6 ms·

The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations, exc

by kbutler 10y ago

The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations, except the NSA surveillance scandal. Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."

pharrlax 10y ago
Have a casual look at Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed and then come back and tell me his news organization is partisan.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  Agreed. I'm primarily a 3rd-party voter, and as such am highly attuned to the hypocrisy I see coming from supporters of both major parties. And in my mind, Greenwald has been extremely good at attacking corruption and authoritarianism from those in power, regardless of their party. Most hard-core Democrats strongly dislike him because of how he "treated" the Obama administration. On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  Maybe not partisan, but the article is clearly biased by only naming Republican administrations.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    The Intercept has been plenty critical of the Obama administration, from the drone strikes to the surveilence state, to their handling of Manning and Snowden. They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
  - kennywinker 10y ago
    Can you think of scandals on scale of watergate under a democrat?
    - joshuaheard 10y ago
      The Clinton Impeachment, which was blown open by the media leak of the stained blue dress on the DrudgeReport. The media was largely silent on Obama's scandals, but he had plenty, off the top of my head: IRS targeting of political opponents, U.S. Ambassador death at Benghazi, Secretary of State Clinton's mishandling of classified data on her personal server, giving guns to the Mexican cartels (Gun Walker), Chinese hack of all the federal employees' personal information, etc.
      - kennywinker 10y ago
        "On the scale of watergate"
        joshuaheard 10y ago
        Well, Clinton was impeached. Nixon was not. And, no one died for Watergate.
        hollerith 10y ago
        Clinton was impeached, then acquitted. If Nixon hadn't resigned, he would've been impeached, then convicted.
- tossacct444 10y ago
  Their last line is fully ironic considering the Obama admin's war on whistleblowers. "Becoming a whistleblower is not an easy decision, but sometimes it is the right thing to do." https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistleblowers_forced_edward https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistle... http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obamas-war-on-whistleblowers/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obam... Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a PO Box. Who funds the Intercept anyway? I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin. http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-vowed-protect-whistleblowers http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-...
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    'War'? Is tracking 5 of 6 internet leaks a 'war'? I imagine its more of a heatmap of the frequency of leaking in this new internet age.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The Intercept launched in 2014, partly as a way to publish material from the Snowden leaks. So the answer to your question is "No, but...". Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept. He got wealthy as the founder of eBay.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  The word "partisan" impies actions and beliefs on a "side" without considering it independently. The intercpt, and glen greenwald, were a thorn in the obama administration's side with their reporting. Now they intend to be a thorn in Trump's side. That sounds non-partisan, at least in the sense of republican and democrat, to me.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crdoconnor 10y ago
There was a story just he other day in which Greenwald called out the Democrats for fearmongering about fake Russian hackers. It gave Breitbart a happy: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-story-russia-hacking-u-s-electric-grid-completely-false/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-stor...
notatoad 10y ago
They simply cited the highest-profile scandals that were broken by leaks. what democrat scandals of a similar magnitude did they skip over?
- boneheadmed 10y ago
  How about everything about Hillary Clinton and rigging the primary against Bernie via Podesta via Wikileaks?
  - curt15 10y ago
    I'm glad that their shameless cheating at that debate with the help of Donna Brazile got exposed. But what are some other examples of "rigging the primary against Bernie"? While the DNC obviously didn't like him (in the same way that the RNC didn't want Trump), what concrete actions were taken to undermine him?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Primary rules that excluded independent voters who, no shock here, ended up voting for Trump as they couldn't get a decent candidate from the DNC. And debate schedules purposely designed by DWS to keep them off of prime time TV. I don't like Trump, but I'm glad he won; the DNC and Clinton needed a lesson taught.
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        > Primary rules that excluded independent voters That's a bit like complaining that I only invite my friends to my birthday party.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        If you're expecting independents to vote for your party, you should probably allow them to contribute to selecting your nominee. Otherwise, people like me who would've voted for Bernie Sanders voted for Donald Trump.
panic 10y ago
Imagine a hypothetical world where one political party does more illegal and immoral things than the other. Now imagine you run a news site that covers both parties "equally": for every illegal and immoral thing one party does, it finds another from the other party and covers both. Is your news site partisan or non-partisan?
- kbutler 10y ago
  Yes. And many people believe they live in such a hypothetical world. My experience under the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and Obama administrations leads me to believe that there is plenty of misconduct on both sides of the aisle that should be exposed. You don't have to look very hard to find examples - it just takes listening a little bit to the other side occasionally, and not automatically disregarding everything they say. It looks to me like the party that abuses power more is the party that has more of it at the time. And yes, the Republicans have a worrisome amount of power at this time, so there is a lot of discussion on those potential abuses. The apocalyptic rhetoric is very similar (but of opposite polarity) to that in 2009 and other times, back at least to 1993.
  - heroprotagonist 10y ago
    It would seem to require a lot of coordination between the parties if they were _not_ to live in such a hypothetical world. I really don't think they're talking to each other and asking "Hey, have you done something wrong or immoral yet this week? I'm waiting to take my turn."
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan." Misinformed statements like these are what somewhat dismissive of democracy. If you would have put in the slightest bit of effort and done some research instead of spouting off the first thing that came to your mind. If you don't want to do the research, you don't have to have a strong opinion on things that you have little domain knowledge in. He is especially dubious of Russia's involvement in election hacking and deems it a sideshow. Read something, anything written by Glenn Greenwald in the past 4 years. There is probably no greater, substantive critic of Obama The Drone reports would be an excellent start.
kordless 10y ago
A simple way of knowing something is biased is by analyzing the content of the intent. For example: > If President Trump tries to turn public institutions against the people they are intended to protect and serve, then leaking will be more important than ever. This is a conflicted statement. Whistle blowing, or leaking if you must, is always important and should not be weighed on a single individual's threat to the people. It is always important to report a biased judgement against others, but the importance should not be indicated in the same breath as stating "if" someone does something it's "more" important. This "twist" in conflicted logic in the statement makes it a blaming statement against Trump, which might indicate it's biased. That's not to say Trump isn't biased, but that's another problem entirely.

by kbutler 10y ago

pharrlax 10y ago

Have a casual look at Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed and then come back and tell me his news organization is partisan.

jnbiche 10y ago
Agreed. I'm primarily a 3rd-party voter, and as such am highly attuned to the hypocrisy I see coming from supporters of both major parties. And in my mind, Greenwald has been extremely good at attacking corruption and authoritarianism from those in power, regardless of their party. Most hard-core Democrats strongly dislike him because of how he "treated" the Obama administration. On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
joshuaheard 10y ago
Maybe not partisan, but the article is clearly biased by only naming Republican administrations.
- falcolas 10y ago
  The Intercept has been plenty critical of the Obama administration, from the drone strikes to the surveilence state, to their handling of Manning and Snowden. They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  Can you think of scandals on scale of watergate under a democrat?
  - joshuaheard 10y ago
    The Clinton Impeachment, which was blown open by the media leak of the stained blue dress on the DrudgeReport. The media was largely silent on Obama's scandals, but he had plenty, off the top of my head: IRS targeting of political opponents, U.S. Ambassador death at Benghazi, Secretary of State Clinton's mishandling of classified data on her personal server, giving guns to the Mexican cartels (Gun Walker), Chinese hack of all the federal employees' personal information, etc.
    - kennywinker 10y ago
      "On the scale of watergate"
      - joshuaheard 10y ago
        Well, Clinton was impeached. Nixon was not. And, no one died for Watergate.
        hollerith 10y ago
        Clinton was impeached, then acquitted. If Nixon hadn't resigned, he would've been impeached, then convicted.
tossacct444 10y ago
Their last line is fully ironic considering the Obama admin's war on whistleblowers. "Becoming a whistleblower is not an easy decision, but sometimes it is the right thing to do." https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistleblowers_forced_edward https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistle... http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obamas-war-on-whistleblowers/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obam... Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a PO Box. Who funds the Intercept anyway? I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin. http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-vowed-protect-whistleblowers http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-...
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  'War'? Is tracking 5 of 6 internet leaks a 'war'? I imagine its more of a heatmap of the frequency of leaking in this new internet age.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The Intercept launched in 2014, partly as a way to publish material from the Snowden leaks. So the answer to your question is "No, but...". Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept. He got wealthy as the founder of eBay.
kennywinker 10y ago
The word "partisan" impies actions and beliefs on a "side" without considering it independently. The intercpt, and glen greenwald, were a thorn in the obama administration's side with their reporting. Now they intend to be a thorn in Trump's side. That sounds non-partisan, at least in the sense of republican and democrat, to me.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

crdoconnor 10y ago

There was a story just he other day in which Greenwald called out the Democrats for fearmongering about fake Russian hackers. It gave Breitbart a happy: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-story-russia-hacking-u-s-electric-grid-completely-false/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-stor...

notatoad 10y ago

They simply cited the highest-profile scandals that were broken by leaks. what democrat scandals of a similar magnitude did they skip over?

boneheadmed 10y ago
How about everything about Hillary Clinton and rigging the primary against Bernie via Podesta via Wikileaks?
- curt15 10y ago
  I'm glad that their shameless cheating at that debate with the help of Donna Brazile got exposed. But what are some other examples of "rigging the primary against Bernie"? While the DNC obviously didn't like him (in the same way that the RNC didn't want Trump), what concrete actions were taken to undermine him?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Primary rules that excluded independent voters who, no shock here, ended up voting for Trump as they couldn't get a decent candidate from the DNC. And debate schedules purposely designed by DWS to keep them off of prime time TV. I don't like Trump, but I'm glad he won; the DNC and Clinton needed a lesson taught.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > Primary rules that excluded independent voters That's a bit like complaining that I only invite my friends to my birthday party.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        If you're expecting independents to vote for your party, you should probably allow them to contribute to selecting your nominee. Otherwise, people like me who would've voted for Bernie Sanders voted for Donald Trump.

panic 10y ago

Imagine a hypothetical world where one political party does more illegal and immoral things than the other. Now imagine you run a news site that covers both parties "equally": for every illegal and immoral thing one party does, it finds another from the other party and covers both. Is your news site partisan or non-partisan?

kbutler 10y ago
Yes. And many people believe they live in such a hypothetical world. My experience under the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and Obama administrations leads me to believe that there is plenty of misconduct on both sides of the aisle that should be exposed. You don't have to look very hard to find examples - it just takes listening a little bit to the other side occasionally, and not automatically disregarding everything they say. It looks to me like the party that abuses power more is the party that has more of it at the time. And yes, the Republicans have a worrisome amount of power at this time, so there is a lot of discussion on those potential abuses. The apocalyptic rhetoric is very similar (but of opposite polarity) to that in 2009 and other times, back at least to 1993.
- heroprotagonist 10y ago
  It would seem to require a lot of coordination between the parties if they were _not_ to live in such a hypothetical world. I really don't think they're talking to each other and asking "Hey, have you done something wrong or immoral yet this week? I'm waiting to take my turn."

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan." Misinformed statements like these are what somewhat dismissive of democracy. If you would have put in the slightest bit of effort and done some research instead of spouting off the first thing that came to your mind. If you don't want to do the research, you don't have to have a strong opinion on things that you have little domain knowledge in. He is especially dubious of Russia's involvement in election hacking and deems it a sideshow. Read something, anything written by Glenn Greenwald in the past 4 years. There is probably no greater, substantive critic of Obama The Drone reports would be an excellent start.

kordless 10y ago

A simple way of knowing something is biased is by analyzing the content of the intent. For example: > If President Trump tries to turn public institutions against the people they are intended to protect and serve, then leaking will be more important than ever. This is a conflicted statement. Whistle blowing, or leaking if you must, is always important and should not be weighed on a single individual's threat to the people. It is always important to report a biased judgement against others, but the importance should not be indicated in the same breath as stating "if" someone does something it's "more" important. This "twist" in conflicted logic in the statement makes it a blaming statement against Trump, which might indicate it's biased. That's not to say Trump isn't biased, but that's another problem entirely.