General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrom Tom Paine to Glenn Greenwald, we need partisan journalism
By Jack Shafer
...
Greenwalds collaborations with source Edward Snowden, which resulted in Page One scoops in the Guardian about the National Security Agency, caused such a rip in the time-space-journalism continuum that the question soon went from whether Greenwalds lefty style of journalism could be trusted to whether he belonged in a jail cell. Last month, New York Times business journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin called for the arrest of Greenwald (he later apologized) and Meet the Press host David Gregory asked with a straight face if he shouldnt be charged with a crime. NBCs Chuck Todd and the Washington Posts Walter Pincus and Paul Farhi also asked if Greenwald hadnt shape-shifted himself to some non-journalistic precinct with his work.
...
In the 1960s, the best opinionated, fact-based journalism appeared in such books as Rachel Carsons Silent Spring (1962), Betty Friedans The Feminine Mystique (1963), Jessica Mitfords The American Way of Death (1963), Michael Harringtons The Other America (1963), and Ralph Naders Unsafe at Any Speed (1965). The lefties at Ramparts magazine broke stories on Michigan State University fronting for the CIA (1966), the use of napalm in Vietnam (1966), and the CIA funding of the National Student Association (1967). Later revelations in the early to mid-1970s by the New York Times and the Washington Post (and others) about the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, and intelligence agency abuses were, at their root, as partisan as any of the NSA investigations Glenn Greenwald has contributed. Remember, as Christopher B. Daly recently pointed out, Daniel Ellsberg chose to leak the Pentagon Papers to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan because he 1) trusted Sheehan from their years in Vietnam, and 2) had recently read a long essay-review Sheenan had written for the papers book section titled Should We Have War Crime Trials? As Daly writes, Three months later, Sheehan wrote the first front-page article in the series that became known as the Pentagon Papers.
...
My paean to activist and partisan journalism does not include the output of the columnists and other hacks who arrange their copy to please their Democratic or Republican Party patrons. (You know who you are.) Nor do I favor the partisan journalists who insult reader intelligence by cherry-picking the evidence, debate-club style, to win the day for their comrades. Click and read a few of the articles I cite above and then ask yourself: Where would we be without our partisan journalists?
http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/07/16/from-tom-paine-to-glenn-greenwald-we-need-partisan-journalism/
pkdu
(3,977 posts)But first para says I'm not willing to discuss if he's a journalist....
And please...." Rip in the time-space-journalism continuum " .... Gag.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)was included in the first amendment.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)You knew that.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Hunter S. Thomson had and agenda but he was a journalist.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)raises money for progressive Democratic candidates, and believes the tyranny of corporations one of the greatest threats to democracy before I would give credence to any single thing that you could ever say.
struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)opposing the social safety net, opposing 100% public funding of elections, advocating raising money for anyone other than progressive Democratic candidates, or cheering for corporate power
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)In fact, you will find him supporting all, using his own name and not spreading lies, anonymously, of where YOU stand politically.
struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)In the preface to his 2006 book, he wrote "I never voted for George W. Bush or for any of his political opponents"
And then there's this:
At a talk given the day after the 2010 election one that was a disaster for Democrats progressive writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012 ... Greenwald offered a few insights into his way of thinking ... He said Democrats have stigmatized the idea of supporting third parties or not voting at all ... Greenwalds notion of third party voting .. offered the greatest window in what hed like to see happen in American elections ... Heres a transcript
Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwalds third party dreamin **UPDATE: on Libertarianism
Posted on April 22, 2011 by jreid
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/
struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)campaign finance restrictions, it's difficult to imagine him actually supporting 100% public fibnancing of elections: there's no way such a scheme could survive a challenge under the Citizens United decision
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Unions, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc, All incorporated. That is why the ACLU, Greenwald and I advocate for political speech matching funds.
struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)struggle4progress
(118,350 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)The Tom Paine comparison is very apt.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... who opposed Greenwald when he was harshly criticizing George W. Bush. Greenwald more or less holds the same opinions now as he did then. Yet now some people's opinions on him have swung around completely. It's very strange.
And of course journalists can have opinions. Is what's written in the Nation journalism?
sigmasix
(794 posts)I know that cognitive dissonance is often used to distract Americans from the truth about our history and democracy- but this whole notion that we must embrace the fox "news" approach to "journalism" to protect our democracy is deadly to our democratic principles and the struggle to seperate the criminally wealthy from their positions of power over our "news" media and the manufacturing of "truth"-like information.
Why would any American patriot try to convince their fellow Americans that they are best informed about the world by utilizing the same destructive, anti-truth hyperbole as Teabaggers use to excuse their bigoted, racist ideology? Partisan "journalism" is a logical paradox; real journalism, like science, concentrates on uncovering the world as it really is and following the facts in an attempt to discover the truth, as opposed to partisan-approved and manufactured pre-conceived "truths" that lead to proving partisan-approved preconceived results. Partisan journalism begins with a preconceived belief and then looks for and creates proofs that support the preconceptions. Journalism follows the truth to the facts without relying on preconceived notions; in other words: real journalists follow the facts to the proof, where as partisan "journalists" start with a partisan "fact" and then attempt to find or manufacture proof of the fact. This is the opposite of a functioning democratic standard for the definition of news media.
Spending an entire OP on attempting to convince DUers that the fox "news" approach is in their best interest makes one wonder what the true intention is behind such a proposition.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)What distinguishes journalists, who have special First Amendment privileges, from essayists generally?
What immunities are conferred by the "of the press" clause, and who has them?
byeya
(2,842 posts)to try and balance the scales as much as possible.
As long ago as 1957, James Weschler, editor of the New York Post said: "The American press is overwhelmingly owned and operated by Republicans who fix the rules of US political debate. And I use the word 'fix' advisedly"