Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Casual Observer:
[Read the article: Do national journalists agree with Gary Kamiya?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For example, should people like Greenwald continue to hammer away at the corporate media in order to provoke change (not suggesting this is GG's goal)? Or conversely, should there be an effort to simply write them off, and produce new venues that will simply replace existing media as we know it.
My own belief is that good, healthy journalism will be produced faster and with least effort by bypassing the corporate media machine, which is too deeply entrenched and--as GG opines here--largely unable to perceive that a problem exists.
I agree on both counts - this is they key question, and I agree with your answer. But I don't think creating alternatives to the national press is mutually exclusive with criticizing it. I think continuing to criticize it, even when building alternatives, is vital for two reasons:
(1) that pressure can marginally change behavior -- through persuasion, shame, and from those in the press who are well-intentioned, and
(2) criticisms of the national press is what fuels and builds up the need for the alternatives -- i.e., by exposing the national press as lacking in credibility, it creates a demand and a place for alternatives.
People will only be receptive to an alternative once they realize there is something wrong with what they already have.
-
El Cid:
[Read the article: Do national journalists agree with Gary Kamiya?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Again, I find it remarkable that there is such a remarkable degree of consistency in how the US' primarily corporate news media fall so evenly on the side of power and the hawks whenever hawkish foreign policies are proposed, and seem to only come out with hard skepticism & genuine criticism once those policies have gone bad.
The problem with speaking at this level of generality -- "find it remarkable that there is such a remarkable degree of consistency in how the US' primarily corporate news media fall so evenly on the side of power and the hawks " -- is that it's impossible to prove or disprove. If I list 50 different prominent people in the "corporate media" who, for instance, currently oppose militarism against Iran or who favor withdrawal from Iraq, are going to say that those are just a handful of examples and/or they are just there to give an illusion of balance?
But perhaps it's the case that some of the people who invest in, run, and otherwise control corporations are just as smart as you and I. They are perhaps just as perceptive as people like Ralph Reed, or Karl Rove, or we liberal bloggers, who are able to simultaneously look at issues strategically for short and long term consequences.
But huge numbers of extremely wealthy people are doves and support dovish policies and dovish candidates -- and huge nubmers support tax increases, heightened regulations, unions and increased social spendings. Not everyone is motivated by their own political gain. Human beings are more complex than that.
But again, if I list them, you're likely to say that those are just exceptions that prove the rule (the way people say if they claim that the Corporate Media will never publish stories harmful to the Government and someone lists all the times they have done exactly that).
And if you believe that the corporate media is inherently pro-rich and pro-hawk, what is the solution?
It would be a truly bizarre occurrence in human history if the U.S. alone would have developed a culture with enormous amounts of concentrated economic and governmental power, yet somehow no subtle infrastructure by which the wealthiest and most powerful are able to perceive and when possible influence events to their interests.
-
bamage:
[Read the article: A light bulb goes off on the Washington Post editorial page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where is the "proper" place to follow up on a previous day's post? F'rinstance, I'd like to know if yesterday's post was sent to ABC, and if it generated any reply. I'm assuming there was nothing substantive, otherwise GG would've posted it. But if one were inclined to ask, should one do it HERE, or THERE?
I always try to read all comments, but oftentimes I don't go back to the post from the day before and read the ongoing comments - just one of the things that gets cut due to time constraints.
Actually, I did just get via email - within the last hour or so -- a "substantive" reply from ABC to the anthrax story, which I will post either later tonight or tomorrow morning.
-
Whispers:
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's an ad for "Notes on a Scandal" blocking a paragraph of text. Please try to do a better job making sure that the advertising doesn't block the content.
That happened to me, too. It obviously shouldn't. I've notified Salon about the problem and asked them to fix it.
-
MacK
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hesitant though I am to criticize Glenn Greenwald -- but there is Cat-shit in this story
For cr*ss@kes would you add the factoid that makes Jennings and ABC look really stupid --
There is absolutely nothing exotic about Bentonite, you can buy it in most grocery stores, just look for Kitty Litter!
I wrote at length about how commonplace bentonite is in the first post I wrote on this topic. This post was confined to ABC's claim that they already corrected their story.