Understanding the real motivations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange.
A debate has been raging for 50 years or more over whether journalists should try to be “objective” in reporting events or describing controversies. It flared up recently in an exchange in The New York Times between former editor Bill Keller and uber-journalist Glenn Greenwald. And even thousands of miles away, I haven’t been able to avoid it.
Journalism's circular firing squad, UK edition
While it might be a mite too early to assess the historic and political impact of Edward Snowden’s leaks of top secret NSA documents, the first casualty is already clear: journalism.
Just because objectivity can't exist in journalism doesn't mean writers shouldn't strive for it
What the debate over his role reveals about the idea of objectivity in journalism.
What’s in a name? Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks to The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald and The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman have reignited a debate that last raged at this temperature a few years ago, when WikiLeaks disclosed the Bradley Manning trove. Namely: What is a “journalist”—who is one?
For many, the first instinct yesterday upon reading about Edward Snowden, the Guardian and Washington Post’s source on the National Security Agency stories, was to compare him to Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private currently being court-martialed for disclosing hundreds of thousands of logs, videos, and diplomatic cables, many of them classified, to WikiLeaks.
Just wanted to follow-up on yesterday’s Jack Lew post to clarify the point I was making: One common reaction to the Lew announcement, voiced by liberals like Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, is to groan that Obama has just replaced one former banker (Bill Daley) with another, as Lew spent two years at Citigroup before joining the administration in late 2008. My feeling about this is twofold: First, liberals aren’t wrong to groan.
Glenn Greenwald has devoted a great deal of energy to painting Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg as a Likudnik shill. Here's a sample of Greenwald's thoughtful commentary on the subject. March 9, 2009: “[Roger Cohen’s] column prompted all sorts of predictable attacks on Cohen from the standard cast of Israel-centric thought enforcers (Jeffrey Goldberg, National Review, right-wing blogs, etc.
-- Jon Cohn on the legal battle over health care reform. -- Adam Serwer responds to Glenn Greenwald's argument that killing bin Laden was illegal. -- Third Way and MoveOn can agree on at least one thing: spending caps are bad.
[Guest post by James Downie] As best as I can tell, the back-and-forth over Libya has gone something like this: Glenn Greenwald disagreed with John Judis, who disagreed with Matt Yglesias, who disagreed with Jon Chait, who disagreed with Andrew Sullivan, who disagreed with Leon Wieseltier, who disagreed with Ezra Klein.