Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Blindly loyal party partisans
[Read the article: Democrats may come to regret not opposing Bush on torture]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm honestly amazed - and more than a little disturbed -- at how many people think that some sort of grave wrong has been committed when someone voices criticisms of the Democratic Party. We're all supposed to be good Party followers and praise the Party Leaders even while they help to legalize torture and permanent lawless detention powers? We're supposed to refrain from criticizing the Party Leaders and simply accept that they know best and follow along meekly and obediently? That sounds a lot like the behavior of Bush followers, and not something I'm particularly interested in emulating.
The horrified reaction to anyone who dares speak ill of the Party is particularly bewildering given that much of the criticism being voiced is of a tactical nature -- i.e., arguing that Democrats are jeopardizing their electoral chances by failing to demonstrate resolve and energize their base. Why would someone who wants the Democrats to win refrain from criticizing them when they are making strategic error that decrease their chances of victory?
There are paid consultants and spokespeople for the DNC who will always praise Democrats and never criticize them. For those who want Stalinist-like blind praise for the Democratic Party, it is not that hard to find. But most bloggers, and most Americans who exchange political ideas over the Internet, are Americans first, and their allegiance is to their politcal values, not to any political Party. Torture and due process-less detentions are no less repugnant or dangerous when approved by Democrats than when they're approved by Republicans, and anybody who finds those things reprehensible and un-American has the responsibility to speak out against any political official, regardless of party, who endoreses and enables those things.
Beltway Democrats expect you to meekly accept whatever they give you because of your party allegaince, and apparently, there is a not insubstantial number of people willing to comply (and to attack those who refuse to comply). That's exactly why our national political figures have been so unresponsive - because they feel entitled to dictate from the top-down what the Party will do, and the loyal members quietly and gratefully accept it.
Personally, the last thing I'm going to do is abdicate my rights and responsibilities as a citizen to criticize political officials when then they profoundly fail in their duties. It is the responsiblity of national Democrats to energize their base and make people enthusiastic about voting for them. Just take a quick and random look around the liberal blogs, as they discuss the Democrats' complete capitulation to the worst excesses of the Bush movement, and you will see how effective they are in that objective. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't the case or dishonestly praise them for doing something that is craven and wrong.
-
This blog is not live yet
[Read the article: Calls to investigate the media's pre-war behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everything you see here is still preliminary, being tested and revised, etc. Nothing is starting until Monday.
-
Michelle
[Read the article: Neoconservatives hate liberty as much as they love war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, in all the time I have read you, I don't recall -- someone correct me if I am wrong -- your getting a direct, same day response to your very valid points. This is one of the very crucial points of much of your criticism of the media. The Washington Times may not correct what you pointed out in the way they should, but now, they know loud and clear you are here.
This is a very astute observation, and was definitely a factor in my deciding to move. When I called the WashTimes, being able to say that I was with Salon and had written about the Op-Ed "this morning at Salon" (rather than: "on my blog") definitely elevated their attention level and is what made them much more responsive than they otherwise would have been. I think that will be useful in many contexts in the future, in compelling responses where the inclination might otherwise be to ignore, obtaining interviews, etc.
-
PAUL:
[Read the article: The media is continuously violating its own anonymity policies re: Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately, as businesses, the function of media is simply to generate the greatest amount of revenue while incurring the least amount of expenses.
I just don't agree with this. For one, they hold themselves out as something different and it is therefore proper, and appropriate, to point out the discrepency between the function they claim they are performing and what they are actually doing.
Secondly, all sorts of profit-driven professions have duties and responsibilities that are independent of, and might even conflict with, the goal of generating a profit. Lawyers, physicians, and psychologists, for instance, all run businesses and want to make money, but they also have professional obligations that have nothing to do with profit.
Third, in a free market, companies are free to do what they want, but those who receive special rights and privileges from the government have corresponding obligations which deviate from their profit function. Television networks, for instance, receive braodcast licenses and the right to use airwaves but have imposed on them the obligation to serve the public interest. Major League Baseball receives an anti-trust exemption, and therefore has all sorts of obligations to fulfill beyond just generating profit.
The press continuously claims the rights granted to it by the First Amendment. In exchange for those rights are responsiblities.
Finally, the behavior that is being criticized here does not really serve a profit-generating goal. How does mindlessly reporting government claims enhance profit. Wouldn't exposing government corruption and deceit create controvery and therefore more attention, higher ratings and hire profit?