Perhaps only Glenn Greenwald could go on at length in passionate condemnation of a film he hasn't seen--a journalistic disgrace so irresponsible that he thrice wimps out and doubles back to "remind" the reader that "I have not seen this film" but "am ... writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated" [italics mine].
No mentally competent reader would possibly buy that defense after reading Greenwald's stunningly obvious review, so Greenwald explodes in an initial "update" that "Anyone claiming I've reviewed this film is plagued either by severe reading comprehension problems and/or a desire to distort." (I like that really clarifying "and/or" part.) In his second update, Greenwald attempts some subject-diverting mush about the merits of film reviewing sans film viewing, that sort of thing, which is so manic it's downright embarrassing.
The film that Greenwald hasn't seen and isn't reviewing is Zero Dark Thirty, the new cinematic splash about finding and killing bin Laden. To repeat, Greenwald insists that he isn't reviewing, he is merely "writing about the reaction to the film." Yet he proceeds to write such point-blank, matter-of-fact passages as "the film's glorifying claims about torture are demonstrably, factually false"; "What this film does ... is uncritically presents as fact the highly self-serving, and factually false, claims by the CIA that its torture techniques were crucial in finding bin Laden"; and "torture is depicted as indispensable in finding America's most hatred enemy."
Oh, the irony. Greenwald has become the Bush-Cheney administration. He has his Curveball sources (those who have seen the film), whose perhaps wildly mistaken or intentionally misleading impressions he takes and converts into absolute facts for public consumption. Greenwald bothers not with his own human intelligence about the film: he buffers, he filters, he distances himself from the actual product so that his plausible deniability might remain intact should his propagandistic conclusions prove an immense humiliation. And on all counts, he fails.
By the way, Wired.com's national security reporter, Spencer Ackerman, has seen the film, about which he observes: Film Director Kathryn "Bigelow is being presented as a torture apologist, and it’s a bum rap.... Zero Dark Thirty does not present torture as a silver bullet that led to bin Laden; it presents torture as the ignorant alternative to that silver bullet."
Of course, it may be that Mr. Ackerman is merely plagued by severe viewing-comprehension problems and/or a desire to distort.