General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: Attacks on Snowden, Greenwald. How the fuck do people like that sleep at night? [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The way I see it ...
I don't care how much or how little Greenwald earns. What I do find more than troubling is the fact that he used his possession of stolen sensitive US documents as a means to his own ends. Let's not pretend that his purpose was not best served by dolling out bits and pieces of information - always promising that he had plenty of explosive information as yet unpublished - in order to be the "go-to guy" when it came to selling those particular wares. In so doing, he tantalized readers into buying his book, based on their anticipation of what would be revealed therein. Readers hoping for "fireworks" - zero. Money in GG's pocket for books sales - ca'ching, ca'ching.
When Pierre Omidyar launched The Intercept - Omidyar bringing more than pocket change to the table - what better "catch" could there be than the man who was, allegedly, still sitting on yet-to-be-revealed information that would draw the immediate attention of the world to a new on-line publication? Let's be honest. Had GG, in furtherance of Snowden's purported goal to let the American people know the extent to which they were being "spied on", revealed everything he had of any real import, would The Intercept - or anyone else - have been willing to put up big bucks for someone who had already blown their wad?
Surely Omidyar thought he was buying the milk along with the cow - i.e. the "as yet undisclosed fireworks" along with the "journalist" who had virtual control of the promised display. Would GG have been as desirable a cow if he had already been milked dry? Of course not. By continuing to promise "there's more yet to come", GG made himself into a commodity worth paying the big bucks for.
Has there been "more to come"? No. Have their been any "fireworks displays" as promised? No. And if you think GG actually has anything more to peddle and hasn't tried to sell it already - well, I don't think you are that naive.
These are just a few of the reasons I find Greenwald's ethics to be lacking, and his word for anything untrustworthy as a direct result thereof.
When I read Snowden's pitiful diatribe about guys at the NSA ogling pics of hot chicks they'd illegally accessed, I knew it was game over. When you're down to that kind of totally unproven (and unprovable) accusation, after holding yourself out as the altruistic the citizenry has a right to know they're being spied on! hero, you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.
To excuse GG's behaviour as merely "the man is just trying to make a living" is to ignore how he is earning that living. And he has been earning it by using his access to stolen US documents as bait to raise his "worth" as a journalist, with promises of explosive revelations that never actually materialize.
BTW, GG did not win a Pulitzer; The Washington Post and The Guardian did. And before you say it was really GG's win, keep in mind that the award committee could have named Greenwald individually, if they'd chosen to. They didn't.
As for "I just get so angry at those that say such stupid things like "Snowden is a traitor" or "Greenwald is an asshole", let's not forget we're posting on a site where calling the President a "piece of shit used car salesman" - and worse - is totally acceptable. If the Democratic President is open to being labelled as such on a Democratic website, I don't see that either GG or Snowden deserve more courtesy than the office of the Presidency, or the man who holds that office.