Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumGlenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism (Boiling Frogs Post-Sibel Edmonds)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)Is he in on it? It's good to see people who definitely have no love for the POTUS finally begin to question GG's actions/motives, and his curious "connections" to big $$$$$$$$$.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)he is doing?
Let's see what he does with the money before finding fault with that. Greenwald's legal fees will be astronomical, and he may spend many years in prison if he faces a trial. So it's hard to begrudge his making money from what he is doing. It may be the only insurance fund he has.
Is the suggestion that Greenwald is selling his silence? That could be a serious matter.
After all, he may really start new news media that is more honest than what we have seen.
My summation:
Hell hath no fury than that of a (my edit -- certain) women scorned.
Sibel Edmond's presentation is wildly emotional and that detracts from the credibility. Still, I would like to hear Greenwald's responses.
While I'm at it, I would like to add that Pacifica, an independent radio station that features both Democracy Now and sometimes Thom Hartmann, is trying to raise enough money to stay on the air. GLENN, DEAR, IF YOU HAVE MONEY TO SPARE, PLEASE HELP PACIFICA. They are a great news outlet. Thanks.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)He could easily use them to tell his story. Sibel is right to be suspicious.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. She struck me as overly emotional in that interview. It's as if Greenwald had affronted her personally.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)At least she created an organization or venue of which whistleblowers can give their stories. It isn't connected to anything related to the highest bidder or a new media network.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)People do things in different ways. The powers that don't like it when they do offensive things in secret and are discovered. All whistleblowers pay a huge personal price for following their consciences. There is no reason for one whistleblower to criticize the way another whistleblower delivers his message. Snowden and Greenwald delivered their message in a dramatic yet soft-spoken manner that gives them a lot of credibility.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)done that for himself and many are jumping on his band wagon, jmo.
arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)interesting points, along the lines of follow the money and characters GG is aligning with...they need investigation, jmo.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)both have strong ties to democracy now.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)and 9/11 related matters.
These things can be important when deciding who if anybody is a hero.
But that the leak has been an enormous service to the people of the world, is beyond doubt to me. That doesn't mean the motives of the people involved were pure, and I concur with Sibel Edmonds nobody is above scrutiny and criticism. What she is doing here isn't smearing, but digging. Always good. I'm glad to see a substantive viewpoint against Greenwald - but Greenwald is only a channel. There is nothing on Snowden here.
I hope Greenwald isn't the only one with the docs now - I don't think he is, right?
2banon
(7,321 posts)Sibel was always hard for me to listen to, and she was difficult for me to listen to all the way through tonight but I did anyway. I wish she just went ahead and enumerated the items regarding GG that she says she has on him, but she lost me with the editorializing on the messiah thing.
I did't catch the gentleman's name on the left side of the screen, I appreciated the questions and points he posited. Also the gentleman on the right, but I didn't understand his name either. it would be great to have links to each of their sites
I'm definitely interested in the answers from Snowden. glad to know there's a letter directed to him circulating and answers are being anticipated.
This does shine an entirely different light on GG's motivations. I'm wondering if Snowden handed everything to GG or if he managed to safeguard the original files elsewhere. I beginning to suspect Snowden got snookered by GG and that's why he ended up in Hong Kong and ultimately Moscow.
Well, I should wait until we hear back from Snowden before jumping to conclusions and making any further judgements. I want answers too.
And then there's Scahill, I nearly forgotten all about. head scratching.. gonna have to wait for answers I guess.
arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)in that he along with all the other global business giants have in this is privacy/security for customers. It's a matter of Business. That''s what the meeting with Obama and Hi-Tech industry leaders was about the other day. They're suffering business repercussions, particularly in Europe and elsewhere. This is a high finance and profit gains/losses at stake. They want the data collection out of the hands of the government and see themselves as the legitimate gatekeepers and they want serious reform wrt to govt's demands for access to that data.
Personally I don't want Big Business or Big Government to collect and keep it.
arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)may answer some of the questions raised in the OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1269486
We shall see what all of it really means and becomes.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I had missed that.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Malteil
(58 posts)As far as publishing with the Guardian, maybe the fact that they have had so much trouble with the British Govt. in regards to the leaks is a reason. Maybe he felt that he would be edited to heavily by the Guardian in regards to his book, this leading him to look for another publishing source. It is reasonable to think, if I was writing this book, that the British Govt. would come down really hard on the Guardian and follow through with their earlier threats if a book on the leaks were in the works. This would be especially true, if the really juicy stuff was going to be in the book.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)xiamiam
(4,906 posts)Sibel knows that. I can't listen to her. I know she's been thru a lot but she puts me off. First, she is always preening and drawing attention to something personal about herself ...and her voice. I do know that disliking the tone of her voice is not a good enough reason to not listen to her but it is offensive to my ears. I try but it is shrill and I already dislike some of her mannerisms. I like James Corbett, a lot, and I even thought about writing to him about how I feel she detracts from him. None of my business but I just cant take her seriously.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)No one dissed her in any way.
We were all on her side.
Now that she isn't kissing GG's opportunistic ass, --- *whistles for the bus.