Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange
from the journalism! dept
We’ve already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so:
In case you can’t see that, it says:
I can’t wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.
This isn’t just cheering on despicable government actions — including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist — but it’s saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he’ll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today’s modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he’s directly letting the government know that he’ll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.
This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don’t agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.
Of course, this isn’t new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In “defending” his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans’ rights if it means stopping terrorists.
Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it’s despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald “gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in.” Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was “dumb.”
Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization — one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?
Filed Under: drones, extrajudicial killing, journalism, julian assange, michael grunwald, propaganda, time magazine
Comments on “Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange”
Why isn’t this guy being put in jail for a tweet like that? I mean, the US is so trigger happy with everything ELSE on the internet. /s
But seriously, though. He only thinks it’s dumb because he aired it to a million people and was called out on his bullshit. And he’d be right. But I don’t for one second think he actually didn’t mean it.
Re: Re:
He isn’t in jail for one reason: It depends on what terrorist you support and he is supporting the ones in government.
Re: Re: Re:
So he is advocating a Drone attack on a foreign embassy in one of our most friendly allied countries. That should go well.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is taking it too far. He doesn’t specify place or time. In the end, the guy is just trying to say that he will be a propagandist of official US policy and he is taking a very despicable example to show how unquestioningly submissive he is.
I cannot see why anyone would do that, least of all a journalist, but everybody has reasons.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He didn’t specify when so now is as just as likely as later. If you say something that stupid with your name attached you should be prepared for the reactions.
Re: Re: Re:
The real reason that he isn’t in jail is because that speech violates no laws. As offensive as it may be, he has every right to say it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you say it in reference to a politician, law officer, intelligence type, head of state, etc … then they will twist the law and arrest you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe, but if so, the person wouldn’t be in jail long if at all. Usually, cases like you’re talking about are ones where the speech was at least ambiguous (could have been interpreted as a threat). That ambiguity gives them the hook.
Grunwald’s statement has no such ambiguity. It’s obviously not a threat, nor is in incitement of anything at all.
(I hate being in the position of defending his speech, but defend it I must.)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The “/s” tag indicates sarcasm.
And, I said that because of the many times the US has taken someone in for speaking like that on the internet.
Re: Re:
But if you threaten someone over facebook, you are going to get the SWAT all over you!
Police state
So you can get jailed for criticizing Obama, but goons like Michael Grunwald get to openly propose the murder of Julian Assange? Yes, democratic indeed.
Re: Police state
” … openly propose the murder of Julian Assange”
Or the leader of a sovereign nation … this guy has a lot in common with Pat Robertson
Re: Police state
Who’s in jail for criticizing Obama?
Re: Re: Police state
Seriously, if that was a thing I’d print out pages of facebook posts of annoying relatives.
Now before you all think I’m some super Obama supporter I’m not… but hate the guy for what he’s done. Not for some tin foil nut case reasons which seem to flood the wacko market these days.
Hell sometimes the wackos come up with offences that fall far bellow the these horrifying NSA revelations.
We’re that close of a very disgusting fascist world. The guy should be arrested and trialed for murder instigation apology. And fired for this incredible unethical publication.
Re: Re:
Amazing how if a famous person says something that’s not PC, the media goes on a tirade about it, yet this “journalist” (and I use that term loosely) makes a jovial comment about someone else’s impending death by drone strike(!) and he’ll walk away unscathed.
Our country is fast devolving into a fascist nightmare.
Re: Re:
In Michael Grunwald’s own opinion
It’s not Fascism when we do it!
That sentence largely sums up a lot of US policy, especially anything ‘security’ related.
Re: Isn't Time Magazine...
the same magazine that once named Hitler as “Man of The Year”?
Re: Re: Isn't Time Magazine...
It is. And, under their criteria, it was justified. Being named “Man of the Year” isn’t an endorsement, or an accolade. It’s Time’s way of pointing out the person they think “for better or for worse, …has done the most to influence the events of the year.” In 1938, that was absolutely Adolf Hitler.
How is killing an individual for political/philosophical reasons NOT a terrorist act? Clearly he needs to be detained and have his electronics taken away the next time he goes to the airport.
I propose that everyone find his local jurisdiction, call up the local PD and report this guy for inciting terrorism.
Because that’s what this is.
Re: Re:
Post the information when you find it. I’ll call.
Re: Re: Re:
According to his Time biog, he lives in Miami. Going to corroborate now.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
….and corroborated. He lives in Miami Beach, FL.
After all, regardless of what you think of his articles, he just broke the law.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, he really didn’t, by any stretch of the imagination.
Re: Re: Grunwald's personal data.
Ask on 4Chan /b. Anonymous provides.
Re: Re: Re: Grunwald's personal data.
There has got to be so many Geneva Convention violations over getting that lot involved…
Re: Re:
While I don’t think that Grunwald’s statement comes close to inciting anything, let alone terrorism, this statement certainly is incitement of harassment.
TIME – The Biased News Source
Re: Re:
I honestly don’t know of a single news source which isn’t biased.
Re: Re: Re:
A news source that isn’t in some way biased isn’t a news source.
– Anonymous Coward
You have to pick several very differently biased sources to see the objective information in a situation. Getting all information from a single source is just feeding the ideology the specific source holds.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The most important thing in journalism is to present the full story, the ‘who, what, when, where, why, and how’ with little-to-no slant. Otherwise, journalism isn’t much more than glorified op-ed pieces with data presented as deemed convenient, in order to put a spin on the story.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but it’s also true that some “news” outlets as less factually accurate than others, regardless of bias. So get your news from a variety of viewpoints, but be picky about which sources you use.
Re: Re: Unbiased news.
The Christian Science Monitor tries really hard to be unbiased.
Re: Re: Re: Unbiased news.
Yes. The CSM is one of the very few places that can be called mainstream who actually do journalism any more.
If you propose to go kill some one with a bomb and tweet like that, you’ll be liable to get a special visit. Probably one of the FBI agents undercover will be willing to give you a hand. Even supply you with plans, fake bombs, the whole works. Then when you move to use all that, the FBI will be happy to arrest you and set you on your merry way through the legal system.
So why isn’t the FBI visiting this guy? I mean he’s right out there on one of the most public of public places saying he’d like to see someone dead.
Re: The difference is:
If you say I’m gonna kill some guy, you’re threatening to commit terror.
If you say Someone should kill this guy, you’re instigating terror.
If you say My government should kill this guy, you’re advocating policy.
Re: Re: The difference is:
The act of killing or threatening to is not in and of itself terrorism.
Time was.
Re: Re:
Time lost another reader today.
*Marlin Perkins Voice*
And if you watch closely you can see the wild reporter in heat. Here he is presenting, showing the dominate ones he is receptive to receiving what they are willing to give him. See how he as assumed the submissive position, showing he is no threat.
Rush LImbaugh was gleeful about the Gulf War.
With his “Bomb, Bomb, Iraq” song and constant cheering. The whole “media” has long been a propaganda machine advocating bigger and more militant gov’t: this person is just specific and blatant, and targets supposed techno-geek Assange.
If you’re surprised to see this attitude among “mainstream” press, it’s just insufficient cynicism combined with inability to see that your own buttons were pushed previously as gov’t provided excuses for war that you accepted without too much questioning. But there’s no “existential” threat to the US-superpower that’s justified any war since Korea, at a stretch.
I can’t wait for the next Times top 100 article, Top 100 Reasons We Love Our Glorious Government Benefactors.
Re: Re:
Maybe they should look at Cracked for journalistic integrity.
the head of a competing news organization
Wikileaks is a news organization? Please.
Re: Re:
In the sense of doing the job the press is supposed to be doing: exposing wrongdoings of the government.
Re: Re:
Wikileaks is a news organization? Please.
Yes it is. And you are welcome.
Just curious as to why you would think that Wikileaks isn’t a new organization?
– they collect information
– they distribute that info
Or in your view of things do only organizations with White House press passes classify as news organizations?
In the US “Patriot” has come to mean Someone that blindly follows and never questions the government. If you question anything, you are a Socialist or a Communist.
Re: Re:
So I’ve noticed. It happens to me all the time, except here, where the smart people are (I’m not including the trolls in this assessment).
At this point
Between this joker and Fareed “If you disagree with my plagiarized article you are un-American” Zakaria I can’t imagine Time has any credibility left, unless of course they actually fired people like this.
From the tone of the tweet one can only assume that Assange jilted Grunwald at some point. He should understand that sometimes one night of bliss or 5 minutes behind the bushes is all there is in a particular relationship. Move on Grunwald, move on.
I can’t wait to write a defense of the pink slip that leaves Michael Grunwald unemployed.
bastard!
what a bastard, having an opinion and all.
Re: bastard!
Of course you can relate, no surprise there.
Re: bastard!
Yes, he has a right to his opinion; however, to state that he (as a journalist) would justify government assassination by drone strike is seriously disconcerting, exhibiting a slave-state mindset of might equals right.
Re: bastard!
No one’s going to take you seriously, Prenda fanboy.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re: bastard!
“horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.”
Trolling much?
Re: Re: Re: bastard!
I only need to look here and here indicate that the comment was grounded in facts.
You really can’t stand any display of due process. My guess is that you have John Steele punish Otis Wright in your sick fantasy dream sequences so you can sleep at night.
You’re not fooling anyone, Prenda fanboy. Enjoy the Streisand effect.
Re: Re: Re:2 bastard!
Again, you attempt to bait and distract from the original post. Since those posts have nothing to do with due process – AND I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRENDA – I would ask the admins to give you the same level of blocking I currently suffer. Clearly you are a liar, nothing more and nothing less, and a troll bent on turning every discussion into something about me.
You are a sick, twisted troll with nothing to add. Go away already.
Re: Re: Re:3 bastard!
You are a sick, twisted troll with nothing to add. Go away already.
Indeed, why haven’t you?
Re: Re: Re:3 bastard!
Again, you attempt to bait and distract from the original post.
Well, that’s just fine and dandy, because that’s what out_of_the_blue, average_joe, darryl and you do on a regular basis.
I would ask the admins to give you the same level of blocking I currently suffer.
You speak of these blocks. According to the timestamps your message came less than half an hour after the message you responded to.
Just like your previous messages, your rebuttal is a joke. This “blocking” clearly doesn’t exist or isn’t working like you claim it is.
Clearly you are a liar, nothing more and nothing less, and a troll bent on turning every discussion into something about me.
Maybe you should’ve considered not making every discussion on Prenda into a character assassination of Otis Wright and focus on the multitude of legal professionals that agree with the even-handedness of what he’s done.
You’re not fooling anyone, bobmail.
Re: bastard!
I know this will shock you, but you don’t get to shout “OPINION!” and render yourself immune to criticism.
Re: bastard!
Grunwald’s opinion is that Julian Assange should die for publishing classified information. Mine is that he’s a dick for saying so. He can have his opinion, and I can have mine. That’s how this works.
Not about personalities
As I’ve seen it put elsewhere: it’s fucking stupid to judge whether a spy program is good or bad based on whether we like the guy who released the docs, or his motives.
“I really wasn’t sure about the wisdom of a massive US surveillance state, but since I saw that activist twerp leaker’s annoying hair and oversized ego I’ve decided I need to white knight the NSA!”
Time = another op designed to implement the reality THEY have created for you. WAKE THE F UP.
Media = Propagandist
It’s sad to say, there are few, if any, REAL journalists today. Meaning objective journalists with no agenda.
Whether it’s CNN, MSNBC, etc with their TOTALLY liberal agenda or FOX with it’s obvious RIGHTWING slant, the fact is, the public can no longer count on journalism to be fair and objective.
Which means more and more sheople blindly accepting whatever idiotic propaganda they spew forth as REAL fact, rather than what it REALLY is… editorialize content with an agenda.
And why this current US administration seems to have the media as their personal lapdog Propagandists is beyond me.
We used to count on the media to keep the politicians honest… now they’re just part of the problem.
Re: Media = Propagandist
That’s because they want us assimilated and divided between two parties of their creation. That way they can control and shape our thinking and our political-social outlook. Independent thought is a no-no.
Given the US Government’s attempts to control their media, I’m inclined to believe that Greenwald’s statement, though pathetically gross, has a hint of sarcasm about it. It seems people (understandingly) didn’t take to the sarcastic comment.
Re: Re:
*Grunwald’s
Time lost all creditably when it got punk out by Scientology back in the 80s…
Re: Re:
You are aware that the basis of the religion of Scientology is around the science fiction novels of one L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard’s failed conjectures about psychology right?
He deleted his tweet and now thinks it was stupid.
MikeGrunwald 18 Aug
Fair point. I’ll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in
MikeGrunwald 18 Aug
It was a dumb tweet. I’m sorry. I deserve the backlash. (Maybe not the anti-Semitic stuff but otherwise I asked for it.)
Re: Re:
But notice how quickly he played the ‘but I’m a victim too!’ card.
Re: Re: Re:
And how he belittles those who hold a different opinion with irrelevent fabricated insults rather than something actually relevent to the discussion.. A telltale sign of the type of “journalist”s they employ there at Time.
And now you know...
This is a perfect example of why the government is in favor of supporting “professional” journalists and not lowly bloggers.
Wasn’t “Time” one of those publishing concerns that the CIA bought, along with “World Weekly News”, to help spread disinformation about UFO’s?
Jealousy rears it’s ugly head.
Well, he's writing Tim Geithner's book....
So….
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/geithner-taps-times-grunwald-for-new-book-164748.html
Re: Well, he's writing Tim Geithner's book....
He’ll need lots of Ghost writer’s ink.
Tried to cancel my subscription to Time
but I don’t have my info with me. Will do so.
I can’t wait for Time Magazine to fire him.
So write it
Nothing is stopping him from writing it right now. In fact, I’ll give him some semicolons to take along on the journey: ;;;;;;;;;;. Hope that’s enough.
Dude if that happens… I don’t want to believe it will happen. That would be crossing a very fine line and setting a precedence from which there is no turning back.
Seriously tho, fuck that guy for even suggesting he would be all for that.
Re: Re:
We’ve already intentionally targeted and killed US citizens abroad with drones. They may be douche-bags, but they’re still entitled to due process.
The precedent-cat is already out of the bag.
Re: Re: Re:
It would be a deliberate and extremely public political assassination. That is far more brazen than offing some nobody they can easily affiliate with xenophobia toward Islamics and most of the American public wouldn’t be any wiser. I don’t think that precedence is out of the bag. That is when it goes from being a dirty little secret that many Americans won’t even acknowledge to it being the White House saying “What? We offed some journalist who posted our dirty laundry. You gonna come at us or what?! Didn’t think so, pussies!”
It’s time, for Time, to close up shop.
So this guy is basically saying its cool we will just murder Julian Assange and I’ll cover it up.
Re: Re:
No, he’s saying “go right ahead! Blow him to kingdom come. I’ll just be over here telling everyone how awesome it was that you did it.”
A journalist that writes that a fellow journalist should be murdered by this government, or any government, or extra judicial body, is expressing his or her own death wish. One would have to ask are you any safer then the one who’s death you call for.
Honestly...
I could see someone saying that sarcastically. “I can’t wait to defend the US’s assassination of Julius Assange.” With the unspoken message of “It’s my job, I have no goddamn choice and have to do it, I suspect it’s a matter of when not if… what the hell is my goddamn country going to? I need a drinking problem”