and afflict the comfortable.
Finley Peter Dunne

I'm getting tired of the attacks on the messengers.

This OP is a blatant ad hominem at best, a long reach, and not useful, in addition to being very biased and neglectful of history.

“My grandfather...taught me that whatever skills you have should be devoted toward undermining the people who are the strongest and most powerful,” Greenwald said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/whistleblowers-and-leak-investigations

Based on what I've seen from Greenwald over the years, that statement is a pretty clear reflection of his approach. But I think it also reflects a key problem for too many on the left...an aversion to power. Anyone with power is automatically suspect (ie, for Greenwald they are always liars). And anyone who attacks them is a hero.


That - in a nutshell - is what sparked the battle that became known in some quarters as the Obamasux vs the Obamarocks groups following the 2008 election. The latter saw Barack Obama's election as an opportunity for progressive change now that an imperfect but dedicated champion had gained power via a broad coalition of the electorate. To the former - he immediately became suspect as the wielder of that power.

The truth is that until the Obamasux crowd can reconcile themselves to the reality that power is needed to actually make the changes they seek, they will be confined to the privilege of cynicism. No matter who has gained political power (or how they got it), their heroes will be those who challenge that power. In doing so, they relegate themselves to perpetual victim status - always the underdogs in a battle against those who have the means to change things.

I've written before about how this reaction to power by many on the left is - at heart - rooted in the notion that power is always about dominance (power over) and a blindness to the power of partnership (power with). As liberals we have no need to fear the power of partnership. As a matter of fact, it is the fuel that has ignited every accomplishment the left has made in this country. My heroes tend to be those who recognize that kind of power and find ways to use it.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/06/oh-heroes-and-power.html

Hole in one!

If you would like to see the rest...... that sunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023145425

I don't care if people post here as part of their job. I don't have a problem with it.

You used a sort of "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of loaded question, that contained within it an unjustified presumption of guilt.

and the OP simply did not answer the question. Anyone who evades a question while hurling insinuations and accusations is not up to my ethical standards, I find the behavior to be cowardly and repugnant.

just like the person asking the question didn't explicitly accuse anyone of being paid to post, but rather did so implicitly through a question.

Or more directly, Yes. She failed to answer the question.

Or would you suggest that was a different sort of implication?

Why should he be held to a higher standard than anyone else who seeks the public spotlight?

You ask:
"Is that really the job of professional journalists?"

in response to this quote :
"David Halberstam defined the measurement of good journalism as how much you anger the people in power that you’re covering…while most establishment journalists measure it by how much you please the people in power that you’re covering."

If you consider our Journalists as the Watch Dogs of Our Democracy,
then the answer is an unequivocal [font size=3] YES!!! Our Government should FEAR our journalists![/font]

Anyone who believes that "An informed Citizenry" is a necessary component of a functioning Democracy would agree.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

I don't want journalists sucking officials' dicks (>COUGH< New York Times in lead-up to Iraq invasion >COUGH< ). I want them kicking officials in the groin when they fuck up.

That's what the quote refers to. I obviously agree with it. Why don't you?

Of course a journalist should ask tough questions. However, a journalist's job is not to anger those in power, it's to report the truth. Angering those in power may be an effect of reporting the truth, but it's never the goal of journalists.

What was your college major, Skippy?

When a journalist tells the truth, those in power are angry. It's a perfectly valid statement on Greenwald's part.

they are not part of a PR firm. Some in the U.S media do act like an extended branch of a PR firm for government these days unfortunately. So, when people decry other countries in the world because they are state run, the hypocrisy is thick.

I agree with you, the job of anyone in print, electronic, radio or television media is to report the truth. If it makes people in power angry, so be it, if it makes them happy, so be it.

I attacked President Obama and the administration for two weeks straight on my radio show regarding social security and medicare, I criticized him on national television for not reacting strongly enough to the scandals, but regarding the NSA I am accused of being a shill or Obamabot or whatever other silly label as if I never criticize the President.

I have a standing challenge for anyone to disprove my points in my nearly 20 minute radio program where I initially discussed the NSA issue. To date, no one has done so.

spin spin spin

blah blah blah

:yawn:

Truth .

You aren't allowed to have a non-worship opinion of Snowden or Greenwald. They're too busy being saints.

all other sins anyone can think up, follow from that basic one.

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is... Don'tcha know...

This guy tried to:

[font size=3]Director Clapper LIES to Senate Committee to defend NSA Spying[/font]
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/good-news--you-re-not-paranoid---nsa-oversight

Are you going to join him?
Please Proceed.

There is a difference between holding those with power accountable and measuring journalism as how much you anger the people in power.

Your first accusation was directed at an old English major who still ravenously devours books. Your second accusation was directed at a practicing attorney. Did you happen to use this same standard of excellence in vetting up your OP? Why yes, it looks like you did. Congratulations, doofus.

... a favorite tool of corrupt politicians, bootlicking sycophants, and authoritarian tyrants the world over, throughout history.


Just who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

At some point we're going to get to the McCarthy Hearings' "have you no shame?" moment. I can feel it coming on any time now.

I do think the witch-hunt of journalists with decent ethics by DUers has gone too far with this OP.

Good post, btw.

Glenn Greenwald functions as a journalist.

Speaking as a former reporter/editor, yes, sometimes: "Should reporters at the Guardian and other news sites measure their effectiveness by the degree to which they “anger the people in power”? "

Give me a break.

Because that doesn't seem to be a part of Greenwald's agenda.

Sloppy, second rate hack level McCarthy, but still.....

Ireland, Peru, France, Syria, Germany, Argentina, Canada, New Zealand... interesting to see where they're from. Only 1 USA so far -- mostly global, more heavily from South America, Germany, and Ireland.

Welcome to DU, Whoopie!

Greenwald has hit a nerve with people that are nothing more than propagandists for the government and the industries that own it.

BTW, is that a neocon site you are quoting and linking to?

very, very bad man.

I mean he's just SOOOO bad!

Nicely done. Love your screen name BTW.

Really, an ad hominem for a thread?

Aug-31-07 = 36. New Troll Species. Homoferus inundatus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1694538&mesg_id=1708088

Homoferus inundatus, the inundation troll.

Genus (from the combined form)

homo hominis : human being, man + ferus : fierce, wild, savage, untamed.

species

inundatus : deluge, flood, inundate, swamp, submerge, (to fill beyond capacity)

This newly described species swamps fora with many posts, typically on an undesirable and negative topic that disrupts normal, productive discourse. Their object is to exceed the normal tolerance level of rational people and drive them to higher consciousness e-terrain. They lurk in the dark basements of human consciousness, awaiting scandalous moments to produce their divulgences.

Like many troll species, they function best in covert packs

They are related to the Blemming Homoferus, but rather than lead bloggers over a cliff, inundatus seeks to flood participants from the premises with a flood of vile spittle.

He is just angry that other people have been chosen to wield the power. He has something against anyone being in any position of power. He seems to assume that they deserve to be "angered" just because they won those elections.

eom

One thing I see in that pic is a black dog. Now I can assure you I have had problems in my past, far from a perfect person, etc.

But that does not mean I am wrong if I report that I looked at this pic and wrote about what was in it.

One can hate the reporter and question them, but they usually do so when they want to avoid what was reported because it does not fit their religious/world view. It is a common tactic that, sadly, rarely accomplishes much.

thanks for playing,. but your evidence is that GG has a better understanding of power and media than you.

Everything Bush is new again! Even the insults!

If I'm against domestic surveillance does that mean that I should believe every lie and exaggerated claim that Glenn Greenwald makes about U.S. surveillance just because he's attacking something I disagree with?

Are against massive domestic surveillance programs?

...but not the mythical exaggerated surveillance out of Greenwald's imagination. Glenn "The Lyin Libertarian" Greenwald has made exaggerated claims and false statements regarding the NSA and the types of data it collects. If he actually wanted people to address these issues he wouldn't have used distortions and exaggerations. Looking at the evidence and listening to Greenwald, I can tell you he's nothing but a fear-monger.

the government declares it to be legal.

Quit with all the anti-government rhetoric. It's your government. Jeez, if I wanted to sit and listen to people do nothing but act paranoid, complain, and whine, I'd be watching Glenn Beck.

As long as the government declares them to be legal.

First, these programs are not as bad as Greenwald has made them out to be with his false statements and exaggerations. There are problems but they can be fixed. However, you don't fix them with lies, fear-mongering, and paranoia as Greenwald and his pal Snowden have done. It's bad enough listening to right-wing gun-nuts yelling about how the government is coming to get them, we don't need that kind of crap on the left as well. Obama isn't perfect but at least he's willing to listen, negotiate, and address people's concerns when they present them in a calm coherent way that isn't filled with paranoia.

Thanks for sharing

more and more like someone with no moral compass at all, or any concern with the matter of surveillance.

are Democrats a cult?

and the propaganda machine rolls on.

Sid

Given the context of GG speech, he didn't imply what you are accusing him of. Nowhere did he say that given the choice between telling the truth and pissing of the owners, he would chose the latter. What he said is that ideally, a journalist should combine both.

I think we've established that you have no shame.