Mr. Greenwald remains furious that "media figures" continue to refuse to do what Mr. Greenwald tells them to do; that they "never talk about the actual revelations" and "only" talk about Snowden:
Media figures: the focus should be on the NSA revelations, not Snowden - and I'll never talk about the actual revelations, only Snowden.— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 13, 2013
At almost the same time he was taking to Twitter to issuing this latest, sweeping denunciation of "media figures" for talking about Edward Snowden instead of what is really important, Reuters published this interview with media figure Glenn Greenwald talking about Edward Snowden and how the United States government had god damn well better mind its fucking P's and Q's if it knows what's good for it:
Fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden controls dangerous information that could become the United States' "worst nightmare" if revealed, a journalist familiar with the data said in a newspaper interview.Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who first published the documents Snowden leaked, said in a newspaper interview published on Saturday that the U.S. government should be careful in its pursuit of the former computer analyst."Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion."The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."...
So this is the new journalism.
Well, as I said last month:
...the world is also full of people who would be...[t]hrilled to death to see this situation to go wildly tits up, which is why it is an altogether different and jaw-droppingly stupid thing to loudly announce via the world press that if any country or faction or war lord or cartel kingpin or terrorist organization or highly-motivated anti-gummint nutjob on Earth wants to see the United States humiliated and its most intimate secrets splashed all over the media, all they have to do is kill one guy.
It's why they call it Dead Man's Switch, cowboy, so for the love of Mike, please shut the fuck up long enough to build yourself a fortress of lawyers and stop letting Mr. Greenwald filter whatever it is you are trying say through the swamp of his grudges and agendas and gargantuan ego.
UPDATE:
And, right on time, Mr, Greenwald rides to his own rescue by insisting that quoting him verbatim in an interview he voluntarily gave is all part of the plot!
Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves. It's particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly "blackmailing" and "threatening" the US government. That is just absurd.Which, as a tactic, is not entirely without precedent.
15 comments:
Even better, GG now has a new column criticizing the media for reporting his highly newsworthy statements. Because freedom.
The United States has "intimate secrets"? Does it blush?
GG now has a problem stating the US should be on it's knees begging him and Snowden.
Is there anything he or Snowden can say or do at this point that would give one instant of pause to the hair fire army?
Theft?
Espionage?
Extortion?
Quit focusing on the messenger!
OK ...I get the message ...you and the source you are flaking for are fucking criminals!
Something something Snowden, Something something Droneglass.
Greenwald is intent on harming Snowden.
It's not as if Droneglass (sorry, DG, but I love that name) is the only one making this exact same critique. GG just trolled the US by telling them to be nice to his client "or else". When the news said, "It looks like GG just threatened the government", GG said it proves that the US media is not taking him seriously.
This is exactly the type of snarky trolling that several on the left are pointing out hurts the story.
Mike.K.
Good morning, Mr. Glass.
1. I'll admit, I've occasionally thought (without being a bastage about it) of your Greenwald/Snowden pieces as falling into the categories of either "Messenger = bad" or "Spying = not THAT bad." But even I had to ask my journalist friend on Facebook about the merits of this particular statement (she had a better, less inflammatory way of phrasing it).
2. To amend your and Ms. Gal’s line, “Be the media, but not necessarily the story."
Anyway, enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Kevin Holsinger
Perhaps Greenwald has jumped the Sharknado.
I am not saying he will shoot the hostage. I am just pointing out he has a loaded gun aimed at the hostages head....and you should be praising him for his restraint.....- GH
I remember when SNL used to be funny.
"zombie rotten mcdonald said...
Perhaps Greenwald has jumped the Sharknado."
Now that there is just funny...and in need of some Photoshopping.
---Kevin Holsinger
When I started reading our comments about Greenwald I thought it was just another instance of a liberal joining up in a circular firing squad. I am use to cutting people a lot of slack in political discussions, putting up with lots of idiosyncrasies.
But as time has gone on, I have been persuaded that Greenwald is doing his 'client' more and more of a disservice by running off at the mouth. With all the positive work that Greenwald has done, I think he has in fact missed the journalist boat and is acting to much like a defensive attorney.
The Guardian should yank his chain.
If indeed the Guardian "yanks his chain" we will finally have all the proof of the vastness of the international tentacles of the govt conspiracy that GG had been warning us about all along <--snark
Isn't it a little bit schizophrenic that Greenwald says ``the focus should be on the NSA revelations, not Snowden'' and then immediately says ``I'll never talk about the actual revelations''...? WTF does that mean? And is he aware that he and Snowden are straining to make sure that neither of them can possibly be separated from the revelations?
Post a Comment