakers...	KoKo	Jun 2013	#37
indeed, all those agents pretending to be journalists, its nothing new.	Monkie	Jun 2013	#5
Carl Bernstein's article is a reminder of what many our "free press journalists"	KoKo	Jun 2013	#36
He wasn't impartial or ethical as a lawyer...why would Greenwald be either	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#6
Dragging up an old legal case again? I haven't clicked, but is that the one where the judge	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#12
Hree is part of the opinion...	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#15
Yes, I thought it was that same old case. What a stellar record Greenwald	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#22
You are welcome Sabrina.	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#26
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#32
Mmm ....	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#16
Funny that the judge ruled that his actions were not unethical but you claim that he was...	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#17
Thank you again. Disgusting attempt to smear a man because of a political disagreement.	sabrina 1	Jun 2013	#23
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#33
You can weasel your way all around it but the judge's words are clear. As for your "A 52-page	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#34
You seem pretty confused. Let me clear up a few things for you.	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#35
Mr. Greenwald and I are also quoting the ruling. And I asked for a link to the originial case the	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#42
I gave you the cite. Kindly read what you are opining on. Heck...I even gave you an online	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#45
Crickets..have you read the opinion yet?? nt	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#40
Some of us work...	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#43
I've given you the citation. I also gave you an online resource. Why haven't you read the case	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#46
I have read the contents of your link. It has nothing about a 52-page transcript...	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#47
Again..the citation was given. Read the case. If you lack the ability	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#48
You provide a cititation but can provide no link to assess the veracity. Nice racket	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#49
Let me see if I have this correctly...you are unable to access the cases you opine on?	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#50
You gave me the link to the appeal. Can you or can you not give me a link to the original case.	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#51
If you have the cite, look it up! Don't know how to do that? Then perhaps you	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#52
Congratulations on parroting a Little Green Footballs comment TO THE LETTER.	Luminous Animal	Jun 2013	#53
Look at the dates--LGF and Crooks and Liars copied me. LGF links to my OP on DU.	msanthrope	Jun 2013	#54
'For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole.'	Rex	Jun 2013	#20
He's clearly not objective	treestar	Jun 2013	#21
News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. Lord Northcliffe	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jun 2013	#41
bump for relevance nt	flamingdem	Jul 2013	#55

Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:03 PM

OilemFirchen (6,918 posts)

1. That's been my only agenda from the start.

I rarely post here (or anywhere), but this latest kerfuffle was the limit, when I saw that its origin was Glenn Greenwald. Steve Clemons (of the now neo-liberal Atlantic) jumped on board with his breathless, utterly irresponsible tweets, then Declan McCullagh iced the cake, creating quotes out of whole cloth.

Journalism has changed, and not for the better. If there's any takeaway here it's that readers should be very careful. Internet reportage has no standards and it shows.

Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story

1. That's been my only agenda from the start.

7. You have provided a perfect example of what the article is saying. Both Clemons and Greenwald

9. +1 Thanks, Sabrina

10. Excellent response

11. No, they are not well respected just on your say so (Greenwald.Clemons).

13. Good god. Could you not get ANYTHING right?

14. I don't have anyone on ignore, I love debate, even more with those who 'can't get anything left'.

18. Cite one instance where I've declared anyone's political philosophies.

19. Matt Rothschild and Ruth Conniff

24. May they rest in peace

25. Lewis Lapham

27. Lewis Lapham MSM??

28. As I said above..

29. How odd that you omit his largest accomplishment.

30. I didn't omit shit.

31. Not to mention Greenwald character assassinates anyone who disagrees with him.

39. Most of those you mentioned are either dead or they are not who the general public get their

44. "Greenwald needs to be careful."

38. Found anything yet?

2. My feelings exactly

3. Thank you Mimi, that was an interesting read. Rec'd n/t

4. There are agendas here, and it's going to bite someone in the ass.

8. Imagine finding you here slamming Greenwald? Who would have thought? Lol!

37. Advocacy Journalism and Muckrakers...

5. indeed, all those agents pretending to be journalists, its nothing new.

36. Carl Bernstein's article is a reminder of what many our "free press journalists"

6. He wasn't impartial or ethical as a lawyer...why would Greenwald be either

12. Dragging up an old legal case again? I haven't clicked, but is that the one where the judge

15. Hree is part of the opinion...

22. Yes, I thought it was that same old case. What a stellar record Greenwald

26. You are welcome Sabrina.

32. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"

16. Mmm ....

17. Funny that the judge ruled that his actions were not unethical but you claim that he was...

23. Thank you again. Disgusting attempt to smear a man because of a political disagreement.

33. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"

34. You can weasel your way all around it but the judge's words are clear. As for your "A 52-page

35. You seem pretty confused. Let me clear up a few things for you.

42. Mr. Greenwald and I are also quoting the ruling. And I asked for a link to the originial case the

45. I gave you the cite. Kindly read what you are opining on. Heck...I even gave you an online

40. Crickets..have you read the opinion yet?? nt

43. Some of us work...

46. I've given you the citation. I also gave you an online resource. Why haven't you read the case

47. I have read the contents of your link. It has nothing about a 52-page transcript...

48. Again..the citation was given. Read the case. If you lack the ability

49. You provide a cititation but can provide no link to assess the veracity. Nice racket

50. Let me see if I have this correctly...you are unable to access the cases you opine on?

51. You gave me the link to the appeal. Can you or can you not give me a link to the original case.

52. If you have the cite, look it up! Don't know how to do that? Then perhaps you

53. Congratulations on parroting a Little Green Footballs comment TO THE LETTER.

54. Look at the dates--LGF and Crooks and Liars copied me. LGF links to my OP on DU.

20. 'For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole.'

21. He's clearly not objective

41. News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. Lord Northcliffe

55. bump for relevance nt