Shameful: Other Journalists Now A Part Of Ridiculous Smear Campaign Against Glenn Greenwald

from the digging,-digging,-digging dept

This is just getting ridiculous. We've covered the various stories of politicians and journalists suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested and charged for merely doing investigative journalism and reporting on the leaks of Ed Snowden. However, Greenwald himself has now revealed that a variety of mainstream press outlets are working on stories that are clearly designed to smear him, digging into minor events from over a decade ago to somehow attack his credibility. Greenwald is (smartly) getting out in front of these by revealing the details ahead of time, though it's ridiculous that he should need to. We won't even mention what the "issues" are, because they're trifling nothings from a decade or so ago that weren't newsworthy then and are not newsworthy today. What they are, clearly, are attempts to attack Greenwald's character for merely being one of the key reporters who has helped to expose massive government overreach in surveillance.

The actual story is about the government's overreach. But, rather than deal with that, reporters from newspapers like the NY Times want to write Greenwald into the story? Really? We have a huge opportunity for journalists to dig into the real story: just how much spying on people various governments around the globe are doing today. And yet, instead, they want to focus on minor quibbles from a decade ago involving the reporter who actually did the work they failed to do? It's a shameful reflection on the state of much of the media today.

Filed Under: ed snowden, glenn greenwald, journalism, nsa, nsa surveillance, smear campaign
Companies: ny times


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2013 @ 6:59pm

    Re:

    The justification for the surveillance is for national security and because it's in compliance with the Constitution, there has been no challenged regarding it that indicates anyone (who matters) feels it is not constitutional, and reading the laws, rulings and the constitution I feel that opinion is correct.

    You might agree with the justifications or you might not, does not matter what you agree with or not, or if you think there is some other justification.

    Unless you are willing to challenge it in a court, or you are a part of the Supreme Court, NO ONE CARES about your specific opinion. (well some might, but they don't matter either).

    The rule of law, the constitution, and the legal system is NOT based on a popular vote, they are based in law.
    IF it were based on a popular vote, it is clear you would lose that vote that it is not required and it is not constitutional. So basically your screwed !

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.