Glenn Greenwald rips MSNBC bias — on MSNBC

Glenn Greenwald — the reporter who published Edward Snowden’s initial documents on NSA surveillance and retains many more for future publication — blasted MSNBC’s hypocrisy for suggesting his defense of Snowden violates journalistic ethics. “That’s ludicrous,” he said, noting that “the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party are promoted, defended, [and] glorified” every day on the cable network.

MSNBC anchor Kristen Welker spoke with Greenwald Thursday about the NSA leaks, asking him to respond to critics who claim he’s become “more of a spokesman for Edward Snowden.” Greenwald’s response? Pot, meet kettle:

GREENWALD: I think that’s ludicrous, is what I say to that. Every journalist has an agenda. We’re on MSNBC now, where close to 24 hours a day the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Party are promoted, defended, glorified. The agenda of the Republican Party is undermined. That doesn’t mean the people on MSNBC aren’t journalists, they are. I think every journalist has a viewpoint.

My viewpoint is clear. I don’t hide it. I think what Edward Snowden did was very admirable and heroic, but at the same time the ultimate test of a journalist is, is what you publish accurate and reliable? And I think with regard to every story we published over the last six months, there hasn’t been a single correction made to any of them, very few called into question. And I think that’s the ultimate question when it comes to journalism.

A clearly flustered Welker tried to backtrack, declaring “”the point is not so much about MSNBC,” but that Greenwald’s defense of Snowden’s actions may “cross a line.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

[VIDEO] Glenn Greenwald: NY Times Has 'Helped to Kill Journalism as a Potent Force for Checking Power'

"[T]he kind of traditional New York Times model...I think has neutered and, in a lot of ways, helped to kill journalism as a potent force for checking power."

So said Glenn Greenwald during an interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman Monday (video follows with transcript and commentary):

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank people for bearing with us; the audio is not so great today in this video stream. But lastly, you’ve engaged in this very interesting conversation with Bill Keller of The New York Times, this debate between the two of you, the former executive editor of the Times. Keller began the debate by writing, "We come at journalism from different traditions. I’ve spent a life working at newspapers that put a premium on aggressive but impartial reporting, that expect reporters and editors to keep their opinions to themselves unless they relocate (as I have done) to the pages clearly identified as the home of opinion." He ended, saying, quote, "Embedded in The New York Times's institutional perspective and reporting methodologies are all sorts of quite debatable and subjective political and cultural assumptions about the world. And with some noble exceptions, The Times, by design or otherwise, has long served the interests of the same set of elite and powerful factions. Its reporting is no less ’activist,' subjective or opinion-driven than the new media voices it sometimes condescendingly scorns." Can you comment on that and where you’re going with your new venture?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. And this came out of a New Yorker piece on the reporting that we did at The Guardian that quoted Bill Keller as saying he never would have allowed me, when he was the editor of The New York Times, to take the lead in reporting on these NSA stories, because I had expressed opinions about these topics previously. And so, he and I then had an email exchange about that, and he then offered, quite generously, to have a debate and publish it in his column. And I think it really reflects two very competing and different but strong frames in how journalism is understood: the kind of traditional New York Times model that I think has neutered and, in a lot of ways, helped to kill journalism as a potent force for checking power, and the kind of journalism that I think we intend to do, where it is much more passionate and [inaudible] and intended to be overtly adversarial to those in power. And I think you see the two competing visions in that exchange. And part of what I wanted to do was lay out for people why I think our vision produces better journalism, and to point to some of the really bad journalism that The New York Times has produced over the years—alongside some good stuff—which I think is a byproduct of this sort of obsolete way of thinking.

Via: Newsbusters
Continue Reading.....

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has No Idea What This Obama Kill List Thing Is All About

WeAreChange.org, an independent journalism outfit, snagged a quick interview with Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, at last week’s presidential debate.

The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change’s pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won’t bite. She’s obviously in the “spin room” to spin the debate in President Barack Obama's favor and certainly isn’t going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out — due process be damned — the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she’s being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff:

Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald, who has a lengthy rant over at The Guardianabout what is either an amazing amount of dumbness or an amazing amount of deliberate partisan arrogance on display. 

Via: Reason

Continue Reading...