RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "It wasn't just Kinsley who mounted an argument for the criminalization of journalism when done against the government's wishes."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)


A Response to Michael Kinsley

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

23 May 14

 

n 2006, Charlie Savage won the Pulitzer Prize for his series of articles in The Boston Globe exposing the Bush administration’s use of “signing statements” as a means of ignoring the law.  In response to those revelations, Michael Kinsley–who has been kicking around Washington journalism for decades as the consummate establishment “liberal” insider–wrote a Washington Post op-ed defending the Bush practice (“nailing Bush simply for stating his views on a constitutional issue, without even asking whether those views are right or wrong, is wrong”) and mocking concerns over it as overblown (“Sneaky! . . . The Globe does not report what it thinks a president ought to do when called upon to enforce or obey a law he or she believes to be unconstitutional. It’s not an easy question”).

Far more notable was Kinsley’s suggestion that it was journalists themselves–not Bush–who might be the actual criminals, due both to their refusal to reveal their sources when ordered to do so and their willingness to publish information without the permission of the government:

It’s wrong especially when contrasted with another current fever running through the nation’s editorial pages: the ongoing issue of leaks and anonymous sources. Many in the media believe that the Constitution contains a “reporter’s privilege” to protect the identity of sources in circumstances, such as a criminal trial, in which citizens ordinarily can be compelled to produce information or go to jail. The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled and ruled again that there is no such privilege. And it certainly is not obvious that the First Amendment, which seems to be about the right to speak, actually protects a right not to speak. . . .

Why must the president obey constitutional interpretations he disagrees with if journalists don’t have to?

Last Sunday, same day as the Globe piece, The New York Times had a front-page article about the other shoe waiting to drop in these leak cases. The Bush administration may go beyond forcing journalists to testify about the sources of leaks. It may start to prosecute journalists themselves as recipients of illegal leaks. As with the Globe story, this turns out to be a matter of pugnacious noises by the Bush administration. Actual prosecutions of journalists for receiving or publishing leaks are “unknown,” the Times article concedes. But this could change at any moment.

Well, maybe. And maybe journalists are right in their sincere belief that the Constitution should protect them in such a case. But who wants to live in a society where every citizen and government official feels free to act according to his or her own personal interpretation of the Constitution, even after the Supreme Court has specifically said that this interpretation is wrong? President Bush would actually top my list of people I don’t want wandering through the text and getting fancy ideas. But why should he stay out of the “I say what’s constitutional around here” game if his tormentors in the media are playing it?

This is the person whom Pamela Paul, editor of The New York Times Book Review, chose to review my book, No Place to Hide, about the NSA reporting we’ve done and the leaks of Edward Snowden: someone who has expressly suggested that journalists should be treated as criminals for publishing information the government does not want published. And, in a totally  unpredictable development, Kinsley then used the opportunity to announce his contempt for me, for the NSA reporting I’ve done, and, in passing, for the book he was ostensibly reviewing.

Kinsley has actually done the book a great favor by providing a vivid example of so many of its central claims. For instance, I describe in the book the process whereby the government and its media defenders reflexively demonize the personality of anyone who brings unwanted disclosure so as to distract from and discredit the substance revelations; Kinsley dutifully tells Times readers that I “come across as so unpleasant” and that I’m a “self-righteous sourpuss” (yes, he actually wrote that). I also describe in the book how jingoistic media courtiers attack anyone who voices any fundamental critiques of American political culture; Kinsley spends much of his review deriding the notion that there could possibly be anything anti-democratic or oppressive about the United States of America.

But by far the most remarkable part of the review is that Kinsley–in the very newspaper that published Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers and then fought to the Supreme Court for the right to do so (and, though the review doesn’t mention it, also published some Snowden documents)–expressly argues that journalists should only publish that which the government permits them to, and that failure to obey these instructions should be a crime (emphasis mine):

The question is who decides. It seems clear, at least to me, that the private companies that own newspapers, and their employees, should not have the final say over the release of government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no legal consequences. In a democracy (which, pace Greenwald, we still are), that decision must ultimately be made by the government. No doubt the government will usually be overprotective of its secrets, and so the process of decision-making — whatever it turns out to be — should openly tilt in favor of publication with minimal delay. But ultimately you can’t square this circle. Someone gets to decide, and that someone cannot be Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald’s notion of what constitutes suppression of dissent by the established media is an invitation to appear on “Meet the Press.” On the show, he is shocked to be asked by the host David Gregory, “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden…why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” Greenwald was so stunned that “it took a minute to process that he had actually asked” such a patently outrageous question.

And what was so outrageous? . . . As the news media struggles to expose government secrets and the government struggles to keep them secret, there is no invisible hand to assure that the right balance is struck. So what do we do about leaks of government information? Lock up the perpetrators or give them the Pulitzer Prize? (The Pulitzer people chose the second option.) This is not a straightforward or easy question. But I can’t see how we can have a policy that authorizes newspapers and reporters to chase down and publish any national security leaks they can find. This isn’t Easter and these are not eggs.

Let’s repeat that: The New York Times just published a review of No Place to Hide that expressly argues on the question of what should and should not get reported “that decision must ultimately be made by the government.” Moreover, those who do that reporting against the government’s wishes are not journalists but “perpetrators,” and whether they should be imprisoned “is not a straightforward or easy question.”

Barry Eisler, Erik Wemple, and Kevin Gosztola all have excellent replies to all of that, laying bear just how extremist it is. After reading Kinsley’s review, Ellsberg had a couple questions for him:

But there’s a broader point illustrated by all of this.  Reviews of No Place to Hide internationally (the book has been published in more than two dozen countries, in nine languages) have, almost unanimously, been extremely positive. By stark contrast, reviews from American writers have been quite mixed, with some recent ones, including from George Packer and now Kinsley, attempting to savage both the book and me personally. Much of that is simply an expression of the rule that Larry Summers imparted to Elizabeth Warren upon her arrival in Washington, as recounted by The New Yorker:

Larry Summers took Warren out to dinner in Washington and, she recalls, told her that she had a choice to make. She could be an insider or an outsider, but if she was going to be an insider she needed to understand one unbreakable rule about insiders: “They don’t criticize other insiders.”

My book, and my writing and speaking more generally, usually criticizes insiders, and does so harshly and by name, so much of this reaction is simply a ritual of expulsion based on my chronic violation of Summers’ rule. I find that a relief.

But even the positive reviews of the book in the U.S. (such as from the Times‘ book critic Michiko Kakutani)  took grave offense to its last chapter, which argues that the U.S. media is too close and subservient to the U.S. government and its officials, over whom the press claims to exercise adversarial oversight. This condmenation of the U.S. media, argued even many of the positive reviewers, is unfair.

But here, it wasn’t just Kinsley who mounted an argument for the criminalization of journalism when done against the government’s wishes. Almost instantly, other prominent journalists–NBC’s David Gregory, The Washington Post’s Charles Lane, New York’Jonathan Chait–publicly touted and even praised Kinsley’s review.

So let’s recap: The New York Times chose someone to review my book about the Snowden leaks who has a record of suggesting that journalists may be committing crimes when publishing information against the government’s wishes. That journalist then proceeded to strongly suggest that my prosecution could be warranted. Other prominent journalists —including the one who hosts Meet the Press–then heralded that review without noting the slightest objection to Kinsley’s argument.

Do I need to continue to participate in the debate over whether many U.S. journalists are pitifiully obeisant to the U.S. government? Did they not just resolve that debate for me? What better evidence can that argument find than multiple influential American journalists standing up and cheering while a fellow journalist is given space in The New York Times to argue that those who publish information against the government’s wishes are not only acting immorally but criminally?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+124 # babaregi 2014-05-23 12:13
God, I love Greenwald...wha t a warrior!
And he looks in awe at guys with brass balls like Snowden!
 
 
+8 # Katz Ro 2014-05-23 17:55
yep love Barry Eisler too!
 
 
+81 # dickbd 2014-05-23 19:11
I agree with you, but we need another word for courage than "brass balls" or other references to male genitalia. After all, many women have shown great courage, too.

Just in this story Laura Poitras and Judge Roark (can't remember her first name) are examples.

In any case, I hope some of you agree with this--even though it doesn't seem to hit most others like it does me.
 
 
+30 # wantrealdemocracy 2014-05-23 20:24
I agree. I am not interested in the size of some guys 'balls'. I am sick of all these men doing such stupid things. All groups that are elected to represent the people as a whole MUST BE GENDER BALANCED. The votes for war, austerity and 'Security' everywhere would not pass if the House and Senate were half men (with any size genitalila) and half women. Our species needs the wisdom of both genders. The men have been in charge for a long time and LOOK AT THE MESS WE ARE IN.
 
 
-5 # babaregi 2014-05-25 16:22
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:
I agree. I am not interested in the size of some guys 'balls'. I am sick of all these men doing such stupid things. All groups that are elected to represent the people as a whole MUST BE GENDER BALANCED. The votes for war, austerity and 'Security' everywhere would not pass if the House and Senate

were half men (with any size genitalila) and half women. Our species needs the wisdom of both genders. The men have been in charge for a long time and LOOK AT THE MESS WE ARE IN.


This is just more male bashing, IMO.
It has been (and still is) quite fashionable to cast a dark light on everything male. It sells a lot of soap on TV.

It has gotten to the point of mentioning brass balls has become an attack on women.

Hey, if it gets you "girly men" laid, then all the more power to you! LOL

But seriously, I find this sanctimonious attitude of it being all men's fault offensive.

It certainly isn't helping men change for the better.

Testosterone fueled aggressiveness aided our specie's survival and women have been selecting their mates based on it for millenia.

Just ask the wives of these guys in power if they'd like to give up the spoils of war that their husbands have brought back to them.

No, demonizing men is not the answer. It just perpetuates the problem.
 
 
-5 # Johnny 2014-05-25 19:27
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:
All groups that are elected to represent the people as a whole MUST BE GENDER BALANCED. The votes for war, austerity and 'Security' everywhere would not pass if the House and Senate were half men (with any size genitalila) and half women.

Right! We need Michelle Bachman for president!
 
 
+6 # wrknight 2014-05-24 09:47
Oh, come off it. The term "balls" is no slight against women and has been used for expressing courage for women as well as men for ages. Wasn't it Ben-Guroion who said of Golda Meir “of all the men in my cabinet, she has the biggest pair of balls!”? While the word also applies to male genitalia, it has other uses as well and its history goes back far beyond its usage for male genitalia or courage. Secondly, in reality, courage amongst men is independent of the size of their male genitalia. Thirdly, its usage in that context is as much connected to male genitalia as the word xerox is connected to the Xerox Corporation. Finally, any word that can be used to convey a concept accurately, effectively and succinctly is a good word to use.

This obsession with gender neutrality and political correctness in speech is a waste of time and a distraction from issues that are far more important.
 
 
+4 # dickbd 2014-05-24 15:02
I agree with everything you say, and I dislike the obsession with political correctness. I even think feminism can go too far. However, I still think that using "balls," "stones," "gonads," or anything along that line not only demeans females of all species, but it undermines the perception of true courage, too.
 
 
-1 # Johnny 2014-05-25 19:30
Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were racist, genocidal, Nazi scum, which just proves that gender is irrelevant in politics.
 
 
+1 # Johnny 2014-05-25 19:25
[quote name="dickbd"]I agree with you, but we need another word for courage than "brass balls" or other references to male genitalia. After all, many women have shown great courage, too.

Yes, we need journalists with brass tits.
 
 
+41 # nice2bgreat 2014-05-23 12:21
.
The formatting of this piece in RSN is wrong in places, as to confuse Greenwald's writing with that of Kinsley.

For the intended format and attributions, go to:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/05/23/response-michael-kinsley/
.
 
 
+30 # phrixus 2014-05-23 17:22
Thanks for mentioning that fact. For a moment I thought I had transported into an alternate universe until I noticed the sloppy formatting.
 
 
+76 # nice2bgreat 2014-05-23 13:24
.
This is a story about insiders (and insider wannabes) defending the king, and framing the issues and controlling public debate.

And there is strategy and intrigue.

Michael Kinsley was William F. Buckley's favorite liberal. He moderated debates between Buckley and liberals, some so-called liberals of that time... mostly during the 80's.

Jeff Cohen of Fariness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) wrote a piece about 10 years ago entitled "I'm Not a Leftist, But I Play One on TV". http://archive.today/yHSW

Cohen illustrates how the debate mindset is king in the media, while true ideology has little place in that establishment.

The establishment-l eft has completely infiltrated and taken over the progressive (principled) left, in the sense that, non-progressive views are constantly being presented as reasoned, alternative (mainstream), leftist positions.

The danger of this, if not obvious, is apparent when the right-wing kooks argue that "even" "liberals" -- in this case, Michael Kinsley -- agree with us (the right-wing kooks), implying that even liberals are right about some things. These are the Liebermans, etc.

Jonathan Chait is the new guy on the block. His subtle, crafted arguments that undermine strong liberalism, in favor of D Party/corporati st rationale and dictates are especially insidious.

It often takes someone like Glenn Greenwald's objective, principled, and moreso, his cogent, adversarial journalism to reveal the traitors in the midst.
.
 
 
-46 # wolf 2014-05-23 13:45
"It often takes someone like Glenn Greenwald's objective, principled, and moreso, his cogent, adversarial journalism to reveal the traitors in the midst."

I'm not convinced: It's more likely that Greenwald's career fell in his lap - Snowden had to beg to get Greenwald to listen. And something is definitely amiss.

Go to The Intercept and note the stories; not how the adversarial nature, how the important stories fell off after the Ukraine story, while Glenn went off galavanting around the world collecting prizes and debating. Note the timing with Miranda's detention and the seizure of his data; which included all 1.7million documents; giving the NSA insight into what they had so they could counter the efforts. Note too that $250million came to Glenn AFTER that event. Note that Miranda was detained in Britain, but Greenwald was invited to AMerica. Also note the threats to German parliment that if they revealed classified information they would be arrested; yet Greenwald was simultaneously invited to New York to receive a Pulitzer.

I don't believe what I am told, I NEVER do. I tend to investigate things myself. But I recognize I can't have all of the facts. But the facts that I do have spell suspicion, big time.
 
 
+57 # nice2bgreat 2014-05-23 14:19
.
Yeah... ... No.

First, who are you to question Greenwald's work ethic ... "galavanting around collecting prizes and debating"? During this time "galavanting around collecting prizes and debating," he wrote a book. And isn't it ironic that you include his "debating" as part of his galavanting?

I am not sure the degree of "investigat[ing ] things [your]self" that you do, which I encourage for everyone. However, in your case, it appears a waste of time.

You write of "the timing with Miranda's detention and the seizure of his data; which included all 1.7million documents; giving the NSA insight into what they had so they could counter the efforts."

Where is it that the contents of Miranda's data have been revealed? Because the 1.7 million-documen ts figure you site, has been disputed, nor have I heard that what Miranda had has been revealed by anyone.

Is accepting false rumor and making stuff up part of your thorough investigative and analytical process?

As for the $250 million dollar figure. I assume you are referring to the funding for the Intercept. Because I am unaware of what Glenn Greenwald has in his bank accounts. But even from his books, his work at Salon, the Guardian, and the Intercept, I highly doubt he has amassed $250 million. Nor is the $250 Million his alone.

The Intercept hired some of the best investigative journalists, with differing specialties to specifically engage in adversarial journalism.

Is that, too, part of the conspiracy?
.
 
 
-15 # wolf 2014-05-24 17:55
.
You're right, I forgot about the book - the book he wrote while he was supposed to be sorting through 1.7Million documents to report to us, as he promised Edward Snowden. I also forgot that he promised stories, free, on The Intercept, but then turned around and published a book with the documents in it, so that we have to PAY.

Greenwald is trying to be famous, a celebrity. He is no hero. Heroes aren't popular, they are remembered.
 
 
-12 # John S. Browne 2014-05-23 15:21
#

You have a good point. I am a defender of Greenwald until I am proven wrong that I should be doing so; and, though there are things, like Boiling Frogs Post's revelations about possi- ble collusion between Greenwald and the U.S. government ( http://www.boilingfrogspost .com/2013/12/11 /bfp-breaking-n ews-omidyars-pa ypal-corporatio n-said-to-be-im plicated-in-wit hheld-nsa-docum ents/ ), it hasn't been definitely proven to me yet that Greenwald is entirely not to be trusted.

But there are such questions; which, very tellingly, Greenwald has not really, adequately responded to like he should ( except in an extremely limited sense that more or less says nothing; http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12/13/glen-greenwald-goes-on-record-i-dont-doubt-paypal-cooperates-with-nsa/ ). And, if there's nothing to Sibel Edmonds' and others allegations, Greenwald should put it completely to rest, rather than letting it fester, hoping it will go away, which it is not likely to do.

(Continued)
 
 
-17 # John S. Browne 2014-05-23 15:22
#

But, anywho, how do you know that what was seized from Miranda "included all 1.7 million (Snowden) documents"? I haven't heard that before; and I find it quite difficult to believe. Miranda was couriering some documents from Laura Poitras, but he had no reason to be carrying the entire "treasure-trove " (unless he carried them in the other direction, to Poitras in Germany; in which case, he would have left them with her and wouldn't have shuttled copies of them back; especially since Greenwald had them all already, in Brazil).

In addition, I too thought it very fishy that Greenwald was able to enter the U.S. recently, and leave, untouched; unless he has some sort of compromising agreement with the U.S. government. And I believe that he needs to explain how, if there is nothing to his apparently very conveniently being left untouched when he has been considered to be one of the U.S. government's "public enemy number ones", he was able to enter and leave the U.S. unscathed.

What's up with all this, Glenn?

#
 
 
+39 # phrixus 2014-05-23 17:26
"In addition, I too thought it very fishy that Greenwald was able to enter the U.S. recently, and leave, untouched..."

Perhaps because he hasn't been charged with a crime?
 
 
+40 # dquandle 2014-05-23 18:27
And he is an American citizen,… but we can't allow too many of them to enter the country now, can we..?
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-05-24 07:20
#

Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, wasn't charged with a crime either, but he was held by the the U.S.'s partner-in-crim e (the crime of doing away with liberty and freedom, and human and civil rights, etc.), the U.K., for nine hours, the maximum length of time that they could hold him without charges. And, if you don't think they did that because they were trying to think of any way they could to charge him with something and hold him longer, you haven't been paying enough attention, or as much attention as everyone should be paying to this issue.

It doesn't matter that Greenwald is an American citizen. Members of Congress and the NSA, etc., have been calling for his arrest and being charged under the Espionage Act for releasing the Snowden documents. So, what all of a sudden (in the last few months) changed, and why, such that Greenwald is now being left untouched when he enters the U.S.? It just seems awful damned convenient to say the least. I'm not presuming Glenn guilty of anything, but we have a right to know the answer to the question as to whether there is anything to Sibel Edmonds, et cetera's, allegations and/or concerns. It is also awful damned convenient as well, that Greenwald is ignoring the matter and not responding to it.

(Continued)
 
 
-1 # John S. Browne 2014-05-24 07:23
#

So, if Glenn can prove that the entire Boiling Frogs Post issue is unfounded, then that's what he should do. His very limited Twitter response to the matter (see above, second, link) certainly doesn't cut it; in fact, it raises more concerns than it alleviates; and, in truth, does not alleviate any of the concerns at all. His lack of adequate response to the issue certainly makes it look like, at-minimum, he can't prove that Sibel Edmonds, et alii's, concerns are unwarranted, that's for sure. Thus, if he can, he needs to put the matter to rest. Otherwise, it is going to continue to hang out there unanswered like a sore thumb; at least for those of us who don't blindly trust Greenwald or anyone else (which no one should do), and/or who don't intentionally and quickly forget what is inconvenient for us to consider and/or believe (which no one should do either).

#
 
 
0 # Radscal 2014-05-24 17:12
John, thank you for posting your queries. The link to boiling frogs didn't work for me, but I found it and will read it.

I'm disappointed at the thumbs down your posts received. RSN readers are generally more open-minded than seems to be the case here.

You're making no negative or unsubstantiated claims. You're asking important questions. Why was Greenwald allowed into the U.S. even after members of the government, let alone the press have called for his death and others involved in leaks are in prison for decades?
 
 
-2 # John S. Browne 2014-05-24 20:35
#

The reason the link didn't work is because there's a space between the website's name and the ".com" which needs to be removed in order for the link to work. I was trying to make the paragraph look prettier (more right-margin flush, or closer to it anyway), and I figured that people copying and pasting the link would notice it and remove the space in order to make the link work. My bad (no sarcasm intended).

You put that, putting part of my thesis into a nutshell, better than I did; thus, you made the point better than I did as well.

#
 
 
+3 # phrixus 2014-05-25 06:17
Miranda was detained by the U.K. not the U.S. (as you have pointed out). The fact that certain members of Congress and the NSA have "called" for Greenwald's arrest and charges is a far cry from BEING charged and having a warrant issued. Right now they are simply blowing smoke.
 
 
-34 # wolf 2014-05-23 13:41
How do you like your Pulitzer by the way Glenn?
 
 
+16 # nice2bgreat 2014-05-23 14:28
.
If there ever is a Pulitzer for inane bullsh!t, you could be in the running.

How do you think Greenwald likes his Pulitzer?

While you're stroking his ego, ask O'Reilly how he likes his Peabody?
.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2014-05-24 17:18
Of course, O'Reilly never did win a Peabody. He later claimed he really meant the Polk Award, but even that was awarded to Inside Edition after O'Reilly had left, and was not related to any work he had done.

Franken 1: O'Reilly 0
 
 
+55 # ericlipps 2014-05-23 17:50
It comes down to this: if we agree that the government should be the sole decider of which of its documents should be published and which should not, how can we know it isn't hiding malfeasance?

Freedom of the press wasn't intended merely to cover the right to express opinions in print. It was intended as well to be a check on the government's ability to hide wrongdoing. Let a government censor decide what official documents are fit to print and that check on the government is gone. That's the road to corruption at best and utter tyranny at worst.
 
 
+28 # phrixus 2014-05-23 18:07
I'm not certain Mr. Greenwald gains anything by responding to critics of Kinsley's ilk. I can only liken it to playing in the mud. Having said that however, the temptation to defend oneself against wanton stupidity must certainly feel overwhelming at times.

BTW: I've just purchased Greenwald's new book. I'm confident it will be very revealing.
 
 
+30 # dyannne 2014-05-23 18:14
Any respect I ever had for Michael Kinsley is gone. I think his M.S. has gone to his brain.
 
 
+34 # RODNOX 2014-05-23 18:43
if we only printed what the govt wanted us to print we would have been outed as a fascist country years ago----good journalism investigates and prints what people dont want made public.......
 
 
+40 # moafu@yahoo.com 2014-05-23 18:50
I'm a conservative ! In fact, so conservative that my teenage son said, "Dad, you're so conservative, you even warm up the car engine in the Summer before you drive".

NEVERTHELESS - as angry as I get w/ the Leftists in the media.....MAY THE JOURNALISTS ALWAYS BE A BURR UNDER EVERY GOVERNMENTAL SADDLE -- REGARDLESS OF LEFT OR RIGHT GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

Kinsley has been smoking dope ! And Glenn - if you dare give in to government censorship, I will tie your shoe laces together !

Government approval.....HA ! Government is a bloated, self-serving asset swallowing whale that needs to have its blubber cooked !!
 
 
+47 # moafu@yahoo.com 2014-05-23 18:51
AND ANOTHER THING..............
Thomas Paine wrote:
"The duty of every Patriot is to protect his country from government"
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2014-05-24 17:21
Thank you for the Paine shout out.

Thomas Paine was the most truly revolutionary figure in our and France's revolutions.

And a damned lot of good that did him personally, and in history.
 
 
+33 # X Dane 2014-05-23 18:57
I agree with Greenwald. The well-known journalists are much more interested in hobnobbing with prominent politicians, than informing us about that is REALLY going on.

They do not want to lose the "in" with sources, so they stop being effective and believable....n ot to mention honest.

David Gregory is not a journalist any longer. He is just a host, and not very good either.
 
 
+24 # anarchteacher 2014-05-23 19:00
I well remember decades ago when "Liberal" Michael Kinsley faced off against "Conservative" Pat Buchanan on CNN Crossfire.

Look where they are today.

Glenn Greenwald brilliantly described Kinsley as the despicable regime media shill and the Goebbels-like depths to which he has descended in defending draconian state power and repression.

Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, has repeatedly spoken truth to power and opposed the Gulf War, the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria; he has spoken out against drone warfare, the USA Patriot Act, TSA gate-rape of passengers, and invasive NSA surveillance. Buchanan has exposed the duplicitous propaganda and craven lies by the regime media against Putin regarding Ukraine.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/patrick-j-buchanan/left-and-right-against-war-2/

In the above article, Buchanan points to the principled common cause that can unite libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives, and proudly describes his record of working with these insurgent groups against the corporatist establishment insiders such as Kinsley.
 
 
+28 # X Dane 2014-05-23 19:05
Continued
So often the hosts on the Sunday morning programs seem to be pushing all these neocons on us.

George Stephanopoulos has Bill Chrystal on almost as a regular. He is a sickening warmonger, and he was the one, who pushed Palin on McCain. He should be kept far away from any TV, for he is poisonous
 
 
+23 # Mike J 2014-05-23 19:43
The vast majority of the U.S. press agree with Kinsley, that the job of the media is to faithfully act as stenographers for the government. They do this voluntarily, but, in the end, there is no difference between our supposed free press and the government controlled press in places like Iran, Syria, Russia or China.
 
 
+32 # Shorey13 2014-05-23 19:58
Interesting comments all, but, in the final analysis secrecy and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. As Franklin reminded us long ago, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Or something,,,,,,

We have a big enough problem already with ignorant citizens constantly voting against their own best interests; secrecy and sycophantic journalists are the last thing we need if our country and the human race are to survive. At least provide access to the truth for those precious few who are not already brain dead.
 
 
+5 # liteguy 2014-05-23 20:10
Hey... don't knock that term liberal. .
i'll wear it proudly. ....
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2014-05-24 17:28
The principle critique of liberalism from the left has long been that Liberal party politics is the bandaid applied to the hemorrhaging wound of "free market capitalism" deliberately designed to keep the working people from going into open revolt.
 
 
+19 # Rockster 2014-05-23 20:29
In support of the last comment and Glenn's original point: it's a crying shame but The Government is not the citizens servant because we are currently irrelevant to their maintenance of power. If a few brave whistleblowers and journists did not force us to glimpse the truth, we would be driving exploding cars with no seat belts burning leaded gasoline while smoking Lucky Strikes and chugging bourbon. So thank you all who have taken a stand. I can't know this but these personal attacks sure do feel like attempts to distract us from reay tking this through. Think about it.
 
 
+14 # Jerome 2014-05-24 03:08
"Larry Summers took Warren out to dinner in Washington and, she recalls, told her that she had a choice to make. She could be an insider or an outsider, but if she was going to be an insider she needed to understand one unbreakable rule about insiders: “They don’t criticize other insiders.”"
"My book, and my writing and speaking more generally, usually criticizes insiders, and does so harshly and by name, so much of this reaction is simply a ritual of expulsion based on my chronic violation of Summers’ rule. I find that a relief."
What a relief to find a journalist that behaves like Elizabeth Warren. Summers' rule is a terrible indictment of our current "insider" lawmakers, government and media.
 
 
+4 # dandevries 2014-05-24 19:07
Hard to believe anyone takes the NYT seriously at this point.
 
 
+7 # socrates2 2014-05-24 19:28
Re: Summers: "...if she (Warren) was going to be an insider she needed to understand one unbreakable rule about insiders: “They don’t criticize other insiders.”
By now everyone not born yesterday knows that insiders in any profession best understand its flaws and malpractitioner s. Ask any doctor about the negligent and criminal actions of other doctors. Ask an attorney about bad attorneys. Ask a cop about bad cops and so forth. This rule holds true as well for butchers, plumbers, electricians, contractors, bankers, etc.
Since Warren and elected officials owe a duty to their constituents, it follows that they have a duty to expose acts inimical to the People and the Constitution.
With that attitude and value system, Summers should be ashamed of himself and has no business in public office.
Be well.
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2014-05-25 19:53
It ain't rocket science. The same oligarchs who buy elections for warmongers own the mainstream media. To keep a job with a major network or newspaper, a reporter or editor has to goose-step to the neoconservative government line. There are great journalists in the U.S. but none of them work for CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Like government office, media access is strictly for sale.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN