Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Quick question for Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald is a great writer, media critic, and civil liberties advocate.  He makes many good points, including this one the other day, in regards to objective journalism and the lack thereof in America today:
"Objectivity" does not require refraining from pointing out the falsity of government claims.  The opposite is true; objectivity requires that a journalist do exactly that: treat factually false statements as false.  "Objectivity" is breached not when a journalist calls a lie a "lie," but when they refuse to do so, when they treat lies told by powerful political officials as though they're viable, reasonable interpretations of subjective questions.  The very idea that a journalist is engaged in "opinion-making" or is "taking sides" by calling a lie a "lie" is ludicrous; the only "side" a journalist is taking is with facts, with the truth.  It's when a journalist fails to identity a false statement as such that they are "taking sides"-- they're siding with those in power by deceitfully depicting their demonstrably false statements as something other than lies.
Well said.  Could not agree more.


Glenn also wrote this in regards to Part I of the series of articles titled "Top Secret America" Dana Priest and William Arkin wrote for the Washington Post:
Virtually every fact Priest and Arkin disclose underscores this point.  Here is their first sentence: "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work."  This all "amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight."  We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real U.S. Government: funtioning in total darkness, beyond elections and parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization. 
If Greenwald really was the type of "Objective" journalist that he writes so eloquently about, why would he let the demonstrably false narrative of the 9/11 attacks put forth by Priest and Arkin-- "...in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,[...]"-- go unchallenged?  Why would he let his readers assume-- falsely-- that the official story of 9/11 put forth by the U.S. government, amplified by Priest and Arkin without the slightest bit of skepticism or real reporting, and assumed to be factually accurate by Greenwald, is the truth?  Why wouldn't he point out the numerous flaws, inconsistencies, omissions, and outright fabrications in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?  If he was truly an "Objective" journalist, he most certainly would.


If we are ever going to expose, bring to justice, and eliminate the crime network that has wrapped it's tentacles around the throat of the U.S. government, we have to know the truth.  And we need our best writers, journalists and thinkers to expose the truth.  About everything.


Some are doing a good job of that.  When it comes to the most important event in modern history, that was schemed and implemented by the very forces that are committing the crimes people like Greenwald expose on a daily basis, he is uncharacteristically silent.  Not only silent, but complicit in the evils that event has unleashed.  Greenwald admitted this himself in the first article I cited:
It's when a journalist fails to identity a false statement as such that they are "taking sides"-- they're siding with those in power by deceitfully depicting their demonstrably false statements as something other than lies.
So, which side are you on Glenn?   

2 comments:

  1. He is a jewish gatekeeper like Chomp-sky. Don't expect a response...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haven't received one.....

    Check out the Zionist shills in the comment section of this article today:

    http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/02/16/ivans/view/index27.html?show=all

    I make a comment, and respond to a few of the weak minded shills, but it's typical back and forth. The Good Guys dominated the dialogue I'd say though. Lol

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.