General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJournalist Or Activist? Smearing Glenn Greenwald
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/746-journalist-or-activist-smearing-glenn-greenwald.htmlCopyright rules prohibit me from posting enough of the meat of this article so I am just going to produce the first paragraphs.
For example, journalists tell us that Hugo Chavez was 'divisive', that Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are 'narcissistic', that George Galloway is 'controversial'. But beneath their literal meaning, these adjectives communicate a hidden message: that these individuals are acceptable targets for negative media judgement; they are fair game.
By contrast, Barack Obama is never described as 'controversial' or 'divisive'. David Cameron is not a 'rightist prime minister'. Why? Because the rules of professional journalism are said to ensure that journalists serve democracy by remaining objective and impartial. Reporters are merely to describe, not to judge, the words and actions of leading politicians.
Crucially, this deference is afforded only to political actors deemed 'mainstream', 'respectable'. By implication, individuals subject to media judgement are presented as outsiders, beyond the democratic pale.
In The Times on October 10, David Aaronovitch compared Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger with Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald:
'Rusbridger may be a "proper" journalist (and he certainly is), someone like Greenwald is first and foremost an activist. He wants above all to change the world, not just to report it. So while we might trust Rusbridger, what reason do we have for trusting Greenwald with top secret GCHQ information? Or his Brazilian boyfriend who could have been going anywhere and given the stuff on his computer to anybody.'
Aaronovitch thus painted a large, lurid label on Greenwald's back: 'activist'. He is to be seen as a pseudo-journalist, an amateur, a loose cannon. Rusbridger is a 'proper' journalist, Greenwald is not.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He just does a lot of unconventional (and occasionally unethical) things...
Thanks for showing me the site...This piece is even better:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/738-advocacy-journalism.html
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But I have worked in the industry so I do know a few things...
EDIT: Just to get the record straight, my criticism of Greenwald as a journalist is wholly separate from my personal thoughts of the NSA story, so don't lump the two together...
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)the ones you have to watch. They're the ones who pretend to be impartial, yet they have all sorts of ties to different corporations and think tanks. You can always tell where they're coming from by the adjectives they use and the observations that they pretend are common knowledge. There's no such thing as straight reporting.