I realize that talking about Glenn Greenwald has the effect of taking the heat off of the Intelligence Community and can serve as a distraction from a much-needed public debate about surveillance. But people need to understand why Greenwald’s reporting cannot be trusted. First, I am going to quote something from today’s Guardian and then I am going to select some quotes from Greenwald’s initial essay in which he announced his husband’s detention.
From today (emphasis mine):
Miranda’s lawyers told the court in a written submission that police threatened him with imprisonment if he did not answer their questions and, finding the experience “frightening, stressful and intimidating”.
He was compelled to provide passwords for the devices. His lawyers said he only had a lawyer for the last hour of his detention and was not allowed a pen to write down the officers questions or a translator even though English was not his first language.
This may seem like a minor point if you are focused on the eight hours that Mr. Miranda was held before he was afforded a lawyer, but we’re not focusing on that here. We’re focusing on how Greenwald initially portrayed his husband’s detention. Here’s is what he said about lawyers and timing in that initial piece.
At the time the “security official” called me, David had been detained for 3 hours.
I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know.
Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian’s lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David.
Okay. Greenwald was informed of Mr. Miranda’s detention after three hours had elapsed and he says that five more hours elapsed before he was able to “obtain any information about David.” That means that he did get information during that last hour of detention. Let’s continue (emphasis mine):
David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don’t yet know what they told him. But the Guardian’s lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me.
Of course, the lawyers spoke with him after eights hours, not after he was released. In fact, Greenwald acknowledged that he obtained information about David during the ninth hour. But he didn’t portray this information as having resulted from talking to the lawyers who were then representing Mr. Miranda at the airport.
Greenwald might portray this as an error caused by confusion in the heat of the moment, and that might be credible if this was a one-time event. But this is not a one-time event. This is of a part with Greenwald’s polemical and adversarial style of journalism where he persistently portrays only the facts that suit him and dances around the literal truth. He can deny that he lied to make his article more sensational, but he has no credibility anymore when it comes to how he presents his facts.
In the end, lying about these small, seemingly insignificant things allows his detractors to dismiss his legitimate grievances, and he does himself and his cause no favors by habitually overstating his case.
But this is not a one-time event.
Indeed it’s not. Look at the very careful track-covering in his description of whether Bradley Manning was allowed to watch television:
“For 23 hours a day he is locked in a cell. During the one hour he allowed out, he is not allowed to watch television.”
That is what you write when you want your audience to believe he is being cut off from news from the outside world, but you know that he watches hours of TV a day from inside his cell.
It isn’t just that it plants a falsehood in the reader’s mind, but that deliberately covers his tracks so he can have deniability if called on it.
Can you name five working journalists who have broken stories of this magnitude who have not erred on matters like this?
I don’t really follow Greenwald. I’m halfway sympathetic to people who think that all claims should be evaluated independently, without evaluating the person making them, and half who feel that feel that if he’s lied about one thing (‘this is a conversation I’m eager to have’), one can rightly dismiss other claims. But saying ‘this is a not a one-time event’ is weak. If it’s not, and for all I know you’re right, make the case. Otherwise, it’s basically an ad hominem. ‘Greenwald is a big liar, which is why this little lie bothers me.’
The point is these are not errors but rather intentional obfuscations.
Yeah. And it may well be true. As I said, I don’t follow Greenwald that closely–I’ve seen people with huge lists of all his errors or lies, and come away partly dubious about Greenwald and partly amazed by the obsessive reaction to him. People find him very very threatening.
But my question is, if we submit all journalists to this level of scrutiny, will we not also see what we can credibly call ‘intentional obfuscations?’ I honestly don’t know the answer, for most of them. But I read Seymour Hersh with great interest, though he’s been accused of repeated lapses. Obviously, a critical approach is warranted with Greenwald, and Hersh, and every other journalist, and it’s always good to be reminded of that. But this article goes farther than that, without evidence.
Fair enough. All things must be considered in context.
I’ve not read Mr Greenwald in the past either. But this introduction to him has featured a much higher frequency of disingenuous representation that I am used to seeing in the average journalism article. It is not unusual, however, in opinion punditry.
However I acknoledge personal impressions and anecdote is nt the same thing as statistical context. But on the other, other hand, how many journalists have any of us subjected to statistical error analysis. We are largely left to our instincts. And my instinct tells me Mr Greenwald writes very much from a biased viewpoint.
And my instinct tells me you could be writing from Fort Meade.
Well, what say you, your instincts, and I get together for a little dealer’s choice poker?
What do your instincts tell you?
TThe tell me to get you and your instimcts into a poker game. Can you not read while trolling?
To apologise for my comment above regarding Fort Meade. I now realise the NSA would never employ a twelve-year-old.
Sorry, let me genuinely apologise. If one thing is becoming apparent it is that people whom have vastly different political and economic opinions are going to need to find ways to work together in time to come, perhaps sooner than we might think. I hope you can take this apology in good faith.
Fair enough. I try not to sweat the small stuff. And internet bickering is small stuff for sure.
Thanks. Sooner or later we are likely to be throwing in our lot with our neighbours and colleagues, it seems to me, irrespective of the luxury of our personal politics. Social media and blogging is meant to be about communicating but sometimes I fear it sometimes creates incentives for competition and conflict even among like-minded folks.
I’ve been blogging for years but am beginning to wonder if the partisan divide serves no useful interest in the bigger scheme of things.
You’re doing the same thing by brushing over the fact that the guy was denied a lawyer for 7-8 hours under heavy questioning but not arrest. Even if it’s not strictly illegal that’s pretty bad.
This essay is not about the ethics of Britain’s law nor the way it was applied. This essay is about the way GG is often disingenuous in his writing.
I’ve now gone back the last 30+ posts and all the author his done is:
So you tell me, where is that post? When is it time?
Before the NSA issue I’d heard the name GG often but that was just one name in a vast sea of pundits. I had no real opinion of him. But since this story broke I have read enough to form an opinion. And as you illustrate here his writing is contrived. He’s mot a journalist at all. He is an opinion columnist with a strong ideological bent. He does not report fact he selects and chooses that which reinforce his chosen message.
There is a place for opinion columnists in this world. But GG is portrayed to be a journalist. That should stop.
Bruce Schneier, Atlantic: The Real, Terrifying Reason Why British Authorities Detained David Miranda
If Greenwald is shut up, the story is still not going away. There are other journalists with the same material. The Guardian alone admits to holding files of the documents in the US and Brazil. And other Guardian writers are using these materials for stories.
This tactic of nitpicking Glenn Greewald is foolish and does not contribute to the debate.
Your sentiment should be communicated to Mr Greenwald because the way he writes gives his critics ample ammunition. That would be the point to this essay. The point is not that the NSA story should go away.
He writes like someone trained as a lawyer. He pushes his side of the case. It’s what journalism that is not of the fair-and-balanced “on the one hand” “on the other hand” variety turns out to be. He assumes that the NSA can argue its side of the case with much more resources than the Guardian has. And can even argue it in the Guardian.
What has moved the NSA argument is not Greenwald’s articles but the documents that he has linked to them. And the effects of other journalists examining the same documents with their confidential sources. And the hamhanded White House communications strategy for dealing with this. And the hamhanded 10 Downing Street communications strategy for dealing with this. And persistent effort to discount the concerns and shut down the debate.
If that is the point of the essay, I can now go away until the next thread. Because this if just fluff to avoid serious analysis.
He pushes his side of the case. It’s what journalism that is not of the fair-and-balanced “on the one hand” “on the other hand” variety turns out to be.
No. Real journalism consists of telling the truth to the best of the writer’s ability, not pushing one side of a case. Distorting and spinning, whether for a cause or in the name of balance, is still distorting and spinning.
I don’t expect you to agree with this. In fact, I know you don’t. It is quite clear that you think pushing one side is what people should do.
Can you list a few journalists you believe fit your definition. Because it certainly isn’t how the majority of well known journalists behave. Woodward and Bernstein don’t.
Pushing one’s side of the case != serious analysis.
The whole problem with Greenwald’s analysis–which, yes, is what this particular post is about–is that he categorically excludes possibilities that don’t fit the story he wants to tell. It really isn’t difficult to come up with plausible explanations for Miranda’s detention that don’t involve intimidation, but Greenwald shows no interest in giving any of them a fair hearing.
No, what you describe is opinion advocacy not journalism at all.
Journalism is in this instance describing the timeline of events accurately regardless if it makes a particular participant look sympathetic or look a villain. Mr Gereenwald did not produce for us a work of journalism.
For the most part, I can accept this brand of journalism. I can accept it primarily because I can’t say for certain that it is unwise or unwarranted. For all I know Greenwald’s bombast and badger-like personality are exactly what is needed in the modern media environment. Is a flair for stirring the pot what is needed to keep a story alive in this era of mayfly attention span 24-hour news and bought and paid for cable pundits? Hardly outside the the realm of plausibility. It may even be tactical calculation on Glenn’s part, for all I know. The hair pieces on the Tee Vee have so degraded the purpose of journalism that perhaps Glenn has guessed that he can bend the truth to his purposes, picking up the tool that the MSM uses routinely to commit professional malpractice and beat them around the head with it, and they don’t dare call him on it. Again, not impossible and not out of bounds given the stakes of this game.
But here’s the thing. If we’re talking about matters of personal opinion, about individuals on the web trying to calibrate their understanding of the issues, you can’t posit on one hand that Glenn has no responsibility to present all of the relevant facts and then turn around and say we have no business evaluating his statements with some skepticism. That’s pretty much the only accommodation I’m looking for regarding Glenn’s work.
Your sentiment should be communicated to Mr Greenwald because the way he writes gives his critics ample ammunition.
LOL!! There are lefties who dislike Krgthulu. There are lefties who think criticizing a Democratic President is out-of-bounds, no matter whether the charges have merit. There are lefties who think David Brooks is a serious and sensible pundit. And then there are the lefties who are security state apologists. The point being is that no one is ever going to get 100% approval rating. So why should he be worried about the haters?
So why should he be worried about the haters?
Presumably, because he wants his ideas to be taken seriously by people who are not already in his corner cheering him.
Are all the pearl-clutchers, like Charles Johnson(of LGF fame) and Bob Cesca, going to say anything about this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/21/fbi-suspected-william-vollmann-was-the-
unabomber/
?
No, but I going to comment on the very-revealing use of the word “pearl-clutcher” to describe people who think one should not lie and manipulate.
Yep, you got me. Clutch, clutch.
I don’t know. Why do you not address your concern to the poster to whom I replied. It was he who said this:
“This tactic of nitpicking Glenn Greewald is foolish and does not contribute to the debate.”
If he thinks this sort of thing detracts from the debate, logic dictates he should seek the source of the distraction: Mr Greenwald himself. Were Mr Greenwald to do a better job logic again says there would be fewer distractions from the core message.
But that’s a bit more to chew on than “LOL” so I understand in advance if you’re too busy knee-slapping to process it.
Bruce Schneier isn’t very imaginative. His “proof” that the whole purpose was to intimidate consists of a half-hearted consideration of a few other reasons why Miranda may have been detained, after which he concludes that he’s eliminated all other possibilities.
But he hasn’t. For one thing, I still don’t know why more people don’t think it’s more relevant that Snowden has basically defected to Russia, and is at least to some extent working with the Russian government. And honestly, if the Russians are using Snowden for their own purposes, I’m not sure that he’s smart enough to catch on. Same with the Chinese.
He’s an ‘enemy of the state,’ like Manning? I guess that would make Greenwald an accomplice, no?
Would any of that restore the 4th Amendment? Or did the Russians do that too? Sheesh. Benjamin Franklin was right.
For one thing, I still don’t know why more people don’t think it’s more relevant that Snowden has basically defected to Russia, …
Where is he going to go? The U.S. revoked his passport.
He can return home to the USA. The US State Dep’t has already indicated he has permission to make that journey.
Why should he be limited to traveling to the USA?
He can be locked up, probably tortured and tried under the Espionage Act of 1917, obviously. I think you missed the deliberate irony of the poster’s comment.
That is a different question than “Where can he go? The US has revoked his passport” now isn’t it? To answer your new question, why can’t he go where ever he wants? The answer would be, because he is a wanted fugitive. Fugitives often find their choices limited. Imagine that.
He is facing three felony counts. This is standard.
Only for those on the official US “enemies” list. (And that list, in keeping with a hundred year tradition, includes writers and journalists that don’t toe the official line.)
But big things, sometimes really big things, that are false don’t seem to kill any official credibility.
BPD claimed to have engaged in an extended firefight with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The latter just didn’t have a gun.
FBI killed Todashev and after offering several ludicrous explanations refused to say anything further.
Brennan lied to Congress.
etc.
BPD can’t figure out in real time and for hours after if they received fire from a boat in a backyard, but that’s just fine. FBI can’t figure out after a few months why they killed Todashev, well, no biggie. Brennan lies, but well, that’s for our own good, because “we can’t handle the truth.” But by god, Greenwald better get every iota of every story and article exactly correct the first time because, well, he’s on the “list.”
The almost obsessive focus on Greenwald when the 4th Amendment is clearly being torn up and danced upon in plain sight is beyond me. I utterly fail to understand it. This is it folks, the moment when a historical turn which your nation has taken is revealed. Both major political parties in cahoots with the military-industrial complex to abrogate your sacred rights with the rulings of a secret court. Criminies!
A shoulder shrug isn’t going to change our course and gauging the reaction, from the outset, of a significant cohort of the vaunted progressive blogosphere we are clearly cowed. The same goes for the Bradley Manning case. Colour me disappointed.
Since 9/11 it has been a bumpy road to decline with our elites looting the place on the way out. We have a hollowed out middle class subject to unceasing snooping and civil forfeiture; all perfectly legal. Congratulations all round. I blame reality television.
.
The court ruling and injunction is an important legal victory for David Miranda. As I interpret the ruling, the seizure of the data was illegal as it cannot be used in any criminal procedure. The Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is meant to determine whether a person entering the UK is a terrorist. Special powers are granted, however the police knew ahead of time they would stop and search Miranda, so the whole procedure by the Met police was illegal. Minister Theresa May, Downing Street 10 and Washington DC got the “heads-up” this procedure would be started. It is similar in the US if someone isn’t read his Miranda rights, the interrogation and searches without a warrant are illegal and useless for evidence in a criminal procedure. IMO The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald cannot claim Miranda was on a journalistic activity. One cannot become a “journalist” by association. You either are or are not employed by The Guardian News & Media in New York. There is no in between grey area. The Met Police and the UK were at fault and the electronic material will be returned.
Was David Miranda ever in serious danger of British arrest? It does not seem so. But at any rate now his slate is clear WRT carrying this information.
However since all this information can be said to relate to national security, the rest of the court ruling does not seem to amount to much. Britain’s MI5 and MI6 will no doubt have as much access to teh recovered documents as they like.
Detained without counsel? Interrogated? Had his property seized as under a writ of assistance? You seem to think that is all pretty normal customs and immigration processing for the UK; which is the narrative they seem content to promote.
Has it occurred to you that the heightened levels of intimidation implied by state activity surrounding the Snowden revelations, both here and in the UK, is part of the new product being introduced into the global privacy marketplace?
You really have trouble staying on topic don’t you?
I’ll take that as a ‘no.’
Take it however you like. I took at as “Ignore”.
What the authorities were allowed to do without warrant or arrest is worrisome, to say the least. True — authorities have long been able to seize stolen goods as evidence, but usually some charges would be expected at some point, which has not happened in Miranda’s case.
I may not buy Glenn Greenwald’s sensationalist spin about the authorities’ motives, but the what those authorities were able to do without observing any legal norms is a valid pressure point of the ongoing security/surveillance debate.
I agree with your point that the law as written seems to have been bent considerably in order to detain Mr Miranda. And please excuse me for saying “seems” as I have not read the law itself nor am I trained in British law. But yes, there is always the danger of laws written for one purpose being used for a totally unintended purpose down the road.
However I was responding to this repeat of the Guardian’s announcement of a partial victory. I agree with the announcement’s conclusion that Mr Miranda need not worry about arrest going forward. I disagree with the Guardian’s conclusion that the seized documents cannot be examined under British law. They all pertain to national security and, again according to the Guardian, such documents can be examined under that law.
John Bolton 2002
John Bolton 2013
Guess they need a replacement for “bomb-bomb-bom-Iran” in 2016 and couldn’t find a GOP-combat vet younger than 70 years old.
When not pimping wars:
Will anyone subject Bolton’s writings, speeches, and briefs to one-tenth the scrutiny that Greenwald’s work is subjected to? (1/10th the scrutiny should reveal at least 10x the inaccuracies, etc. of GG.)
Funny, I remember hundreds of thousands protesting the ramp up to the Iran war as well as countless essays decrying Mr Bolton’s inanities. Memory is a curious thing.
Freudian slip?
Certainly you recall the USA under POTUS G.W Bush invaded Iran in 2003. John Bolton was one of that President’s most trusted advisors / staffers. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Statefor Arms Control and International Security in 2003.
How quickly we forget. And if you disbelieve me, I expect Mr Greenwald will confirm that fact for you. Write him and ask.
In 2003? News to me. You really sure you are talking about Iran? Not Iraq?
Top of the world, Typo Cop! [blam blam BOOM]
A ‘typo’ you repeated along with faux concern for the memory of an event that never occurred? Right. I wonder if you could find it on a map.
Will anyone subject Bolton’s writings, speeches, and briefs to one-tenth the scrutiny that Greenwald’s work is subjected to?
Uh, yes?
Surely, you’ve come across expressions of skepticism towards John Bolton from the people you are complaining about now.
That Marie’s point is that after a career embracing fairly significant untruths which cost much blood and treasure Bolton enjoys a rather cosy sinecure whereas the closely parsed inaccuracies attributed to Greenwald are contributing to him being hounded into a fugitive in exile. Just sayin’.
If Greenwald landed at JFK tomorrow would you expect him to be greeted by ‘skepticism’ or a bunch of suits?
And you know what? Pol Pot died of old age in his bed. Stalin, too.
The world is full of injustice. It doesn’t change the fact that Greenwald is frequently dishonest.
You’re saying ‘bunch of suits’ with the caveat that fate is capricious?
Remember back during the Bush administration when people used to complain abut Straussians?
There’s a reason to avoid dishonesty beyond maintaining your credibility. The rest of the people in the world are not your little pawns, beneath you, that you’re supposed to manipulate the way you think best, because you know better and they’re there for you to use.
Shouldn’t it also be the Guardian that is mistrusted? After all, they publish both Greenwald’s NSA reporting and his opinion pieces. During Watergate it wasn’t just Woodstein whose ass was on the line; it was the WaPo, too.
Of course it’s possible that they treat writings in the opinion section differently from those in the news sections. You know, like most media. But then this would be about the NSA, and not about Greenwald. And that must not be allowed to happen.
The guys on Lawyers, Guns, and Money made a pretty good summation about how this episode illustrates how bad the UK anti-terror laws are. To put it mildly, it is rather fucked up that the authorities were able to detain Miranda for 9 hours without arresting him. It is pretty clear how these over-broad laws can be used to target dissidents, moreover it is quite plausible that this in fact was the intention regarding Miranda’s short detention.
That said, I don’t dispute that Greenwald has a history of dishonesty. I don’t like being lied to for my own good and he’s certainly earned my distrust for doing just that. When this story broke, Greenwald quickly pushed the idea that Miranda was detained solely as an act of intimidation. It took 24 hours for the fact that Miranda was carrying illegally obtained classified materials to come out through another publication (NYT), something Greenwald omitted from his initial article. This is a fact that casts the authorities cause for hassling Miranda in a different light than what Greenwald insists.
I know people hate this kind of quibbling and I agree that it is not OK to use Greenwald’s personality as an excuse to dispute the facts of this issue, but I maintain the same cannot be said about disputing Greenwald’s interpretation of those facts.
Also, it’s not like that key omission really makes the decision to detain Miranda any better in context. The fact that he was (potentially) carrying copies of documents that Snowden had obtained illegally hardly makes him a terrorist, and the fact that the British government was stepping in to prevent the contents of those documents being used as the basis for further reporting sucks every bit as badly as if it were pure intimidation.
This isn’t even an issue of “distracting people from the NSA”. The abuse of Section 7 at Heathrow is part of the same story of the surveillance state the secrecy that protects it. In order to focus on the story, we have to actually have the damned story, and Greenwald fucking it up makes it that much harder.
Indeed. The only difference the missing detail makes is it diminishes the validity of Glenn’s claim that Miranda’s encounter with the UK authorities was entirely intended as an attack on his family for the purpose of intimidation. Knowing that Miranda was a confederate of Glenn’s, not a bystander, shows that the authorities at least had some cause to question him, for what that’s worth.
Even considering the missing information, the episode still buttresses the central point of the whole NSA scandal: that the powers doled out in the days of anti-terror mania are dangerous and subject to abuse. The exaggeration and outrage mongering is just wholly unnecessary.
When did Heathrow airport become a political asylum and safe haven for suspects of any caliber?! My kid was suspected of stealing an English flag t-shirt he was already wearing in a airport gift shop and we were detained for 6 hours and had to wait the next day for a flight….up yours Greenwald for being a ham.
The point everyone is missing while arguing over the colour of Greenwald’s tie is that the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community never questioned the authenticity of the leaked material. So what does it matter whether Greenwald is a vampire lesbian from Sodom or not? Snowden had the goods.
Watch the donut folks, not the hole.
And the pattern repeats itself.
How does it work?
It doesn’t, really. It just makes the people who hype the initial story look bad.
By the ‘original story’ are you referring to the actual, undisputed classified material that was made public? In that case I don’t think ‘story’ means what you think it means.
Apparently, it makes them look so bad as to feign confusion over what story I’m referring to.
I don’t understand why people play dumb on the internet. It just makes you look dumb.
No idea what you are talking about.
OT, but ugh, Tom Coburn can suck it. Is he retiring?
GOP Sen. Coburn: Obama Getting `Perilously Close’ To Impeachable Offenses
Isn’t Coburn supposed to be good friends with the President?
oh, yeah. he did preface his remarks with bs about “a personal friend of mine”. Such crap
That’s just the thing. Hasn’t the President, at least previously, spoken about being buds with Coburn? So before today it was a two-way street. I wonder what changed for Coburn. I mean besides just being the asshole that GOPers almost always are.
Coburn is grandstanding on Obamacare, dontchaknow.
Everybody’s best buds until it comes time to do the kabuki.
Wouldn’t be that difficult to identify “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by Obama, but Republicans support those activities and therefore, they won’t be drafting articles of impeachment.
Are you are saying that the Obama admin has indeed committed offenses that would be impeachable if not for the GOP?
Please tell me what you consider “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the Obama admin has committed which should legitimately lead to impeachment.
The Administration certainly has. But that includes a lot of folks who transcend administrations. And IMO, having them unable to fulfill an office of public trust would be a godsend.
The President, IMO has not committed high crimes and misdemeanors unless there is a paper trail of direction to some of the things that members of his administration have done.
But the question is moot because the GOP will not seize on any of these things. And certainly will not want to start by impeaching subordinate members of the Administration, some of who might be Republicans.
And the big block is the Senate. Democrats are not going to convict on a put-up job about Obamacare just because it passes the House.
As for things to investigate, there is:
But none of those touch the President himself that we know of. Indeed investigation might put a lot of innuendo to rest.
On the NSA stuff, the main folks to punish are Clapper, Alexander, and Hayden. And on torture, Brennan and Yoo, among others.
What you list is business-as-usual stuff. They could possibly get him on participating in the ouster of Gaddafi without Congressional approval. Better the Stuxnet attack on Iran. There are those drone strikes and his kill list. And then there is all those surveillance actions and it’s doubtful that he hasn’t signed any orders on that.
.
After re-reading Booman’s post a couple of times, I realize I do not know what he is alleging.
My confusion is this: Greenwald’s narrative is that the first 3 hours he had no contact from anyone. Then, “five more hours went by and neither the Guardian’s lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David.”
Now, obtaining information about someone is not the same as speaking to him, n’est pas? Why is it not possible that after 8 hours they received information about Miranda and after 9 hours (and release) they were able to speak to him?
What am I missing?
Let’s try again: receiving information about someone is not the same as talking to them. One happened after 8 hours, the other after 9. It doesn’t seem to be (as far as any of us knows) a falsehood at all, or hyperbole, or pulling things out of context, or whatever. So why is everyone going on as if it is a falsehood?
I’d ask
I’d say unless and until you can show lies in fact rivaling those in substance, form, size, and egregiousness as those coming from big “brother” and his various mouthpieces, he’s still a peg or two above them on the credibility scale in the minds of many if not most, even on our side of the political aisle.
He got the same kinda bizness in the beginning for merely reporting the “direct access” thing from the NSA powerpoint, insomuch as it was used as a direct assault on his credibility. Attacks on the messenger of this sort, like your molehill here plus other molehills can somehow add up to a credibility-destroying mountain, unlike say the lies from Clapper to congress, or BHO’s line on Leno http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/obamas-bill-clinton-moment-we-dont-have-a-domest
ic-spying-program/278449/ are largely futile because he isn’t the story or what has raised concerns.
And if he ain’t credible after that, and all those other examples you reference but provided no info about, well, then the pres and those around him are incredibly uncredible then too, no?
As long as you stick to this kinda commentary, I guess you need not fear “getting the message” http://americablog.com/2013/08/us-official-one-goal-of-mirandas-detainment-was-to-send-a-message-to-
greenwald-guardian.html
“but he has no credibility anymore when it comes to how he presents his facts.” Is nothing more than your pleading a case that he’s a liar by omission. So please, give us some more examples of all this so that we might see some justification for your indictment, since what you did show is woefully lacking in sufficiency.
WHat you did show is also meaningless in terms of the great NSA debate, since the facts in their totality are what will dictate the conclusions reached, and this little episode and his recollection of it has no bearing on any of that. I’m really shocked to discover that a lawyer — even in the court of public opinion — would present facts in such a way as to maximize their effectiveness, or would overstate their case.
If this is your standard for credibility, I’d like to know what your definition of “is” is, and how many others you think lack credibility as a result of their willful failure to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I’d think that would make for a very long list of journos, pols, and public commentators…lol For example, you’re deciding what the truth is in this case, by coming to the conclusion that it wasn’t an innocent mistake, but rather as the product of his truth-wayward ways. He’d no doubt see that as a defamation, and damaging to your credibility, given the lack of support for it present in your indictment here. Did you deliberately and with malice omit all those examples of his alleged prior crimes of like kind, or did you dance around them in that — omission — way as a matter of expediency, assuming that everyone reading this has knowledge of them? Gee, what if his deplorable style as you percieve it is due in whole or in part to the same assumption?
It might also lead some to ask exactly what the diff between you two are, other than the respective size of your bullhorn/audience as well.
Credibility to people who care about being lied to, either lies of omission or commission, regardless of the source.
It may be 110% correct that the consequences of governmental dishonesty are orders of magnitude worse than any yarn Greenwald might spin but that doesn’t make Greenwald any more trustworthy.
It may also be one of those rare moments that concern trolling becomes valid when one points out the obvious risks of having a pointman, charging hard into a story that is largely about secrecy, dishonesty, and control, himself having a somewhat theatrical relationship with the truth.
I don’t recall saying that their BS makes GG more trustworthy, I said they should be getting the same kinda treatment.
I also said that booman’s opinion on the matter may be flawed, and that we’ll never know given the complete lack of evidence alleged as to GG’s prior similar acts.
I also said that it might also be flawed because what he percieves as willful and deliberate lies, by omission or otherwise, etc, can reasonably be construed as an honest product of his prior profession as an advocate, who usually aren’t well known for pleading the oppositions case along with their own.
I also said it’s up to those indicting him to plead their case without using the same tactics they are indicting him for, like not merely alleging prior sins, but providing incontrovertible evidence of them, which certainly shouldn’t include more like the one offered/posted here, particularly with a proviso attached that it mighta been an honest mistake as was found in this example. ANd if he omits “facts”, isn’t it up to the person that has a problem with that omission to show why they are relevant and undermine whatever case he is pleading before assigning some nefarious intent or goal to that omission?
WHen and if those omissions are shown to be relevant and to undermine his case, then and only then can it be reasonably argued that he is knowingly and willingly misleading his readers, and the credibility, or lack of it as charged, sustained. I don’t see that the case presented here accomplished that.
Who could possibly give a shit if his timeline/version of events in this instance was a tad incorrect or inconsistent in the face of the deed by the authorities under question?
Someone with an ax to grind? It kinda reminds me of Dowd’s focus on Al Gore’s earth tone colors. WHo did and who was that intended to help?
I understand what you’re saying.
The main problem I have with chalking Greenwald’s errors up as innocent mistakes is the frequency that he does it, particularly when omissions and exaggerations serve to augment his chosen narrative. While perhaps you can make the case that many of Greenwald’s errors cannot be proven to be outright, intentional lies, I personally find that his long track record of seemingly strategic goofs is ample ground for treating him with suspicion.
The same suspicion can be applied to the government of course. They’ve been proved to be doing certain things. We suspect them of doing other things, or being capable of doing other things. Having a host of suspicions of an organization with the US government’s track record is not irrational or unwarranted.
As to the subject of this thread: I agree that GG’s misstatement about Miranda’s legal assistance during his detention is a minor thing. That Miranda was allowed a lawyer during the last hour of a nine hour detention doesn’t seem to mitigate the situation much. I don’t rule out that Glenn intentionally overlooked the detail to make his story more outrageous, but I just don’t see how it makes much difference either way in practice.
GG used his boo as a mule.
but, if folks wanna die on the hill that is GG…go ahead
I just want to point out that you don’t fucking troll rate people because you dislike what they say or don’t agree. I’m looking at you, calling all toasters.
A zero rating for totally disgusting comments like that one is warranted.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I actually needed to hear what seabe had to say. The way the scale is set up led me to mistakenly think that “troll” is this blog’s code for “dislike.” Apparently not. Let’s all kiss and make up.
Like what one? I see zeroes and ones all over.
I’m pretty sure she’s talking about rikyarah’s comment, and thinks that “mule” means something sexual.
“boo” (slang for boyfriend)
mule
OK, you’re going to stay with this… I gave two zeroes, one for the mule comment and one for the “my kid was suspected of stealing a t-shirt so Greenwald has no basis for complaining.” If I could go back and rate the first one “disgusting” and the second one “self-centered jackassery,” I would. But that’s not an option. Perhaps I should have responded in so many words, but why give them the satisfaction and ramp things up at the same time? I gave one “1,” for a comment that I thought was unnecessarily ad hominemesque. I’ve changed that now.
But if 3 of these ratings = “all over” to you, OK then.
If I ever start posting on a blog in hopes of getting high ratings, you have my permission to smash me with a large salted fish.
Oh, sure. You KNOW that salting takes out most of the weight.
Curses, foiled again.
I think you have to read every Greenwald piece with the same skills you use to parse the claims made on TV commercials. Like how if a toothpaste commercial says that it’s unsurpassed in fighting cavities, that means that at least one other toothpaste was exactly as effective. Or if a car commercial says it goes 0-60 faster than a Benz and corners better than a Lexus, it means it goes 0-60 slower than a Lexus and corners worse than a Benz. He pulls this kind of thing constantly. Put to one side the importance of the stories he works on. For the sake of argument, let’s accept it all. Still, STILL, as a writer whose work makes particular claims and structures certain arguments, he’s slippery and uses sleight of hand.
Then if you try to confront him, you get snippier and snippier versions of “Guess you can’t handle the truth.” I find it highly displeasing that he’s held in such high regard by otherwise smart people.
What are his legitimate grievances? Near as I can tell, he and Miranda and Snowden all belong in prison.
Daniel Ellsberg is still at large, as well.