3 ms·

I think they mean "Journalist" vs. Journalist. edit: in fact they outright say it in the article, except the opposite way: "The larger sense I get from the cr

by scoofy 13y ago

I think they mean "Journalist" vs. Journalist. edit: in fact they outright say it in the article, except the opposite way: "The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald is one of distaste — that they aren’t what we think of as real journalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of us in traditional media. They are, as one says, not like us." This is honestly shocking to read in the nyt. I've been commenting to my friends that the nyt has been going down hill over the last couple of years, but this is kind of absurd. The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
I'm a bit confused by your comment. What is shocking about the author's observation of those against the leaks? Are you shocked the observation came from someone in the NYT, or are you shocked that "real journalists" actually hold those beliefs in the first place? > The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening. I also don't think anyone is saying this, specifically, even the targets of the author's criticism. It seems more that there are a few that are against the means of the message, rather than the message itself. That sounds crazy, but it's likely a self-interested tactic to keep their lines of information open (insert "Government PR employee comment" here). Or maybe they genuinely believe classified leaks are dangerous, which I'm sure can be true but I'd like to think they would have a little perspective on where the real danger lies. Of course there are also a few who probably think the domestic spying is a net positive so it was morally wrong to reveal anything, and shame on them.
- scoofy 13y ago
  I think i understand what you are saying. Let me rephase... That the likes of Gregory and Toobin are acting as they are is disheartening. Suppose David Gregory had been put in the position of Greenwald. I realize he was probably given his position as a "readjustment" from his predecessor, and perhaps he feels the need to play that role, but what kind of self respecting journalist would sit on the story that every american was having every communication recorded and saved. It seems a bit shocking, and frankly, unbelievable that one would pass up an almost certain pulitzer because... not even sure why.

by scoofy 13y ago

HelloMcFly 13y ago

I'm a bit confused by your comment. What is shocking about the author's observation of those against the leaks? Are you shocked the observation came from someone in the NYT, or are you shocked that "real journalists" actually hold those beliefs in the first place? > The idea that some how recording everyone's communications, or war crimes in iraq and afghanistan, is not news worthy is really sickening. I also don't think anyone is saying this, specifically, even the targets of the author's criticism. It seems more that there are a few that are against the means of the message, rather than the message itself. That sounds crazy, but it's likely a self-interested tactic to keep their lines of information open (insert "Government PR employee comment" here). Or maybe they genuinely believe classified leaks are dangerous, which I'm sure can be true but I'd like to think they would have a little perspective on where the real danger lies. Of course there are also a few who probably think the domestic spying is a net positive so it was morally wrong to reveal anything, and shame on them.

scoofy 13y ago
I think i understand what you are saying. Let me rephase... That the likes of Gregory and Toobin are acting as they are is disheartening. Suppose David Gregory had been put in the position of Greenwald. I realize he was probably given his position as a "readjustment" from his predecessor, and perhaps he feels the need to play that role, but what kind of self respecting journalist would sit on the story that every american was having every communication recorded and saved. It seems a bit shocking, and frankly, unbelievable that one would pass up an almost certain pulitzer because... not even sure why.