Greenwald, feeling the heat

Greenwald is getting testy, and I don't blame him.

The evil press, of which he is supposed by many to be part, is now snooping into his personal background, which will lighten the heavy hearts of more than a few NSA defenders, who will promptly spot some saintliness in the heretofore evil.

But, what the hell, that's politics--a rather vulgar game, played by vulgar, unchanging rules. They don't bother me (much).

What did bother me about Greenwald's defense, however, is this passage of unbelievable naivete: 

I never quite understood why the Nixon administration, in response to his release of the Pentagon Papers, would want to break into the office of Ellsberg's psychoanalyst and steal his files. That always seemed like a non sequitur to me: how would disclosing Ellsberg's most private thoughts and psychosexual assessments discredit the revelations of the Pentagon Papers?

It is a non sequitur (in logic, not politics). There's nothing "seeming" about it. And Greenwald, being of a linear, lawyerly mind, had to know that. So why the feigned puzzlement?  

I can only guess. I could be magnificently wrong, but my guess is that he needed to find a way to compare the Ellsberg case to his own, in the Snowden story. Thus from the baffling Ellsberg Question, we get Ellsberg's answer:

When I asked Ellsberg about that several years ago, he explained that the state uses those tactics against anyone who dissents from or challenges it simply to distract from the revelations and personally smear the person with whatever they can find to make people uncomfortable with the disclosures.

Well, as they say, fucking duh.

Yet here--to me--is the really fascinating part. Greenwald needn't have played that game. He could have taken a more direct route: The Ellsberg and Snowden cases are similar in that both men revealed what was already, commonly suspected--that, in the first instance, successive presidential administrations had consistently lied to the American public about our involvement in Southeast Asia; in the second instance, that the government was "secretly" amassing vast amounts of private data as part of its anti-terrorism efforts.

The commonality lies not in the subject material itself, of course, but in the reality that most everyone sorta "knew" this stuff, prior to its blockbuster revelations. Which says something paradoxic about secrecy.

Comments

[japa21]

"The evil press, of which he is supposed by many to be part, is now snooping into his personal background, which will lighten the heavy hearts of more than a few NSA defenders, who will promptly spot some saintliness in the heretofore evil."

Not quite sure just what you are getting at there. First of all, most people really have never, nor should they have, considered Greenwald part of the press or a journalist.

Secondly, many people really don't care what Greenwald's past was.

Thirdly, your post, in conflating what Nixon did re Ellsberg and what some "media" types are doing to Greenwald, is mixing apples and oranges.

And finally, there really is no comparison between what Ellsberg did and what Snowden has done. Not just that there is a dramatic difference in information leaked, but also in the leakers response post leaking. Ellsberg, being honorable, turned himself into authorities. Snowden has shown himself to be a craven coward.

[Turgidson]

Just a minor observation - Greenwald has been testy for years, what with his immediate denunciations of anyone who disagrees with him as an idiot, Obot, traitor, etc. That's always been an annoying tic of his.

His prickliness doesn't take away from the reporting he's doing (or at least, it shouldn't), but it doesn't help him avoid the "smear the messenger" campaign either.

My cynicism about the political conversation and media in this country went off the charts long ago, so I'm not at all surprised that "the story" has been Snowden's daffiness or Greenwald's past. Disappointed, sure. But not the least bit surprised.

[japa21]

Oh, and amassing tons of private data? Hardly, especially since there was no ability to link any of the data to specific persons without breaking many laws.

[Chris Andersen]

Why the assumption that critics of Greenwald will automatically be happy that journalists are digging into his private life? I can disagree with him *and* disagree with those who attack him on a personal level.

[Robert Lipscomb]

If Greenwald is proven to be a pedophile or simply a terrible journalist, it says nothing about Snowden or the NSA. The same principle applies to Snowden. Greenwald and Snowden could be liars and buffoons, and the NSA could still be part of the Evil Empire.

As far as "NSA defenders", I have heard no one on this site defend the NSA. For those of us on the other side of the aisle, I believe the consensus opinion is that the appropriateness and desirability of the NSA surveillance is simply an open question. Others, such as Greenwald, assert it is an open-and-shut case that the NSA is bad or evil.

I, and I think the others, remain unconvinced until it is proven.

[Charlieford]

It's not just an intent to distract. There's a pretty strong conviction among the masses that character is all-determining--that any revelation, opinion, policy proposal, what have you--that originates from someone with a flawed character must be flawed itself. That's the true power of the smear.

[Chad]

Reading through certain of these comments, I see that the individuals "digging into [Greenwald's] private life" are classified as "journalists," whereas "most people" have quite appropriately (or so it is asserted) "never ... considered Greenwald part of the press or a journalist."

Does working for a foreign newspaper, then, not qualify one as a (real) journalist? Was I unaware of a new accreditation board for those purporting to enter the journalism "profession"? Or is "Real Journalist" merely a new category, potentially analogous to "Real American," to which only those of certain (inter alia) ideological commitments might aspire?

My curiosity is killing me.

[Kburns]

I think that he presented this information the way he did is because he is a lawyer and knows that not everyone gets this concept. Smear the messenger. . . and distract/forget the message/ issue. He is pointing out this standard PR Public Relations tactic/ methodology. . .. For the uninitiated. . . so hopefully they will be able to understand the process of hiding the issue with titillation and false or irrelevant distractions.

Character assassination. While we are all sitting ducks to be targeted by the NSA. We can be discriminated against (looking for a job? Only right-wing Christians need apply) . . and they have made it 'legal'. Thank you John Yoo, David Addington, Enron, and all the other enablers.

[Peter G]

I find nothing either odd or unfair about Mr Greenwald getting a taste of his own medicine. If you make a career of questioning everyone else's motivation and integrity, pretty much exclusively without anything resembling evidence, merely for the high crime of daring to disagree with Mr Greenwald then you pretty much have to expect the same treatment. I have little fear Glenn will fold under the burden.