Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2095 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Che Pasa:
[Read the article: The Politico's John Harris replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn is way too accommodating, in my estimation. He rationalizes Mr. Harris's stonewalling, perhaps so he won't be driven away.
Why would I possibly rationalize John Harris out of fear of driving him away? Maybe I'm actually describing his motives as I see them.
Not everyone who commits evil acts is consciously aware that they are committing evil acts. Many who do so think they are acting in accordance with the Good. For whatever it's worth, I think that describes George Bush.
Similarly, those who operate in accordance with corrupt and distorted rules of behavior aren't always aware that they are doing so. Some think the rules to which they are adhering are actually good and just.
Therefore, some people who produce horrible, biased, corrupt journalism are themselves horrible, consciously biased and corrupt. But others who produce the same type of journalism are people who are basically well-intentioned and want to act ethically. That's just fact, and I'm not going to promote simplistic demonization descriptions that I don't believe are accurate.
As I said, I didn't write this e-mail with the expectation that I would post it. I wrote it as part of an exchange I was having with someone with the intention of drawing out as much as possible what and how they think, and perhaps persuading them to see things that I think are true but that they're not recognizing. If you want someone to be open to what you're saying, basic conventions of politenss are necessary, but they're hardly evidence that someone is serving as a shill - "rationalizing someone's behavior."
My criticisms of Harris' new venturs have been rather harsh, and I haven't retracted or diluted any of it. I just think it's important to avoid caricatures and cartoons when talking about "journalist", and I think that for only one reason: becuase those caricatures and cartoons are false.
-
Che Pasa:
[Read the article: The Politico's John Harris replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember, he doesn't "know" you. Thus, the fact he deigned to reply at all should be sufficient.
Almost as good as if you'd gotten a nod from William Randolph Hearst himself.
You are an extremely corrupting influence, I think by intent. I was trying hard to block out and ignore ("rise above" is, I guess, accurate as well) what one could see as the extremely patronizing and noblesse oblige insulting undercurrent of his responses -- because I thought a dialogue would be more constructive than a food fight (the proverbial metal chair) -- and here you go, inflamming all of that, almost forcing me to get angry about it.
A nod from William Randolph Heart himself - well-said, sadly accurate. They think that only they understand the lofty function of journalism, and we are all the raving, stupid masses incapable of comprehending their purpose, and with the Internets, they now have to throw a few crumbs from their elevated balconies in the form of elementary lessons. Thanks for unlesahing all that, Che.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: Observations about John Harris' replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not really sure I get your point, other than as a semantic re-shaping of the word "partisan." Stephen Colbert was mocking the notion that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." That's the premise on which Bush followers disregarded, for instance, reports of escalating violence in Iraq, or the collapsing popularity of Bush - "oh, that's just liberal bias talking." It wasn't. They were facts.
I think the role of the media is to uncover and disclose important facts that the Government is concealing. I think they ought to behave exactly the same way whether the government is run by Democrats or Republicans. In what possible sense of the word "partisan" would that fit?
-
Reality Kid?
[Read the article: Observations about John Harris' replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A small point, perhaps not worth making, not sure - the Washington Post poll example is not really an example of reporters accepting/regurgitating government-provided information uncritically. If I understood, this was not a government-sponsored poll, although the poll results arguably reflect the, um, party line.
The point isn't the poll itself. It's that the Bush administration did all sorts of things to create the impression in the minds of most Americnas that Saddam was connected to, even involved in, the 9/11 attacks, and the media completely failed to make clear how false that was. In fact, they often passed along the statements which created that impression.
One of the fuctions which the national press is supposed to serve is to ensure that we have a minimally informed citizenry - and, relatedly, to prevent the government from perpetrating massive frauds on the people. If the press doesn't do that, what do they do? The poll shows how glaringly they failed, since we went to war based on a self-evident falsehood.
I agree with other commenters that there are multiple causes for why Americans believed that, including the comment above which insightfully suggested that Americans simply assumed it - after all, why would we go invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? But the administration pushed that theme in many ways, and the press simply failed to present the real terms of the debate about whether to invade Iraq.
-
That should have been "Reality Kid":
[Read the article: Observations about John Harris' replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question mark was unintended and seems obnoxious.