4 ms·

I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald. But wow, the brazen seed on current events "Might Trump have been recruited by Putin?"

by kev009 10y ago

I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald. But wow, the brazen seed on current events "Might Trump have been recruited by Putin?" and "right wingers are easier to convert". First class journalism right there folks, way to be taken hook line and sinker by the intelligence community while doing an article on the intelligence community. Pretty comical.

pbz 10y ago
Greenwald has been at the Intercept for quite some time now: https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/ https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/
corndoge 10y ago
I didn't see anything in the article text that references what you are talking about. Did I miss it?
- nl 10y ago
  Yes. I ask what he thinks of the unverified allegations that President Trump was compromised during visits to Russia. The dossier of claims, compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, was published just a day before we meet. “Clearly, blackmail is a weapon in the KGB arsenal,” Barsky shrugs. “If they could use it, they would. The only question is whether our new president was foolish enough to do any of that stuff.” Today’s Russian security services seem to think in much the same way as his old handlers in the KGB, he says. “That’s the thing with big organisations anywhere: they’re very resistant to change.” And In the 1980s, Barsky’s most interesting potential recruits were radical rightwing ideologues; here, Soviet agents would pose as activists from the radical right. “There was one individual I reported on who I’m convinced would have fallen for that, because he was so strongly rightwing,” he says. I think it would be unusual not to have asked at least the first (and I don't think Trump is a Russian agent).
arkades 10y ago
I lost my respect for the Guardian a while back. They were reporting on hostilities in Israel. They had a side-bar for "Related Articles", which were one after the other - critical of Israel as being an unprovoked aggressor. Fine, if that's the truth, except: Every article I opened had a long lead-in about Israeli aggression, its consequences, etc. Every article had buried in the last paragraph, practically mumbling under its breath, "The IDF moved in because they were repeatedly being attacked by RPGs &tc." Nothing was provided to suggest the IDF was lying or incorrect about being provoked - so why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression? I was done. It's fine to be critical of Israeli policies and military posturing; it's another to essentially lie through your teeth and then cover your ass in postscript.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression? That's hard to say, since you haven't provided any examples of it.
- markdown 10y ago
  Israel is occupying Palestine. When Palestinians fight back, Israelis can't claim to have been provoked, when their occupation is the original provocation. It's like claiming Hitler just justified in killing 6 million jews because after he killed 1 million, a few jews tried to fight back, and he had to kill another 5 million because he was provoked.
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    I think "original provocation" is a little hard to claim when we are talking about Jerusalem. Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave. Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.
    - markdown 10y ago
      > Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave. If you're going that far back, why not just a handful of years earlier? Palestine getting flooded with immigrants whose sole purpose was to replace the incumbent population and establish their own state. The American far right is terrified that muslims are going to take over an establish sharia law... all based on nonsense. The Palestinians actually had that happen to them, and you don't think they were justified in feeling invaded? > Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless. Of course it was. That was why it was said. I find your defence of the Israeli apartheid and their continued occupation of Palestine and brutal oppression of a hopeless people to be just as tasteless. EDIT: In any case, thank you for explaining the original downvote, unlike the others.
dgrealy 10y ago
What do you think of the american intelligence agencies who say the same thing?
jimnotgym 10y ago
With the Guardian I think more about the individual writer rather than paper as a whole, as it is run rather differently from most news outlets [0]. And of course a journo is going to try and use current events to shoehorn in a half written story they have had for a while. A bit like how almost every piece of software now has a cloud version. But the Guardian is critical to the landscape of UK news. It is one of very few newspapers not controlled by a press baron like Murdoch or the 'Weird Twins'. The UK press as a whole is much much more right wing (notably on immigration and the EU) than properly fits the UK IMHO and the Guardian is an important antidote. As well as Snowden, it also broke the important 'phone hacking' scandal, where some tabloids were getting their stories with very questionable ethics. It was also the only newspaper to cover the 'Snoopers Charter' legislation, that allows random parts of the UK government to look at users browsing history (and share it with the US gov). It shows up so much on HN for its other important trait, no paywall. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
twblalock 10y ago
Unlike the American press, which generally tries to promote a naive concept of objectivity, the UK press is not shy about taking a side. It's the reader's job to decide what to believe, and that's true in the US as well -- even though many Americans want to believe in an objective press, that's clearly not the case. At least the Brits are honest about it. You can't outsource your critical thinking to journalists.
77pt77 10y ago
> I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald Are you familiar with Sam Harris' objections to his character?
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Or that he continues to claim that his PRISM reporting was correct, despite lacking any evidence to support his claims and having seen irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
  - 77pt77 10y ago
    I don't know much about him or his work but he does seem to be a very polarizing figure.

by kev009 10y ago

pbz 10y ago

Greenwald has been at the Intercept for quite some time now: https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/ https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

corndoge 10y ago

I didn't see anything in the article text that references what you are talking about. Did I miss it?

nl 10y ago
Yes. I ask what he thinks of the unverified allegations that President Trump was compromised during visits to Russia. The dossier of claims, compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, was published just a day before we meet. “Clearly, blackmail is a weapon in the KGB arsenal,” Barsky shrugs. “If they could use it, they would. The only question is whether our new president was foolish enough to do any of that stuff.” Today’s Russian security services seem to think in much the same way as his old handlers in the KGB, he says. “That’s the thing with big organisations anywhere: they’re very resistant to change.” And In the 1980s, Barsky’s most interesting potential recruits were radical rightwing ideologues; here, Soviet agents would pose as activists from the radical right. “There was one individual I reported on who I’m convinced would have fallen for that, because he was so strongly rightwing,” he says. I think it would be unusual not to have asked at least the first (and I don't think Trump is a Russian agent).

arkades 10y ago

I lost my respect for the Guardian a while back. They were reporting on hostilities in Israel. They had a side-bar for "Related Articles", which were one after the other - critical of Israel as being an unprovoked aggressor. Fine, if that's the truth, except: Every article I opened had a long lead-in about Israeli aggression, its consequences, etc. Every article had buried in the last paragraph, practically mumbling under its breath, "The IDF moved in because they were repeatedly being attacked by RPGs &tc." Nothing was provided to suggest the IDF was lying or incorrect about being provoked - so why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression? I was done. It's fine to be critical of Israeli policies and military posturing; it's another to essentially lie through your teeth and then cover your ass in postscript.

quirkafleeg 10y ago
> why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression? That's hard to say, since you haven't provided any examples of it.
markdown 10y ago
Israel is occupying Palestine. When Palestinians fight back, Israelis can't claim to have been provoked, when their occupation is the original provocation. It's like claiming Hitler just justified in killing 6 million jews because after he killed 1 million, a few jews tried to fight back, and he had to kill another 5 million because he was provoked.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  I think "original provocation" is a little hard to claim when we are talking about Jerusalem. Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave. Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.
  - markdown 10y ago
    > Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave. If you're going that far back, why not just a handful of years earlier? Palestine getting flooded with immigrants whose sole purpose was to replace the incumbent population and establish their own state. The American far right is terrified that muslims are going to take over an establish sharia law... all based on nonsense. The Palestinians actually had that happen to them, and you don't think they were justified in feeling invaded? > Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless. Of course it was. That was why it was said. I find your defence of the Israeli apartheid and their continued occupation of Palestine and brutal oppression of a hopeless people to be just as tasteless. EDIT: In any case, thank you for explaining the original downvote, unlike the others.

dgrealy 10y ago

What do you think of the american intelligence agencies who say the same thing?

jimnotgym 10y ago

With the Guardian I think more about the individual writer rather than paper as a whole, as it is run rather differently from most news outlets [0]. And of course a journo is going to try and use current events to shoehorn in a half written story they have had for a while. A bit like how almost every piece of software now has a cloud version. But the Guardian is critical to the landscape of UK news. It is one of very few newspapers not controlled by a press baron like Murdoch or the 'Weird Twins'. The UK press as a whole is much much more right wing (notably on immigration and the EU) than properly fits the UK IMHO and the Guardian is an important antidote. As well as Snowden, it also broke the important 'phone hacking' scandal, where some tabloids were getting their stories with very questionable ethics. It was also the only newspaper to cover the 'Snoopers Charter' legislation, that allows random parts of the UK government to look at users browsing history (and share it with the US gov). It shows up so much on HN for its other important trait, no paywall. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

twblalock 10y ago

Unlike the American press, which generally tries to promote a naive concept of objectivity, the UK press is not shy about taking a side. It's the reader's job to decide what to believe, and that's true in the US as well -- even though many Americans want to believe in an objective press, that's clearly not the case. At least the Brits are honest about it. You can't outsource your critical thinking to journalists.

77pt77 10y ago

> I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald Are you familiar with Sam Harris' objections to his character?

lern_too_spel 10y ago
Or that he continues to claim that his PRISM reporting was correct, despite lacking any evidence to support his claims and having seen irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
- 77pt77 10y ago
  I don't know much about him or his work but he does seem to be a very polarizing figure.