Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian(ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br)
ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br
Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/my-statement-and-guardians.html
118 comments
Greenwald has said that the Brazilian government has offered him physical protection (but he has declined iirc). I'm sure he has all the help he could want.
Bezos
Is this just speculation? It's fine if it is, I'd just like to know.
Speculation; nothing has been announced.
However, the first interview by Greenwald was given to the Washington Post -- which Bezos just purchased.
However, the first interview by Greenwald was given to the Washington Post -- which Bezos just purchased.
The people backing him would be really going against the grain since Greenwald is pretty anti-establishment.
Snowden provided material to both Washington Post and the Guardian, but it was the Guardian that chose to really dive into it and milk it all the way -- Washington Post hesitated. A lot of people are hungry for Greenwald giving them more Snowden leaks, the backer probably understands this.
The understanding with Greenwald is he's not afraid to piss off people -- if he gets more leaks in his hands, he's going to let the public in on it. It's hard to imagine Bezos getting himself into this kind of public hot grounds, so I think it's highly unlikely that Bezos is behind this.
edit: small grammar fix; thanks cpeterso
Snowden provided material to both Washington Post and the Guardian, but it was the Guardian that chose to really dive into it and milk it all the way -- Washington Post hesitated. A lot of people are hungry for Greenwald giving them more Snowden leaks, the backer probably understands this.
The understanding with Greenwald is he's not afraid to piss off people -- if he gets more leaks in his hands, he's going to let the public in on it. It's hard to imagine Bezos getting himself into this kind of public hot grounds, so I think it's highly unlikely that Bezos is behind this.
edit: small grammar fix; thanks cpeterso
> It's hard to imagine Bezos getting himself into this kind of publically hot grounds, so I think it's highly likely that Bezos is behind this.
Did you mean "highly unlikely"?
Did you mean "highly unlikely"?
This is interesting since I'm sure the feds want cooperation from Amazon, and hence Bezos. If Bezos is behind it, then that might make some sense - NSA forces Bezos to comply with whatever they want, and this is his way of fighting back.
Not to mention this guy will get on the air and actually defend the interests of himself and all of us.
I listened to his interview with CBC Radio(no one listens to CBC Radio), and he is just so articulate and calm.
His defence against the douche bag on CNN(OR NBC) was inspiring, this is what people should be taking example of.
I listened to his interview with CBC Radio(no one listens to CBC Radio), and he is just so articulate and calm.
His defence against the douche bag on CNN(OR NBC) was inspiring, this is what people should be taking example of.
> When asked whether the new organization would have a big video presence, Greenwald said it would be “very innovative — very, very innovative.”
I hope it's not too video oriented. I rarely consume journalism/news via video anymore unless it's real life footage of some incident.
Hopefully it's NYTimes style innovation, utilizing good modern web design.
I hope it's not too video oriented. I rarely consume journalism/news via video anymore unless it's real life footage of some incident.
Hopefully it's NYTimes style innovation, utilizing good modern web design.
yes, great web design without subservience to powerful interests would be ideal.
Vox media perhaps? Maybe they are looking to get into the hard news business.
> going to be funded by a particular backer
Somehow, when I read this, I imagine this guy :)
http://i.imgur.com/IF7omHj.jpg
Somehow, when I read this, I imagine this guy :)
http://i.imgur.com/IF7omHj.jpg
The original source of the leaked story:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
The headline:
"Glenn Greenwald Will Leave Guardian To Create New News Organization"
All of the info being quoted elsewhere stems from that story, and is now confirmed by the post on Glenn's blog.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
The headline:
"Glenn Greenwald Will Leave Guardian To Create New News Organization"
All of the info being quoted elsewhere stems from that story, and is now confirmed by the post on Glenn's blog.
Since when does BuzzFeed break real news and not just blogspam? That's newsworthy itself.
They actually break quite a bit of news, along with clogging the internet with blogspam. It's a pretty fascinating business model.
I (and others) tried submitting it, but all BuzzFeed links are [dead] on arrival due to the blogspam they've done over the years (along with gawker, etc).
I can definitely see that working. The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures. On the libertarian side there is very little between full blown conspiracy theory mongers (ala Axel Jones) and those more affiliated with one political who pick up the stories that advances their viewpoints (Drudge, Mother Jones). Greenwald brings the right level of mainstream credibility to carve out a new brand in that space.
I think you are on to something.
My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual.
I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics.
The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others.
EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?
My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual.
I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics.
The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others.
EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?
It seems all conservatives are beginning to reference themselves as libertarians (partial or otherwise) these days.
Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
That's why I didn't call myself a libertarian, and instead said that I like parts of their ideology. Not sure what the problem is with that. If I do, I do, if I don't then I wouldn't have said it.
I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought.
Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time.
The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.
I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought.
Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time.
The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.
Druge's sole existence is based on how well he is able to spot fringe stories and push them into the mainstream. There would be not reason to go on that site if it weren't for his (and his team's) talent to spot some detail in some overlooked story and blow it up into a scandal. Somebody looking for the complexity of in issue is certainly not going to find that on Drudge. But Drudge is an amazing place to learn how to spot the right angle of a story and making it newsworthy.
"(Drudge, Mother Jones)"
Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.
Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.
MJ "leans in" pretty hard too. The recent story on Elon Musk tries very hard to be a hatchet job, and comes off badly because of the forced angle.
Drudge Report is largely a link aggregator, though; their spin is pretty much limited to how they write their headlines and what they choose to link to. Mother Jones, as the parent said, does their own reporting and a lot of it, and they're arguably one of the few organizations that really gets into serious investigative journalism.
To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful, but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.
To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful, but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.
Even Wikipedia refers to Mother Jones as a "politically left-wing American magazine,".
The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
MJ is serious original reporting and opinion from a committed liberal point of view. They are equivalent in bias, if not in quality.
[deleted]
>The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
The way he has so skillfully broken stories from the Snowden documents at just the right pace has been brilliant. It is hard for me to imagine another journalist handling it better.
Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.
Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.
Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.
In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.
Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.
Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.
In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
There wasn't much skill involved in breaking the Snowden stories. What made Greenwald different was that he was willing to break them and to offend the government.
>if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way
Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
A bias/agenda towards attacking powerful people or the status quo would most reasonably be called "journalism" wouldn't it?
That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public.
Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public.
Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
From my perspective "biased" is in American media pretty much defined on how well somebody can put you into the left or right corner. As long as you can somewhat convincingly argue that you are in the middle you are welcome guest outside of the "poisoned" circles.
I think he's different. Polarizing on given stories, sure, but also non-partisan.
I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
>non-partisan
Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
Greenwald is definitely non-partisan, and in fact he goes to great lengths to point out that the people who supported him when he reported on government abuse during the Bush administration have become some of his strongest detractors when he reports on the same things under Obama's administration. He doesn't really hide his own personal ideologies but they're certainly not loyal to any particular political party.
Yes, at least for the way he presets himself. He is able to put a serious argument forward and able to discuss things head to head with conventional journalists. If you compare the video where Greenwald gets some hard questions by some BBC reporter in comparison to how Jones handled the interview with Piers Morgan it feels like two completely different worlds.
Drudge and Alex Jones are not libertarian. Drudge is a heavily-conservative pundit that preaches holier-than-thou morals in his biased reporting. Alex Jones spreads "we-are-all-going-to-die" fear porn to his terrorized audience.
Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief.
This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.
Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief.
This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.
The (apparent) sponsor of the new venture is Pierre Omidyar, the original founder of eBay.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-gr...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-gr...
I have heard speculation that it is Omidyar, which feets his personality and post-ebay activities. He has been funding investigative journalism in Hawaii for a few years now, has a ton of $$$, is interested in changing the world, etc
i just searched for the name (since it meant nothing to me; turns out he founded ebay) and there are reports saying this - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/uk-usa-security-gre...
Philanthropy is one of the few credible models left for good journalism. (The other being pay-for niche, like the Economist).
So I like that another really excellent philanthropically funded news organisation is starting (Pro Publica has been good).
So I like that another really excellent philanthropically funded news organisation is starting (Pro Publica has been good).
I suppose it is also "philanthropy" when a very wealthy donor pays for journalism which reflects his political views or objectives.
As long as you share those political views or objectives, that is, then it is "philanthropy" rather than journalism bought and paid for.
As long as you share those political views or objectives, that is, then it is "philanthropy" rather than journalism bought and paid for.
That's pretty cynical, I highly doubt he's going to be asked to shape a story to fit someone political viewpoints. Unless you think he's going to work for Fox News ;)
I highly doubt he's going to be asked to shape a story to fit someone political viewpoints.
That's not how these things work anymore. It is more of a case of funding "useful idiots." You find someone who has a viewpoint that aligns with your financial interests and then you fund their work to promote their viewpoint and your financial interests just tag along for the ride.
There are a lot of pundits and even elected politicians who appear to be nothing more than corporate shills, saying whatever gets them paid. But, for the most part, that's untrue. They genuinely believe in what they are saying, they aren't hypocrites they just have a viewpoint that is convenient for the people funding them.
With hundreds of millions of adults in the western world, there will always be some number of people who are reasonably eloquent, plausibly logical and authentically believe in nearly any philosophy.
That's not how these things work anymore. It is more of a case of funding "useful idiots." You find someone who has a viewpoint that aligns with your financial interests and then you fund their work to promote their viewpoint and your financial interests just tag along for the ride.
There are a lot of pundits and even elected politicians who appear to be nothing more than corporate shills, saying whatever gets them paid. But, for the most part, that's untrue. They genuinely believe in what they are saying, they aren't hypocrites they just have a viewpoint that is convenient for the people funding them.
With hundreds of millions of adults in the western world, there will always be some number of people who are reasonably eloquent, plausibly logical and authentically believe in nearly any philosophy.
He already shapes stories to fit someone's political viewpoints.
If we are going to be cynical about Fox News and everything else, why should Greenwald be the one exception to our cynicism?
If we are going to be cynical about Fox News and everything else, why should Greenwald be the one exception to our cynicism?
Who is that someone?
I didn't know releasing the facts, and not halting the story just because the IC asked him to was shaping the story to fit someone's political viewpoints.
I didn't know releasing the facts, and not halting the story just because the IC asked him to was shaping the story to fit someone's political viewpoints.
>Who is that someone?
That someone is Glenn Greenwald.
That someone is Glenn Greenwald.
You're making the false assumption that only Glenn Greenwald is doing the reporting and shaping of the stories, instead of teams spanning news publications, dozens of people at the Guardian, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald.
That said, can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like? Exactly how were these stories shaped that rubs you the wrong way? Because all I see are facts, his editorials are just a side note.
Just because he isn't doing the IC's bidding doesn't mean he's shaping the NSA stories to his own political views.
That said, can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like? Exactly how were these stories shaped that rubs you the wrong way? Because all I see are facts, his editorials are just a side note.
Just because he isn't doing the IC's bidding doesn't mean he's shaping the NSA stories to his own political views.
>can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like?
There's no such thing as impartiality. Every journalist has bias. I'm sick of people pretending that GG doesn't, just because they agree with his bias.
There's no such thing as impartiality. Every journalist has bias. I'm sick of people pretending that GG doesn't, just because they agree with his bias.
Exactly, but Greenwald et al are just reporting the facts. They've even agreed with the Intelligence Community to not publish some things and have asked for comment on every story.
I'm just trying to figure out what rubs people the wrong way about his reporting, or why some people would rather remain ignorant of what there government is doing. 'Because if we know, the terrorists know' doesn't cut it.
I'm just trying to figure out what rubs people the wrong way about his reporting, or why some people would rather remain ignorant of what there government is doing. 'Because if we know, the terrorists know' doesn't cut it.
The Guardian is also independent. It is owned by the Scott Trust and has been consistently loss making. The Scott trust turned into The Scott Trust Limited in 2008, but the same independence is maintained. Of course, the problem is that The Guardian may run out of the money eventually.
Is it possible that the Guardian cannot afford to keep him on anymore?
I would bet the English/US government has been leaning very heavily on the organization, legally, financially, intimidation, blackmail?
It might have reached a tipping point?
I would bet the English/US government has been leaning very heavily on the organization, legally, financially, intimidation, blackmail?
It might have reached a tipping point?
I think the Guardian would have published any details of government pressure, and other UK media would have joined in with strong condemnation.
Our publishing industry does have problems, but we're not that bad yet.
Our publishing industry does have problems, but we're not that bad yet.
There's certainly government pressure, which seems to be ramping up. Even if you ignore the destruction of media drives (and relocation to America), and detention of Miranda.
1. Pretty well all parts of the story have D notices in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-m...
2. The Home Affair's committee is looking into the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investiga...
and
3. They've been criticised by the Prime Minister:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24555955
1. Pretty well all parts of the story have D notices in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-m...
2. The Home Affair's committee is looking into the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investiga...
and
3. They've been criticised by the Prime Minister:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24555955
The announcement said "We are of course disappointed by Glenn’s decision to move on, but can appreciate the attraction of the new role he has been offered." - that sounds like a news organization losing a great reporter rather than letting him go.
To the fanatic, absolutely everything is further proof of his own pre-existing beliefs.
I seriously doubt it. That's like saying Michael Jordan is too expensive for the Bulls.
I hate to be a conspiracy nut here. I think I've watched one too many political thrillers where they get rid of the nosy reporter by offering him a job he just cannot refuse.
Edit: grammar
Edit: grammar
Interesting. If it indeed is a new venture, which seems likely, where's the money coming from? Benevolent billionaire?
He could crowdfund it by selling yearly subscriptions. I'd easily pay $60 a year for a investigative-minded digital magazine with Greenwald as Editor-in-Chief.
Hey, if you don't mind, would you take a look at this http://www.beaconreader.com and let me know what your thoughts are?
Readers pay a single $5 a month fee, but get access to everything on platform (Over 40 professional journalists). Example of an article http://www.beaconreader.com/eric-randolph/what-one-refugee-s...
Readers pay a single $5 a month fee, but get access to everything on platform (Over 40 professional journalists). Example of an article http://www.beaconreader.com/eric-randolph/what-one-refugee-s...
I really like the concept. It desperately needs a new name.
Beacon is a weak word, and Beacon Reader flows really poorly. It doesn't convey impactful journalism. It'd be proper for the #3 newspaper in Sioux Falls (if there were such a thing).
My two cents for what they're worth.
Beacon is a weak word, and Beacon Reader flows really poorly. It doesn't convey impactful journalism. It'd be proper for the #3 newspaper in Sioux Falls (if there were such a thing).
My two cents for what they're worth.
Baconreader... I'm not going to lie.. I expected this to be a reddit or rss feed.
Thanks, I appreciate you being straight up. Would love to know how the articles and writers stand up in your mind.
I wouldn't pay 60. But I might cough up 30 for some sort of digital edition so long as the reporting is high quality.
I'd pay $60 easily, but not for news. I'd pay $60 to an organization that consistently topples corrupt power structures through investigative journalism. Heck I'd pay $60 per head that rolls.
I would expect the organization to uncover wrongdoing irrespective of political affiliation or national origin. I'd expect it to push extremely hard for transparency, forcing transparency where possible. Any news organization that leaves no rocks unturned where people can hide their weaseling is awesome in my book.
Basically, I'd pay very good money for an investigative news org with journalistic might equivalent to the military might of US Armed Forces.
People in politics, finance and all sorts of equivalently powerful organizations need to feel as naked and vulnerable from and information security perspective as we do after learning about myriad NSA surveillance programs.
I would expect the organization to uncover wrongdoing irrespective of political affiliation or national origin. I'd expect it to push extremely hard for transparency, forcing transparency where possible. Any news organization that leaves no rocks unturned where people can hide their weaseling is awesome in my book.
Basically, I'd pay very good money for an investigative news org with journalistic might equivalent to the military might of US Armed Forces.
People in politics, finance and all sorts of equivalently powerful organizations need to feel as naked and vulnerable from and information security perspective as we do after learning about myriad NSA surveillance programs.
The new venture, described by a source familiar with it as "rather extraordinary," will be web-based and funded by a philanthropist, POLITICO has learned.
In his interview with Smith, Greenwald said it would have major financial backing and would have hubs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. He disclosed no further details, but called the venture "momentous" and said it will be "be unveiled very shortly.”
In his interview with Smith, Greenwald said it would have major financial backing and would have hubs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. He disclosed no further details, but called the venture "momentous" and said it will be "be unveiled very shortly.”
Bezos bought the Post - the other newspaper thats been a big part of the NSA leaks - perhaps its Bezos?
[deleted]
Believe it or not, in this day and age creating a news org from scratch is incredibly cheap: you don't have to deal with legacy tech, expensive manpower and flashy offices in downtown NYC...
What is hard to get is brand recognition and mainstream credibility, which you can't get unless you break something extraordinary like CNN did in Gulf War I and Al-Jazeera in the post-2001 invasions. Greenwald's name should help in that regard.
What is hard to get is brand recognition and mainstream credibility, which you can't get unless you break something extraordinary like CNN did in Gulf War I and Al-Jazeera in the post-2001 invasions. Greenwald's name should help in that regard.
[deleted]
Just dreaming here:
1) DHH is a huge fan of Greenwald and very political.
2) Peter Thiel likes to make bold bets in the future of our culture (e.g. Ron Paul donation).
1) DHH is a huge fan of Greenwald and very political.
2) Peter Thiel likes to make bold bets in the future of our culture (e.g. Ron Paul donation).
"Bold bets" by having a foot in both camps? That seems more like timidity.
A foot in both camps? Huh?
Paul and Greenwald are only on opposite teams if you believe in myopic labels like conservative vs. liberal (respectively). They're both ardent civil libertarians, and in Greenwald's case, that's the biggest part of his platform. Paul not so much, but it's still a major part.
Paul and Greenwald are only on opposite teams if you believe in myopic labels like conservative vs. liberal (respectively). They're both ardent civil libertarians, and in Greenwald's case, that's the biggest part of his platform. Paul not so much, but it's still a major part.
[deleted]
Does anyone think this might be because the UK has such a terrible record on the free press front in recent months? Such a shame if it is costing UK papers serious talent (which I would not be surprised at).
I mean why the hell work for a UK paper when you could work somewhere else given we have the internet now.
I mean why the hell work for a UK paper when you could work somewhere else given we have the internet now.
Where is good? A friend who works for Al-Jazzera recently described going through customs in Israel and the US. It's blatant intimidation as far as I see it. Kids with gun holding him in hot rooms while interrogating him when in Israel and only a little better when in the US. Given the way most countries kowtow to the US and Britain, where could one work from without problem? And even then journalists usually need to travel and you're back at the mercy of other countries.
[deleted](4)
I can't wait to find out what it is and what kind of participation is available. GG has been doing some of the best reporting on a variety of issues for at least a few years.
Ugh, I don't like the sound of this. But he is one of the people I respect most on the planet so I suppose that means I should have faith that he's doing the right thing. Call me unimaginative but I thought it was an extremely good thing to have someone with his views at a respected, establishment media organization.
So, if he's launching his own thing, then it's going to be like Democracy Now, except Greenwald's project will be privately (?) funded. That's good, I guess. Greenwald has my respect as a journalist and I can't wait to find out what he'll do next.
Statement of the Guardian's Jennifer Lindauer: "Glenn Greenwald is a remarkable journalist [...]"
Better late than never, I guess.
Better late than never, I guess.
Holy cow... The implication is that he is aiming set-up his own news organization.
I didnt get that at all. He could just be joining a venture with other journalists? Similar to propublica.org.
He's stated he's forming a new organization "with serious backing":
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
Yes, I understand. However the article didnt impliy he was starting his own organization- he could be joining other journalists to start a new organization.
My example was propublica.org -- a news organization that was founded after an angel donor provided funding to form an organization for investigative journalism after Rupert Murdoch bought the wall street journal.
I'm not saying its not the case, I just didnt see that implication. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for him to start "his own" organization. First, it would be hard for him to keep doing what he's good at as he would be pulled in more directions and into more discussions about organization, money etc. Secondly, I think a "G Magazine" would not have nearly the impact that a propublica-clone would have.
We need less personality and more people willing to grind the shit out.
My example was propublica.org -- a news organization that was founded after an angel donor provided funding to form an organization for investigative journalism after Rupert Murdoch bought the wall street journal.
I'm not saying its not the case, I just didnt see that implication. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for him to start "his own" organization. First, it would be hard for him to keep doing what he's good at as he would be pulled in more directions and into more discussions about organization, money etc. Secondly, I think a "G Magazine" would not have nearly the impact that a propublica-clone would have.
We need less personality and more people willing to grind the shit out.
The implication comes from the phrase "I was presented with a once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly decline.", i.e. he isn't being fired or something.
Is he looking to fill that huge hole left from the shuttering of Current TV?
Who leaked the news that he was leaving?
Buzzfeed apparently: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...
[deleted]
The Guardian sent lawyers to take care of the Miranda airport incident, and I presume they've been working around the clock to keep him protected with the Snowden stuff.
EDIT: he'll be head of building an "entire journalism unit" for a general-interest (sports, etc) organization, and it is well funded by a "particular backer": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/1...