Tuesday, August 27, 2013

No Time To Write This Morning So a Question

Can anyone point me to an interview done with Glenn Greenwald that doesn't consist of soft ball questions, many of those with entirely predictable answers?  Because I don't recall ever seeing one of those.   I read an example of the soft ball kind of interview just now and that question came to me.  Here's what I said I'd have asked him instead of what "Truthout" did.


What a lost opportunity. Why didn't you ask him if he really believed that the Chinese government allowed Snowden to go to Russia without knowing exactly what Snowden carried there with him and that Russia didn't credibly threaten him with deportation to the United States unless he also gave them any classified information he stole from the government? Those are two questions I've never seen Greenwald asked which would be vitally important in judging his honesty and grasp of the issue he's at the center of. I would also ask him how he knows that he knows just how much and what Snowden stole and likely carried with him to China. Because he has no idea of what Snowden took and how seriously that might effect the lives of Chinese and Russian dissidents, among the first people those governments would be interested in.

I'd also ask him how he compares Brazil's treatment of journalists, civil rights and environmental activists, and even just poor folk as compared to the country he presents as the locus of all evil, the United States. Would he rather the United States follow Brazilian laws and, more importantly, practices, or those of China or Russia than those in the United States.

The civilian oversight and control of intelligence agencies, as well as the police and military, in the United States is dangerously inadequate but I see nothing in what Greenwald is doing that will remedy that. Especially when he misrepresents what he's presenting from the documents given to him by Snowden. Especially his descriptions of the programs and his exaggeration of their technical capabilities. I got the feeling from reading competent technical writers on that, that Greenwald doesn't really understand a lot of what he's presenting as reporting. In that Greenwald's quality as a journalist can be judged.

After the other day, reading Joshua Foust's list of false statements Greenwald made about him and Greenwald's refusal to retract or correct those false statements, I'm afraid I don't consider Greenwald any kind of reliable reporter of fact.


How do they expect the truth to get out from the kind of cult based stuff they've been putting out on this story?   That's a question I'd pose to Truthout.   As of now, the comment above only has one dislike at Truthout.  I wasn't asking those questions and raising those issues to be popular,  that's kiddie stuff and these are grownup issues.   I'm having a hard time not concluding that comment systems that let you "like" and "dislike" comments enables an adolescent atmosphere.


  1. Sorry, couldn't resist. I read that Truthout interview, and yes, it was ridiculous.

    This, for example, reminded me of "The Dark Knight":

    The NSA has the capability, which is widely reported, to remotely activate people’s cellphones and turn them into listening devices.

    Truth? Or paranoid fantasy?

    And remind me again, is GG a lawyer? Because Miranda was detained under British law, so GG would be detained if he came to America? Under what, British law?

  2. The question about Snowden's "baby face" made me retch, mentally.