11 Responses

  1. “The reason that seems to me to be polar opposites is because David Halberstam viewed the measurement of good journalism as defined by how much you anger the people in power that you’re covering, whereas Bill Keller defines good journalism, and I think most modern establishment journalists define it this way as well, by how much you please the people in power that your covering.” I share this transcription of Greenwald’s actual words referenced in the headline for a couple of reasons reasons. One, far from being a flip and childish attitude toward journalism (as some may take away from the way the statement is posed in the headline) it actually is a contrast between two attitudes of journalism. On the one hand is the tradition of those who seek to speak truth to power. On the other hand is the attitude of those who see journalism as subordinate to the government. Second, Greenwald is paraphrasing David Halberstam. While Greenwald agrees with the point of view he cites, he does not claim to be its author, as the headline may suggest.

    Since there is no journalistic comment to provide context, Juan Cole’s readers can only come to these understandings by watching the lengthy video. These readers’ enormous respect for Cole might be brought down a peg if they were to come to realize that the headline he attaches to Greenwald’s speech may not accurately reflect the point of view expressed nor be an accurate attribution.

    I hope all here will join me in agreeing with Bill Moyers, who said, “The news is about what people want to keep hidden. Everything else is publicity. People don’t want to keep their opinions hidden, but they want to keep the facts hidden.”

  2. Courage is contagious! The powerful have to watch out for more people stepping up.

    Brutal criticism of main line journalists who align with the powerful rather than the Truth.


  3. Glenn Greenwald is really full of himself these days. Good journalism is not measured by “how angry you make the people your covering.” That is a conceit that only Greenwald could come up with.

    Good journalism is measured by how deeply, accurately, and objectively one covers a story or event. In doing so, a good journalist may indeed anger those he is covering. But not necessarily so. If Greenwald thinks that good journalism is only that which angers those being covered, he has a very narrow, pinched view of what constitutes journalism.

    • “Good journalism is measured by how deeply, accurately, and objectively one covers a story or event”
      I believe he said that much at the opening of his hour long speech when he described a journalist who refused to proscribe the Generals narrative whom he thought is an exemplar journalist should be.

    • Speak of trolls, and the Bobbsey twins just appeared… speaking for the Great Narrative-ization of everything.

      Run him down, boys, can’t be having any change for the better, now, or exposing the black heart and rendings of the beast you so often speak for…

    • Lot of useless comments here from people who obviously didn’t watch the video. “That is a conceit only Greenwald could come up with…” Blah blah blah, you troll. If you had watched the video you would understand that (1) Greenwald was paraphrasing another journalist and (2) the headline inaccurately presents the paraphrase anyway. Really, a lecture on “good journalism” from someone who doesn’t watch the video they are commenting on. Thanks for the laugh.

      The example set by Greenwald and Snowden is inspiring.

  4. Thank you for the post. Greenwald’s argument is clear, constructive.
    I wish Greenwald would also explain the reason for the government to avoid transparency. Also whether the journalists’ “fear” is justified.

  5. N EL, I wish those who believe that certain positions have validity would explain their reasoning rather than supposing it is someone else’s responsibility to do it for them.

  6. @Stourley Kracklite. He did say that was his preference and he belongs to that school of thought. And the ‘Powers that Be’ got angry enough to deny The Guardian to anyone in the Army at any one of our zillion locations around the world. Hugh affect in spite of what Susan Rice says.

  7. Analyzing reporters isn’t that interesting. Maybe Greenwald is an overage rebellious teenager. Is that worse than the middle-aged, pipe-smoking Cub Scouts who sit in their studies congradulating themselves for being so mature, and are always waiting for a pat on the head from daddy?

Comments are closed.