On the Meaning of Journalistic Hypocrisy: The Death of #TeamPierre

The NSA leaks are a pretty big deal. There is one person Edward Snowden empowered with these documents who we know understands it&;s a big deal because he tells us how important it is everyday and he wouldn&;t lie to us ever because he&;s a lawyer.Like all big deals, people are paying attention. That&;s kind of what makes them big deals. I&;ll not be the one to demand rules be followed here but perhaps we can agree it&;s sound advice to behave sensibly if the whole world is watching? At least, until whatever super important issue you&;re addressing gets addressed, shouldn&;t you at least try to not act like a clueless buffoon? image A paired example is when two stories with similar elements occur at roughly the same time. imageYou look for differences in media coverage of stories that should have identical coverage. Study of any differences predicts coverage will be biased toward the corporate interests of the news entity and its partners, including the general corporate system, which includes our pro-business state.There is nothing more devastating to a journalist than a blatantly hypocritical and immensely relevant paired example, yet some journalists are oblivious to this potential and end up exposing themselves as liars and frauds. With Glenn this happens because he has yet to make the distinction between corporate law and corporate media.In court you try underhanded tricks and the moral claim you make in one case doesn&;t need to match a moral claim you make in another. You&;re arguing before a judge or jury, trial ends, then you get to use those same tricks next trial. Doesn&;t matter what side you&;re arguing, just argue it, that&;s what your client is paying you to do. Lawyer Glenn isn&;t expecting opposing council to jump up and say &;But you argued murder was bad in the last trial you were in. Now that you&;re defending a murderer you are claiming it&;s not so bad? How can you explain this?&; Journalist Glenn is still Lawyer Glenn and still thinks he is legally obligated to give his clients the best defense money can buy.It&;s important to understand I am not just randomly picking tweets and saying they prove this or that. This goes back to 2013 - when Dave Winer had an extended discussion with Greenwald on twitter regarding Glenn&;s On the Meaning of Journalistic Independence response to Mark Ames at Pando. imageYou&;ll notice I was nipping at Glenn&;s heals back then. imageI&;m sure Glenn was annoyed, as he was actually right. There really wasn&;t anything he could do at that point to satisfy concerns about his future reporting. At one point Glenn for retweeting me;
You say you&;ve been reading me for awhile but re-tweet the false claim that I only target govt power but not corporate power?
This is why Glenn is so fun. He has all he needs: you can&;t judge our reporting yet as it&;s too early. That&;s not enough and he has to say my tweet, which predicted Greenwald would only attack state, and not corporate power, was &;false.&; He had to smear me as he silenced what we now know was the truth. Also, not only was he right in that he hadn&;t done much at FLM so my bizarre rant was meaningless - at least for now, but he was right in being confused by Winer. Glenn wasn&;t asking &;Why did you ask me about reporting on corporations?&; but rather &;Why did you ask me about reporting on corporations?" Winer quickly divorces himself from my tweet, "No no, Glenn. I didn&;t ok any commie piss. Innit?"What Greenwald failed to understand was Winer had not read my tweet. My reply to Winer had simply given him another opening to his three day dead chat with Glenn which now included me and Omidyar. So Glenn was fucked, sure, but he hadn&;t replied to me, Winer had, by accident. (He and Glenn have since blocked me and now that Taibbi has proven Omidyar is a fraud Winer picks this odd time to switch sides and question Pando&;s ethics.) Where Glenn fucked up was replying to Ames in the first place. Why, Glenn. Why why why? Well that&;s simple, actually. Glenn Greenwald fucking hates Mark Ames. Glenn&;s On the Meaning of piece was, in fact, this:I FUCKING HATE MARK AMES SO FUCKING MUCH I REFUSE TO PUBLISH THE NAME OF THAT &;PANDO REPORTER&; ON MY GOD FUCK IT NEWS SITE AS I WRITE 5,000 WORDS INSULTING HIM.Remember, Ames simply reported something that was listed somewhere already by Omidyar Network. Pierre tried to laugh it off but not every shocking reveal piece about corporations are Wikileak hacks. As Glenn knows the media is subservient to power - so sometimes all it takes to write a great story about corporate power is to write a story about corporate power. People are like&; &;Fuuuuck. Why did you write about corporations? Shit, here comes the boss.&; It really is just a matter of reporting honestly on these companies rather than trying to pave the way for their libertarian paradise. Just in case, sometime down the road, you bury Lawyer Glenn and give Journalism Glenn a crack at it, just remember how simple it can be.But Lawyer Glenn is still mad and he starts having flashbacks of The Nation when he ran flak against Ames and Levine on behalf of libertarian privatization propaganda. Why not, thought Lawyer Glenn, do it again? Maybe if I write an epic piece Pando will take down the story and Pierre will buy me a pony. Why wouldn&;t he have faith in his marketing team, formed from a never ending class of graduate suckers from Glenn&;s school of smear and deny? But even so, Glenn, don&;t chase Ames into the East. Even you can&;t be that stupid. Journalist Glenn should have just let it go but could not.In February Omidyar hired Matt Taibbi for first look. What we were told was that Taibbi, on the strength of his reporting on Wall Street, answered all the questions Winer said were still pending. Media critics like Jay Rosen, who worked for First Look, assured us that Omidyar is interested in bringing hard-hitting investigative journalism to the masses. Doing so is very important to Pierre, we were told. So hiring Taibbi is a logical part of that altruistic desire, right?Glenn Greenwald sure seemed to think so:imageWell now. Did I just get Sick Burned by award-winning Libertarian activist Glenn Greenwald? Fuck me and dang it heck.I don&;t want to seem self-important or deluded but it REALLY seems like Glenn is talking directly to me here. Two months after Winer told Glenn and Pierre that Pando&;s concerns would be valid until they proved otherwise, Glenn is quoting my tweet and daring me to speak up regarding Taibbi&;s hiring. Remember, he&;s already silenced me as a pinko liar. This is just taunting. Think of the depth of the man&;s cynicism that he publicly moons me during his moment of P.R. stunt triumph, despite the fact he&;s full of shit.Taibbi sold his reputation to Pierre for the better part of a year to answer concerns raised by the hated Carr, Ames, and Levine and 2014 became The Year of Saint Glenn. image But Carr is no dummy. Yasha Levine spent the year putting on a demonstration of how to be an investigative journalist in tech. I think he inspired Assange to write a book about Google with his reporting on the tech&; wait for it &; corporation, and he didn&;t have a cache of endless tech secrets, or an army of State Dept. techies leaking what they want when they want it, to do it with.Ames wrote a devastating piece about eBay and its close working relationship with law enforcement and a lot more about Omidyar. Carr revealed Omidyar&;s frequent visits to Obama&;s White House. While I began compiling data to see whether or not my concern that Glenn was being paid to propagandize on behalf Pierre Omidyar&;s interests was justified. ::cough:: was never in question ::cough cough:: Okay. On to the paired example that you&;re not gonna believe. Charles Davis &;leaked&; emails from his boss at Vice to show how &;brands&; were protected in corporate media. Greenwald promoted this &;story&; and had a very active twitter discussion about Chuck&;s great ethical integrity in leaking the in-company emails. I didn&;t pay attention to Chuck&;s story because it&;s Chuck&;s. But I guess he was an editor at Vice and they published a piece calling for a boycott of the NFL. I imagine Ray Rice had something to do with it, but what does Ray Rice have to do with Tom Brady? Should we boycott all of tech because Steve Jobs was a criminal who stole money from his employees? This is a ridiculous stunt by Davis. Terrible, even.BUT WAIT A MINUTE Umfuld, isn&;t this classic propaganda model in action? Yes, it&;s a mundane example. These pathetic dinks are trying to portray themselves as disruptors (stupidest tweet of the piece coming) image Yeah, investors. Partners. I&;m with you there. "At a stage&;?" What? No.When Murrow wanted to report on McCarthy he and the producer paid for the episode because no advertiser would have. How many centuries ago was that? &;At this stage?&; Are you kidding? How about the Nightly News brought to you by DuPont? This is &;new&; to you? You contemptible grub worm. You&;re disrupting by pretending you had amnesia and forgot what you did for a living? Sounds to me like you had freedom to do some real work but wanted to promote yourself with a prank instead. Thanks, Chuck. As you tell us, you&;re our hero. Everything old is new again. Everything dumb is asking Americans to boycott football because their UFC-loving Pokemon overloads need some attention. Great piece, though, Chuck, I&;m sure. Fuck the NFL. Labor Unions are shit anyway. The ethics of Chuck&;s email reveal was never an issue for Glenn or Chuck, even though no one was lying to him and he was clearly being insubordinate.Yes, Saint Glenn was moved and touched by Glenn-Bot Chuck&;s heroic efforts against the concentrations of private power Glenn is paid to vigilantly advocate for. From ;s promotion of Chuck&;s internal hit piece:
I linked to your tweet and said nothing about it. Sorry if that embarrasses you. I understand why it does.
Bam. To start Glenn has established that the simple fact an advertising based news entity is influenced by its advertising is enough to embarrass all involved. Bam.Glenn is careful to repeatedly say &;advertising&; in this exchange rather than things like &;ownership.&; Now now, Glenn. Pierre Omidyar owns a billion dollar internet empire. No, First Look Media is not selling ads at this moment. Rather it is simply one big ad for eBay and PayPal. Cute, Glenn, but again, whole world watching? Trying to not look like a boob?
That&;s really sweet how considerate you are of your advertisers before journalism is produced about them.
Not as sweet as never producing journalism about them. image
demanding that journalists treat stories differently that are about &;brands&; is inherently corrupt.
Remember, and please understand I&;m not just making this up, Lawyer Glenn sees no problem in advocating on behalf of the interests of his employer. As a lawyer he has to. If some really bad stuff came out about his boss, sure, maybe he&;d end up leaving. But so far nothing about Omidyar has pointed to &;corruption.&; There&;s nothing to report, and Lawyer Glenn is legally bound to not report whatever might be reportable - unless required to do so by law. That&;s how it is for him.What are the rules for you? You&;re all inherently corrupt by virtue of working in the business outside Omidyar&;s investigative journalism blog.Again, Davis released the other end of his email conversation. The other guy&;s emails. As a stunt, and rewarded him. On to the second of our paired example.Paul Carr published his half of an email conversation in order to show he was lied to when he reported on the same exact concern about The Intercept that Greenwald and Davis thought was so important regarding Vice. This was less than a month after Chuck&;s email leak. The very people who worshiped Chuck&;s idiotic email stunt now laid into Carr for his story on Taibbi leaving First Look - a story he had been sitting on for months because he was lied to by Taibbi. All the same people who marketed the Vice emails for Chuck are right now trying to suppress Carr&;s story saying he violated journalistic ethics. And apparently this isn&;t a prank? I can personally attest that Taibbi&;s lie was significant. For no matter how insignificant I may be, Glenn had lied about and smeared me personally. I spent months simply tracking stories Glenn and The Intercept covered to prove I had not made a false claim. I would have liked to have been more vocal about but we had been lied to about First Look Media and we were waiting for Taibbi&;s proof of journalistic independence. The differences in the two email stories are worth noting because they all favor Carr from the suddenly all important ethical question.For one, Carr was acting as a journalist reporting on a very important story involving a rival news site and government leaks. Davis was acting as a &;whistle-blower&; for outing a centuries old business model everyone, even non-journalists, knows exists. Another, Carr didn&;t publish Taibbi&;s mail. Davis posted his colleague&;s. Most important, Carr had been lied to, Davis had not.You can&;t expose yourselves as frauds and liars with more thoroughness than Glenn and Chuck managed to here. Did they forget Chuck&;s story from earlier in the month? (Granted, it wasn&;t worth remembering.) Did they think no one would notice? Everything Greenwald said to the haters during Chuck&;s email leak story has to be applied to his own company after Carr&;s. So Glenn is really saying these things about himself:
inherently corrupt
That&;s really sweet how considerate you are of your advertisers before journalism is produced about them.
And having to give special notice to corporate about articles re: brands is obviously chilling.
So with Glenn and Pierre, it&;s really: I would never report on PayPal so Pierre never has to ask me not to. &;As his attorney, I&;m forbidden to do so.&; But if you made the mistake of hiring Charles Davis at Vice you have to spend your time defending yourself from hypocrite liar Lawyer Glenn:
Not being considerate of advertisers. Being considerate of team members that are trying to support our business by selling
Yeah. That&;s the job he was hired for, but isn&;t it funny, internet billionaire Pierre Omidyar, that out of two almost identical stories involving journalists only the one reporting on you is having his ethics questioned?Look, it&;s not just that there&;s a devastating paired example exposing Davis and Greenwald as liars and scumbags and liars. They also managed to reveal to all that they are the biggest in the business. It&;s not just that Taibbi lied about ethical First Look Media, which is free from corruption, when Carr tried to report on an important story. It&;s that eight months ago Greenwald told anyone who had concerns that he was exactly what Yasha Levine and Mark Ames reported he was years ago had to shut up&; &;because Matt Taibbi.I&;m going to read Greenwald&;s mind and say that he believes all of those things he said about Chuck&;s email story weeks before Carr&;s. image Glenn Greenwald hasn&;t reported on Pierre&;s &;brands&; despite their major relevance to his NSA stories. Glenn Greenwald lied about Pierre&;s influence on The Intercept&;s content. He, and his boy soldiers, smeared and attacked anyone and everyone he has lied to. Matt Taibbi lied, seemingly not to protect himself, but to project his employer&;s other project, Greenwald&;s The Intercept. Cynical hacks wanting to use Taibbi&;s reputation is one thing. Taibbi choosing to destroy that reputation to deceive Carr and protect Greenwald is another. For a final irony here&;s a Charles Davis fan reacting to Chuck&;s email leaking fight against Vice three weeks before Davis hypocritically objected to Paul Carr&;s leaking emails regarding the same subject: image Your bot mouth to &;s ears, Emily. Maybe the Pierre Omidyars of the world will always win. They always have. But due to the rarest elements on Earth, incompetence and arrogance, these fiends have actually given us a fighting chance.

Ajouter un commentaire