Glenn Greenwald Takes An Axe To Michael Kinsley's Review Of His Book

[Capt. Obvious]

Glenn Greenwald wasn't about to let Michael Kinsley's harsh book review go unchallenged. But even as he ripped Kinsley for suggesting that reporting on the National Security Agency surveillance programs could justify prosecution, Greenwald believes the review substantiates a point he's made repeatedly.

....

Greenwald highlighted a 2006 piece in which Kinsley criticized the Boston Globe for revealing the Bush administration's extra-legal use of "signing statements." Writing for the Washington Post at the time, Kinsley decried "the ongoing issue of leaks and anonymous sources" and argued that journalists shouldn't publish information that the government wishes to remain a secret.

"This is the person whom Pamela Paul, editor of The New York Times Book Review, chose to review my book, No Place to Hide, about the NSA reporting we’ve done and the leaks of Edward Snowden: someone who has expressly suggested that journalists should be treated as criminals for publishing information the government does not want published," Greenwald wrote.

....

Greenwald wrote that many of the critics who generally liked his book still "took grave offense to its last chapter, which argues that the U.S. media is too close and subservient to the U.S. government and its officials, over whom the press claims to exercise adversarial oversight."

But Greenwald believes Kinsley proved his point.

"Do I need to continue to participate in the debate over whether many U.S. journalists are pitifully obeisant to the U.S. government? Did they not just resolve that debate for me?" Greenwald wrote. "What better evidence can that argument find than multiple influential American journalists standing up and cheering while a fellow journalist is given space in The New York Times to argue that those who publish information against the government’s wishes are not only acting immorally but criminally?"

TPM

[QC]

1. POOPIEHEAD!!!!!11! MEANIE!!1!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Kinsley and his ilk are to journalism what Twinkies are to nutrition.

A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. Albert Camus

[hlthe2b]

6. Kinsley went off the rails a long time ago--regardless of how one feels about Greenwald

Kinsley has not been worthy of respect for a very long time.

[bvar22]

43. There are about 5 members of DU who have IMMENSE respect for Kinsley.

They have become sad parodies of themselves in their hate for Whistle Blowers Snowden & Greenwald, and their obsession to taint their character
through any means possible has become pathetic.
The Pulitzer Award Winning Expose' by Snowden & Greenwald have driven them to foaming at the mouth.

[woo me with science]

3. They really do seem to be banking on the hope

that they have "dumbed down" this country sufficiently that we don't remember anymore why we have a First Amendment or what it is supposed to protect us from.

[ProSense]

4. Apparently,

"Do I need to continue to participate in the debate over whether many U.S. journalists are pitifully obeisant to the U.S. government? Did they not just resolve that debate for me?" Greenwald wrote. "What better evidence can that argument find than multiple influential American journalists standing up and cheering while a fellow journalist is given space in The New York Times to argue that those who publish information against the government’s wishes are not only acting immorally but criminally?"

...he does. From the piece posted here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024986606)

NBC News has a collaborative agreement with First Look Media, the online outlet founded by billionaire Pierre Omidyar and where Greenwald currently works.

An unnamed source at NBC told Wemple that Greenwald didn't negotiate the terms of the interview, but the source acknowledged that the Pulitzer Prize winner is one of only a few people who can facilitate communication with Snowden.

He didn't like Tim Russert (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024943174), but apparently gives an exclusive to Brian Williams.

He doesn't like Bond, but Sony's Bond producers are cool for quick buck.

Glenn Greenwald's Website Loses A National Security Blogger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024963414

[WilliamPitt]

8. Word salad.

[Luminous Animal]

9. But it has links!

To... um... something.

[QC]

11. Links to links to links to links....

[ProSense]

12. Frankly,

"But it has links! To... um... something."

...Greenwald's money machine (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228191) is a big distraction on many fronts.

How to Protect the Most Privacy with the Least Effort: Change Search Engines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024990204

[DesMoinesDem]

20. An irrelevant link about a blogger leaving The Intercept didn't win you over?

[ProSense]

22. My bad

"An irrelevant link about a blogger leaving The Intercept didn't win you over?"

The post was about Greenwald hating the Russert (link included) and Bond, which was a reference to Sony. Here's the relevant link:

Sony Pictures Buys Film Rights to Book on Snowden (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024955152

[Luminous Animal]

23. Hahahaha!!! Oh dear.

[woo me with science]

31. It's a Waldorf. nt

[uponit7771]

53. Facts SUCK!!! / sarcasm <---- cause that's needed around here these days

[ProSense]

10. Leave Greenwald alone.

Got any links?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

49. Of course not...

You're one of the few real Democrats on this board, PS, relentless in bringing actual facts to the discussion - though it usually seems to be a waste, as you're throwing pearls before the swine.

Hell, if you posted a ton of links referencing facts as to why the party should all become socialist, I might even consider it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Luminous Animal]

50. Proud swine checking in. Want my pearls. Humma humma snort snort.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. To trample them beneath your feet and turn and tear ProSense to pieces?

(Not that I actually expect you to get the reference, but anyway.)

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Hissyspit]

54. Says the Conservative.

[zeemike]

17. Sounds like you are grasping at straws to find fault to me.

But then you are a Pro.

[ProSense]

18. The OP is Greenwald's whine because he got a bad review.

Typical. He can't stand criticism.

[zeemike]

24. See what I mean?

If someone attacks you and you respond you are whining and can't stand criticism.
As if it is the moral thing to do to keep your mouth shut when attacked.

[ProSense]

25. No, but

"See what I mean? If someone attacks you and you respond you are whining and can't stand criticism.
As if it is the moral thing to do to keep your mouth shut when attacked"

...I made a point related to a snip from the OP, and the reaction to my post is basically attack criticism of Greenwald.

"Do I need to continue to participate in the debate over whether many U.S. journalists are pitifully obeisant to the U.S. government? Did they not just resolve that debate for me?" Greenwald wrote. "What better evidence can that argument find than multiple influential American journalists standing up and cheering while a fellow journalist is given space in The New York Times to argue that those who publish information against the government’s wishes are not only acting immorally but criminally?"

...he does. From the piece posted here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024986606)

NBC News has a collaborative agreement with First Look Media, the online outlet founded by billionaire Pierre Omidyar and where Greenwald currently works.

An unnamed source at NBC told Wemple that Greenwald didn't negotiate the terms of the interview, but the source acknowledged that the Pulitzer Prize winner is one of only a few people who can facilitate communication with Snowden.

He didn't like Tim Russert (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024943174), but apparently gives an exclusive to Brian Williams.

He doesn't like Bond, but Sony's Bond producers are cool for quick buck.

Glenn Greenwald's Website Loses A National Security Blogger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024963414

Leave Greenwald alone.

[zeemike]

35. I read it the first time

Why do you think it gets better by pasting it again?
And yes my response was an attack on your attack...and I am not ashamed of that one bit...and will do it again if nessesary...I am not a pacifist in the word war.

[ProSense]

36. IOW:

"Why do you think it gets better by pasting it again?
And yes my response was an attack on your attack...and I am not ashamed of that one bit...and will do it again if nessesary...I am not a pacifist in the word war."

...Leave Greenwald alone.

[Helen Borg]

33. Did you read his book?

Because, if you have not, then you cannot judge.

[ProSense]

34. .

[Cha]

45. Asshole Hypocrite. gives an interview to rw mediawhore Brian Williams. lol

[Luminous Animal]

51. I know right? How dare someone who criticizes the media take it their doorstep. Dopie and poopie.

And librbrbrbrbrbrbrbrnrbrataritaranie.

[woo me with science]

5. K&R. I love that Greenwald doesn't let them get away with this nonsense.

[Capt. Obvious]

7. Good play old chap

[MohRokTah]

13. ALL PRAISE HIS HIGH HOLINESS, THE GOD OF EGO!!! THE MAGNIFICENT GLENN GREENWALD!!!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

16. Funny

you no has it

[Rex]

19. The foaming at the mouth over GG is one of the funniest things I've seen on DU in a long time.

Someone just dog whistles the names and they come running!

"GG IS A BIG FAT MEANIE POOPIE HEAD!"

[QC]

26. If only Dr. Pavlov had had DU,

he would not have had to torment all those poor dogs.

[Skittles]

56. and if anyone knows anything about "worshiping the magnificent"

it would be them

[MohRokTah]

27. Sense of humor

you no has it

[Capt. Obvious]

28. Fail

[MohRokTah]

29. Yes, you most certainly did!

[Capt. Obvious]

32. I'm rubber

you're glue

[MohRokTah]

38. I know I am but what are you?

[Luminous Animal]

40. Isn't it obvious? He's rubber. Jeesh.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Maedhros]

15. How can democracy hope to function if the governnent conceals its activities from the electorate?

How can we assess whether our elected representatives are doing their job?

Secrecy kills democracy.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

The "sense of identification" with the leader, the "trust" in the leader to do the right thing despite the shroud of secrecy hanging over the leader's decisions. We're not so far removed from Germany's experience.

[KoKo]

21. Recommend Read! Thanks..

[woo me with science]

37. Thank you for posting this link and excerpt.

Can't recommend highly enough, these days.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Excellent post. Thanks!

[Helen Borg]

30. Awww! The dummy heads took offense at the truth! Sad day for them, right?

[cantbeserious]

41. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Doctor_J]

42. the book won't get any good reviews in big media

Too truthy, too antiestablishment

[Enthusiast]

44. Michael Kinsley remains a weenie.

[Cha]

47. Actually No.

[Enthusiast]

57. Yes. A weenie.

Maybe you are too young to remember his weakness in arguing the liberal position on CNN's Crossfire back in the day.

[Blue_Tires]

58. So what does that make Greenwald, then?

who at the end of the day is the one declaring war on a half-negative book review and drafting all his echo-chamber cronies in the battle...

[Enthusiast]

60. I certainly do not share your position.

[Aerows]

48. LOL

I can only see about 12 responses to this post. I'm assuming that the usual suspects strike again to shut down conversation.

In any case, he's right. Journalists should never be pitifully obeisant to the Government.

[struggle4progress]

52. Let's look at what MK actually wrote. The article was about signing statements

Here's a link to MK's 2006 bit in WaPo, which I'm providing because the link at The Intercept didn't work for me

Here's part of MK's conclusion:

... who wants to live in a society where every citizen and government official feels free to act according to his or her own personal interpretation of the Constitution, even after the Supreme Court has specifically said that this interpretation is wrong? President Bush would actually top my list of people I don't want wandering through the text and getting fancy ideas ...

I don't find that terribly alarming: it's a plea for constitutional government, and constitutional government seemed to be slipping away in those years. And MK acknowledges that explicitly earlier in the piece:

... Legitimate outrage comes when the president acts in flagrant violation of the Constitution, defending his actions unconvincingly, disingenuously or not at all. And Bush has offered plenty of grist for this mill in his assertion of the right to kidnap people off the streets, keep them locked up for years without a trial or even a public acknowledgment of their existence, to torture them, and so on ...

Nor is MK unaware of the threat of signing statements:

... What was dangerous about the Reagan administration's signing statements initiative was the claim that a president is entitled to govern according to his or her own interpretation of the Constitution even after the courts have ruled. This is a recipe for near-dictatorial executive power, not to mention governmental chaos in which no fundamental issue can ever be resolved ...

In the context of his discussion of the importance of constitutional government, MK makes a connection to the on-going controversy about leaks:

... Many in the media believe that the Constitution contains a "reporter's privilege" to protect the identity of sources in circumstances, such as a criminal trial, in which citizens ordinarily can be compelled to produce information or go to jail. The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled and ruled again that there is no such privilege ... Last Sunday, same day as the Globe piece, the New York Times had a front-page article about the other shoe waiting to drop in these leak cases. The Bush administration may go beyond forcing journalists to testify about the sources of leaks. It may start to prosecute journalists themselves as recipients of illegal leaks. As with the Globe story, this turns out to be a matter of pugnacious noises by the Bush administration. Actual prosecutions of journalists for receiving or publishing leaks are "unknown" ...

The 2006 MK article is not well-written. He tries to do too much, and he fails because he didn't rewrite it enough times. He tries to argue, overall, that eeking and shrieking about what might happen at some future time is poor journalism and that we need reporting about what actually happens. He's aware of the concerns about Bush's views on constitutional government, and he illustrates that by noting concrete examples; he's also aware that the signing statements can send a bad signal. But he wants reporting, not hysterical speculation. He notes that the Bush administration is threatening to charge reporters over leaks, but he identifies it as pugnacious noise: again, he wants to be told what actually happens rather than what might happen. He also tries to argue the importance of constitutional government: he sees a threat not only from the noise of the Administration but from the noise of its critics. And I think he raised legitimate concerns: if we devote worry too much about what might happen we have no energy left to address what actually happens; and if the signals from an Administration cause us concern about constitutional issues, do we really improve the situation by convincing ourselves that everyone can decide for oneself what the constitution means?

I can identify two aspects of the 2006 piece that might have irritated Greenwald: the first is the suggestion that a society where every citizen .. feels free to act according to his or her own personal interpretation of the Constitution is undesirable -- likely to irritate Greenwald because that, at present, seems to be Greenwald's view. The second is the view, never quite directly stated, that reporting what might happen as if it were what actually happens is unhealthy journalism -- likely to irritate Greenwald because that seems to be Greenwald's common practice

Greenwald, in his Intercept comment, is unfortunately up to his usual games. MK never says anything like journalists should be treated as criminals for publishing information the government does not want published: he simply criticize the NYT as reporting the speculation -- that the Administration may start to prosecute journalists themselves as recipients of illegal leaks -- as if it were actual fact. Similarly, MK never says anything like journalists themselves .. might be the actual criminals, due both to their refusal to reveal their sources when ordered to do so and their willingness to publish information without the permission of the government: he simply notes that the courts have repeatedly rejected the view that the Constitution contains a "reporter's privilege" to protect the identity of sources in circumstances, such as a criminal trial, in which citizens ordinarily can be compelled to produce information or go to jail -- and the fact that MK is paraphrasing the NYT is shown clearly by the remainder of that paragraph

Greenwald is a literate man, perfectly capable of reading carefully, and it is rather sad to see him use his talents to misrepresent what others say. If one double-checks Greenwald's quotes carefully, one frequently finds him engaging in such misrepresentation, and as he never apologizes or backtracks when corrected (even by the original source of the quote), the conclusion is that he misrepresents deliberately. And here, again, he is doing just that

[Blue_Tires]

55. A response as predictable as the sunrise...

I'm not even surprised, but I AM starting to grow weary at:

1. How laughably easy Greenwald is to rattle...His ego is as big as the Eiffel Tower, but crumbles like it was made from balsawood

2. His pathological inability to accept any criticism whatsoever

3. His hardcore absolutist black/white thinking -- Either people agree with him 100%; or they are subservient lickspittle toady house-Negro slaves

4. His "I'm the sole savior of journalism and everyone else are propagandist stenographers" -attitude, which is starting to nervously creep into "Jesus Complex" -territory

5. His shameless hypocrisy in holding rival journalists or critics to lofty professional standards he (admittedly) would never adhere to himself...

6. I'll save the rest for the inevitable next thread, which will be tomorrow or the next day...



A lot of DUers have me wrong when they simply assume my criticisms are out of blind hate Greenwald...I love him like a brother -- A smug brother in need of a long-overdue ass kicking, but a brother nonetheless...I think back to a year ago when I quietly harbored impossibly high hopes of what this story could mean and where it could lead; and here I am tonight with a thousand more questions and even though it seems impossible, even less answers than I had a year ago...I'd hoped and waited that what followed that first story would eventually kick over every rock in the garden -- But Greenwald inexplicably is still content to keep turning that one original rock over from time-to-time, not to clean it or exterminate the vermin and insects; but to show it to his neighbors and say "Hmmm...Isn't this interesting?" Meanwhile all the heavy-hitting NSA allies and partners lurk in the shadows free from any sunlight and play dumb about the whole thing...All this time I'd personally hoped that this campaign was in the best traditions of investigative journalism with the people's right to know being the prime motivator -- But that delusion is over and I know beyond a doubt that the reporting on this scandal has been a long series of ends-justifies-the-means sausage making, and tiptoeing damn near the line of 'extortion'...And even that I could have happily lived with, but then comes the fame, the fortune, the awards, book deals, Hollywood sitdowns, the revisionism, the inconsistencies, the duplicity, and all of a sudden I'm being labeled as a paid Pentagon troll on my own site for daring to ask questions about the pieces that don't fit together (Note: Reconciling incompatible parts of a narrative is something reporters are taught to do...It comes with the job)...

I took a hard look in the mirror during my DU absence and realized that my rage at Greenwald was rage at myself...I'd hoped that the high profile of this once-in-a-lifetime story plus the Pulitzer, global celebrity and getting the big chair at The Intercept would change him for the better -- That Greenwald would learn a little humility, become a better wordsmith and discover a more nuanced, compelling, freer-flowing writing voice; that he'd open his eyes and see Obama isn't solely to blame for everything that is wrong in North America, and the U.S. isn't solely to blame for everything that is wrong on Earth; that he would wake up and realize the self-defeating silliness of his philosophy of biased reporting; that he'd grow the fuck up and focus more on his craft and informing the people than engaging in endless troll fights on twitter; that instead of mindlessly lashing out he'd look inward and accept criticism as a challenge to improve himself (especially when it comes from a Charlie Pierce, whose ass Greenwald is unworthy to wipe); and that he'd fulfill the over-hyped promise of The Intercept and actually become the savior of the industry he already thinks himself to be... But of course the folly was mine all along because tigers don't change their stripes and the fame from the story has only reinforced and amplified Greenwald's professional deficiencies...The Greenwald of 10-12 years ago is the exact Greenwald of today as evidenced by his past works, and ego-tripping aside, he's never pretended to be anything but (and why would he even have incentive to change when his questionable methods have made him a multi-millionaire?)...What kind of fool am I to blindly hope for some magical storybook epiphany where he finally "gets it"? I don't like the decline of news quality any more than anyone else...Greenwald isn't the hero my former profession wants, needs or deserves, but the profession does need a hero to inspire the upcoming generation of new journalists...The joke is on me for hoping he would instantly become something he is not, nor has ever been...But I've made peace with myself on that, which is why I can laugh about it now...

[treestar]

59. Of course he would do that

make it about him and Kinsley. I thought it was about the NSA and its issues, not people?

[Uncle Joe]

61. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Capt. Obvious.

[Oilwellian]

63. kick