New Zealand Regime Change Effort Ends In Abject Failure

Oh my.

As I was cycling through some of the "news" channels on the internet today, I found that John Key's party in New Zealand picked up seats in parliament and the Kim Dotcom/Snowden/Greenwald/Assange/[Omidyar] effort to overthrow the government (through elections, of course) was a complete and utter disaster.

In fact, it was such a wipe-out that there are now no Maoris in parliament, though the Dotcom/Snowden/Greenwald/Omidyar effort was apparently focused on increasing Maori participation in government through the now defunct Internet Mana Party.

I really don't know enough about Kiwi politics, but this result is simply an astonishing rejection of whatever the Internet Mana Party with the assistance and funding of Dotcom/Greenwald/Snowden/Assange/[Omidyar] was selling.

What a mess.

And Now For Regime Change In New Zealand...??

Interesting.

It appears that the Snowden, LLC, outfit has decided to attempt regime change in New Zealand, one of the governments involved in the Five Eyes Anglo-American intelligence sharing operation.

The active agents are Snowden himself from his exile in Moscow, Glenn Greenwald from his jungle lair in Rio, and Kim Dotcom from... well, wherever (is he still in New Zealand?) Behind the scenes lurks Pierre Omidyar from his redoubt in Hawaii, whose previous efforts at changing regimes seems to have paid off -- at least temporarily.

The issue seems to be the bulk surveillance of the Kiwi people by the government -- in line with the general Anglo-American surveillance we're seeing of practically everyone everywhere almost all the time. And the fact that the PM has apparently lied about it -- and therefore he must be made to resign forthwith. Or fail to be re-elected. Or something. Whatever the goal is, and I don't think we can tell from the propaganda campaign launched the other day through the Intercept and other outlets, the rage among the people of New Zealand is being whipped to a fever pitch.

And the slug-fest between PM John Key on the one side, Greenwald, Dotcom, and Snowden (with Omidyar in the shadows) got interesting yesterday when Key released documents refuting the claims of the insurgents (why are they insurging in New Zealand again?) and asserting authoritatively that the so-called "smoking gun" email was fake.

If this be true, then there is something up of which we, the Rabble, know -- and can know -- nothing. What we see has nothing to do with what is really going on. It's a pageant for our amusement while the real work behind the scenes continues.

Whatever the case, the government of New Zealand will be roiled until and unless something not spoken is satisfied.

And if it works in New Zealand, the least of the Five Eyes, expect the process to be applied to the rest of them.

Is That All There Is?

There's a long well-written piece over at the now nearly moribund Intercept that informs us that five prominent and well-connected Muslims (or four and and atheist, accounts vary, even within the piece) had their emails intercepted and spied upon by the NSA -- or maybe it was the FBI using technology provided by the NSA, accounts are unclear -- from about 2003 to about 2008, though it's neither clear nor certain when the interception started and whether it has stopped.

What is apparently clear is that the email interception and surveillance happened, and that these five men agreed to be interviewed for the Intercept, and their stories are interesting.

As I say, the article is quite long, some 8,000 words, and there are embedded videos that continue their sagas in some detail. All of these men were and are well connected in the American Muslim community, and most were very well connected with Power. Some were fairly frequent visitors to the White House and one ran for office. The idea that these men were subjected to surveillance -- by having their emails intercepted and read -- is apparently supposed to shock our consciences, as it is patently obvious that these men were not deserving of such scrutiny, even if it was legal, which is not entirely clear. It may well have been legal, but even if it was, these men of all men did not deserve the dishonor and humiliation of being surveilled by the state.

They were and are prominent, important people, you see. Men of substance, gravitas. Leaders among men. High ranking staff of important elected officials. Lawyers. These men, of all men, did not deserve to be treated like the common herd.

Should these men have been exempt from surveillance by reason of their status? That seems to be the upshot of the long anticipated story "naming names."

That only five names are named -- out of a list of several thousand email addresses that was provided by Edward Snowden -- and all of those named are Muslims (or four Muslims and an atheist) has caused something of a stir among the rabble who were so eagerly awaiting the post that would "name names" and be a "fireworks finale" and so on and so forth. Greenwald hyped this thing to the heavens in numerous teevee and print interviews over the past few months, waxing rhapsodic (well, as rhapsodic as he can wax) over the spectacle he was preparing to unleash around the end of June/Fourth of July.

Some of his thunder was stolen by Bart Gellman at the WaPo who wrote -- before the release by the Intercept -- that the NSA actually sweeps up many hundreds of thousands of emails in their surveillance dragnet, and most of them -- more than 90% -- are in no way related to investigations into terrorism or various prioritized criminality. They are "innocents."

Just as Greenwald's named names are.

Of course, in the minds of many Americans, Muslims, per se, are not innocents at all, and the more scrutiny and surveillance they are subjected to, the better. This is pure bigotry in most cases, and the article describes a somewhat astonishing level of crude bigotry that informed the actions of the FBI at the time these men were being surveilled. Good heavens! How unprofessional! Indeed. It was the Cheney era. What does one expect?

Which leads to a consideration of the letdown this supposed "fireworks show" and finale represents for many who have seen it and read it.

If that's truly all there is, it's pretty much a nothing-burger.

Airy but not very nutritious.

Everyone knew, did they not, that American Muslims were being spied upon,  sometimes very intrusively, and in great numbers, said to be justified by the threat they supposedly posed to the good order, peace and security of Regular Americans, thanks in large measure to the attacks on 9/11/2001 which killed several thousand innocents.

Their actual innocence can be disputed, but that's another issue.

The Muslim threat was and is considered real by the malefactors of the State. The threat is not to "innocents"-- the threat is to the State and to the Power of the State.

When Cheney was running things, paranoia was rampant within the government to the point where he ordered a bunker built under his mansion at the Naval Observatory. Thousands were rounded up, protesters were encaged, innocents were rendered and tortured, wars of aggression were ordered and undertaken against peoples who had nothing to do with the attacks, millions have died or been displaced.

That's the legacy of what happened one day in September so many years ago. That's the Cheney legacy, too, for Cheney let it happen -- whether deliberately or not is beside the point. He had and has another priority than the protection and security of the American people: his priority was his own protection and financial well-being and after the attacks, he concerned himself with the protection and security of the State and particularly its executive apparatus.

Anything and everything was fair so long as his priorities were met.

The loyalty he inspired and still inspires within the confines of the Government and its contractors is something of a wonder, especially given the nearly universal contempt with which his ostensible Boss, George Bush, is held.

The five men named and profiled in the long-awaited Intercept report were close to the Bush-Cheney White House, and given the paranoia of the times and the paranoid natures of the men and women in charge in those days, it's no wonder at all that these five men were placed under surveillance. They and many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of others were and are subject to the gentle kindness of State surveillance, on the basis of the lingering paranoia that seems to have wormed its way into the foundations of government today.

By no means were or are Muslims the only targets, any more than the NSA is the only or the primary surveillance outfit.

The problem with Greenwald's reporting on the topic all along has been its narrow focus and its obsession with the NSA. Well, that and the endless hype that leads... essentially nowhere.

The stories, when they are well-written as this one is, are interesting but apart from The Debate, they have led to no substantive positive changes in the surveillance state at all. In fact, the argument can be and has been made that the changes that have taken place and those to come have strengthened and expanded the surveillance state, not weakened it at all. The revelations have mostly been of "things we already knew" at least in broad outline. They've filled in details, but the details simply let us know how very pervasive corporate and government surveillance is. It hasn't provided us with tools to do anything about it; in fact, the revelations have essentially let it be known that "you can't do anything about it." And so, knowing they are under surveillance, Americans are more careful about what they say and what they do, aren't they? And isn't that the point of telling people they are -- or at least could be -- under surveillance?

These revelations serve the State, whether they are intended to or not. And this latest article does the same -- in this case by making clear to American Muslims that there is no exemption for even their highest ranking comrades. They are all considered suspect.

But we knew that, didn't we?

So really, is that all there is?

Then let's keep dancing...

While John Cook Vacations...

Once again, things are getting weird at the "Intercept" where, from its launch in February, the hype is not matched by the content and the comments generally provide more actual news -- even if only aggregates from other outlets -- than the rare published items.

John Cook, who claims to be "editor-in-chief", whatever that means, has been on vacation according to reports and cannot be bothered. He's had nothing to say for months about his editorial obligations, assuming there are any.

One doesn't know.

Greenwald made an apparently ill-advised announcement that the long-awaited story he was (he said) "working on" would be published at midnight one day. It wasn't. Instead, there was a breathless announcement that the story would be held until a new government objection was investigated.

OK. So the WaPo publishes an extensive story that doesn't name names but does reveal the kinds of "inadvertent" collections of information the NSA deals with all the time, pretty much stealing Greenwald's thunder in any case. If he ever does publish his grand finale fireworks show -- looking less and less likely by the day -- will anyone care?

Greenwald continues to defend himself and hurl insults and invective via Twitter -- so at least we know he's alive. And according to reports, he's still on book tour and doing teevee appearances, so there is that.

As for the other staff at the "Intercept," with the exception of Ryan Gallagher, they have been mighty quiet since they nestled under the Omidyar wing. They have been remarkably quiet given their prolific output prior to becoming "Intercept" staff. It's almost as if shutting them up was part of the deal. The only one who hasn't been shut up is Marcy Wheeler, who just keeps cranking stories out like sausages, though she's been mighty quiet about why she left the cozy confines of OmidyarLand back in May.

Turns out Omidyar's people have been busy bees at the White House, however.

No surprise there, I suppose, given the Omidyar penchant for global power plays.

It's been my pet theory that someone at the WH called Pierre, just as the missing Jeremy Scahill teasingly suggested might happen, and asked politely that Greenwald's story -- naming names -- be held for the time being. Pierre, being the power player he is, said "Sure, why not?" and had one of his lieutenants convey the message that there might be a "problem" with one or more of the names so... would Glenn kindly look into it? 'Kthnxbai.

Greenwald's defense has largely been one of "protecting the innocent." So he can't name names without revealing the names of innocents, and that would be wrong. Unless they want their names to be named. And then it would be right. So in order to name the names all 10,000 or 100,000 names he has have to be contacted one by one, and that's ever-so-hard, and it takes a long time, and many of them may be indisposed or otherwise unable or unwilling to respond, so what are you going to do? It's such a terrific responsibility, after all. So maybe the best thing is not to name the names, just remark on the categories of those swept up in NSA collections, but we're already pretty certain of what those categories are, so is there even a story here? One that could qualify as fireworks? Maybe so, maybe not. Well, the WaPo thought there was a story, and they managed to get one out, but Greenwald's story is so much better....

-------------------------------------------------
It is Summer Shark and Missing White Woman season once again, and the Missing Greenwald Story fits right in with the season. The Absent Story is a Summer Story its own self, with dozens of mentions over the last week or so. Google it. And then there's Cryptome's cryptic non-announcement that the whole Snowden trove will be revealed by the end of the month. Or not.

It's Summertime...

About Those Exemptions...

As I think the whole wide world knows by now, Glenn Greenwald's Fireworks Extravaganza, "Naming Names" of those surveilled by the All-Knowing All-Powerful Government through the NSA... fizzled out.

Reminds me of the time we were in Anchorage and stood out on the balcony of our apartment to witness the grand fireworks show that was to culminate the 25th Anniversary of Statehood. Just as the show was to get underway, a fog bank moved in from the bay. The show went on as scheduled. We could hear the booms and from time to time, the fog lit up a little bit, but for the most part... nothing. To say it was somewhat anti-climactic was to be generous.

And so, from Greenwald, et al, there's nothing but fog, not even a glimmer of fireworks, to cap the anniversary of the Snowden NSA revelations.

After more than a year of revelations, there is no legislation worthy of the name that will rein in the surveillance agencies, most people have no idea how extensive the surveillance they're under is and those who do know largely don't care, and people like Greenwald and his sponsors and collaborators are content with demanding exemptions from surveillance for themselves -- the rest of us can pound sand for all they care. Their vaunted "principles" of privacy are only valid among their own kind, a kind to which the vast majority of people do not belong.

Even as anticipation grew regarding the naming of names of those under NSA surveillance, Greenwald was backing off, substituting the kinds of people under NSA surveillance for the names of individuals.

Well, I think most people already know the kinds of people who are subject to scrutiny by governments: they are mostly leftish-wing dissenters from the established order, no? Anyone who might pose an immanent or eventual threat to the powers that be is automatically included. The usual suspects, in other words. For the most part, that does not include right-wing critics at all. It generally doesn't include those who profess libertarian leanings. It usually doesn't include religious wack-jobs either, not after the Waco disaster.

It does include anarchists, liberationists, communitarians, communists, socialists, peace advocates, and practically anyone opposed to fossil or nuclear fuel use/expansion, anyone in favor of animal rights, lgbt rights, or civil or human rights beyond those already provided by Our All-Knowing and All-Powerful Government. Any of the groups that these people may belong to or support are of course subject to routine, intrusive surveillance including infiltration and provocation to violence. Mustn't forget the Muslim hordes, either.

We know this. It's been true for all our lives. The left -- so called -- has always been subjected to intense scrutiny and infiltration by government in this country, for the simple fact that leftist ideology has long been considered a threat to the established order and must therefore be surveilled and when necessary it be suppressed.

The same is true of black folk and brown folk in general, especially when not enfolded into the dominant culture. Black folk and brown folk who get uppity about their place are a problem to be confronted and controlled as are economically deprived white folk. Color matters, but so does wealth and status.

Those who are of sufficient wealth and sufficient status generally -- though not always -- are immune from routine surveillance, arrest, prosecution and conviction, depending on their position within the hierarchy.

Elected representatives of the people, for example, face continual scrutiny by the security apparat, and they can be subjected to criminal arrest and prosecution for even the slightest legal transgression -- though it remains somewhat rare. The more "left" they are, the more likely they are to be rounded up and detained. They know this.

The issue with Greenwald and his sponsors has always been about those exemptions, though. Certain categories of people are typically exempt from surveillance and the potential consequences of surveillance. Exemptions depend largely on wealth and status of individuals and tie-ins with the establishment for groups.

This has been a truism since the founding of the republic.

Greenwald goes on and on about the sacredness of privacy, but it has only ever applied to a few and only to the extent that those few choose. It is not an innately sacred principle, certainly not of the United States of America.

"Privacy" for the masses is a relatively new idea which wouldn't have occurred to the Founders. It would have seemed bizarre and anti-social.

What Greenwald et al demand are exemptions from surveillance to be extended and confirmed for themselves, their friends, family, colleagues and peers. This idea of exemption is based more on theories of lawyer-client privilege, it seems to me, than it is on anything else, and it doesn't really apply to most people, nor would it ever.

In other words, People Like Greenwald -- and those he chooses -- should be exempt; others must fight their own battles, good luck, suckers.

Even if Greenwald does produce a list of NSA targets eventually, the moment has passed for his fireworks display. By the time he gets around to it, maybe at the end of this season of sharks and missing white women, the news cycle will have moved on.

Cryptome is cryptically claiming a complete Snowden Document Dump -- one assumes including the Names -- is coming before the end of July, with or without Greenwald's involvement. It could happen.

Breath holding, however, is not advised.

For the Record -- First Look Media and NBC News Partnership

The partnership between NBC News and Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media was briefly noted on NBC Evening News Tuesday, then was made quite explicit on tonight's news when a promo announced the impending "exclusive" interview of Edward Snowden by Brian Williams in Moscow.

Eric Wemple at the Washington Post has now expanded the announcement somewhat:

The interview is sure to produce some memorable exchanges, but the way that NBC News pulled off the coup is noteworthy as well. NBC News has a “collaboration agreement” with the outfit that these days publishes Greenwald’s work — First Look Media, the venture funded by billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Greenwald is a staffer at the Intercept, First Look’s digital magazine on national security matters.

So did the Greenwald “collaboration agreement” snare the Snowden interview for NBC News? For starters, Snowden is a strong-willed sort unlikely to take interview orders from anyone, though his relationship with Greenwald is airtight (he’s in a just-published selfie with Greenwald & Co. in Russia). According to the network source, NBC News approached Snowden via several avenues, one of them being through Greenwald. Though Greenwald didn’t negotiate the terms of the agreement, the NBC News source concedes that Greenwald is among a small number of people who can assist in making contact with Snowden, who is living in Moscow.

The agreement between NBC News and First Look Media contains no financial terms, says the NBC source. It’s merely what the network calls a co-reporting arrangement, in which the two participating outlets share resources in working on the almost always complicated surveillance stories that spring from the Snowden document dump. Responding to an e-mail inquiry, Greenwald himself says that the agreement “simply provides that we will work together on selected NSA stories, on a story-by-story basis, when it will help the reporting to do so.”

To complicate matters a bit, Greenwald worked as a freelancer for NBC News in between his departure from the Guardian and the launch of the Intercept. Together they produced four stories, with Greenwald receiving $750 a pop. In this February investigation, for instance, NBC News used Snowden documents to expose how British intelligence waged war on hackers. Greenwald is credited as a “special contributor” for the piece. In January, NBC News published a story stemming from Snowden documents on how British intelligence spied on Facebook and YouTube. That one, too, listed Greenwald as a special contributor.

There is more at the link.

If anyone wants to look into it, there is most certainly a story to be found in the various arrangements that have been made with and by Omidyar, his employees, and the media enterprises they have partnered with, but I don't know who would ((dare)) find out the whole story and publish it.

We live in interesting times...

[Note: there have been previous indications of the partnership between NBC and Greenwald/First Look, though the first time I heard it mentioned explicitly was on Tuesday. If anyone has an earlier explicit reference, it would be interesting to put together a timeline...]

Trusting Greenwald??!

I understand Glenn Greenwald has a new book out which can be seen as the capstone of the long-term project he's been undertaking to have his voice heard at the highest levels of government and corporate board rooms.

It would appear they're listening now.

To what object may still be something of a mystery, but an overall goal, beyond being "heard" has never been entirely clear with Greenwald. "Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person!" Yes, well...

It would appear he got his wish. The toast of the town, he is, at least for now, wined and dined among the highest of the mighty, with abundant accolades, prizes and gravitas besides. He is someone now, and that seems to be what he's wanted more than anything all along. To be known, to be recognized, to be honored, and more than anything, to be reckoned with.

His personal toxicity aside, Greenwald has actually accomplished quite a feat. He's managed to rise to the top of the profession of journalism primarily by means of the NSA scoop, not through any particular writing talent, understanding of the issues, or ability to tell a cohesive and compelling story. His writing throughout has been one of his weaker aspects, as much of what he writes unedited reads like a legal brief rather than news, and it became clear to me (if to no one else) that the NSA articles he was bylined for the Guardian were heavily edited by someone or someones into something more "journalistic" before publication. In fact, in the end, they didn't read like they had been written by him at all, whether or not he shared a byline with someone else.

Those many others who helped make Greenwald's meteoric rise as a journalist possible have been essentially "disappeared." This is most telling in the case of Ewen MacCaskill of the Guardian who, along with quite a few others at that institution, have essentially vanished in the marketing and tale-telling surrounding the NSA scoop. MacCaskill was awarded a Polk for his work on the NSA stories, but you'd never know it to listen to the current hagiography surrounding the "biggest story of the first half of the 21st Century" -- or however it's being marketed these days. This was made painfully obvious in Amy Goodman's coverage of the Polk Awards and Greenwald's prodigal return to the USofA from his exile in Brazil. Amy, in a nearly Stalinist propaganda move, literally erased MacCaskill from the record of the Polk Award, and ever since has barely mentioned him at all. Yet he was apparently the old-hand journalist who was sent by the Guardian to accompany Greenwald and Poitras to Hong Kong to vet Young Snowden's validity, and so far as I can tell, MacCaskill was the one who edited and co-wrote the original stories that appeared in the Guardian.

Also, there is a widespread claim that Greenwald "won a Pulitzer" -- when he specifically did not. The papers that initially published the NSA stories (the Guardian and the Washington Post) won the Pulitzer Public Service Award -- which only goes to institutions, not to individuals. But in the telling of the story of the Pulitzer Prize for the NSA stories, the nearly universal convention among Greenwald's acolytes is to claim he (sometimes he and Laura Poitras) won the Pulitzer themselves as individuals, when they clearly did not.

There's another actor in this drama, Bart Gellman for the Washington Post, who has written some of the most incisive investigative reports on the NSA documents. Gellman is also part of the team -- that's not really a team at all, it would appear -- who was given access to the Snowden Trove at the outset of the undertaking. He's a long-time serious journalist whose work is well-respected within the profession. Thus, apparently, he has to be essentially disappeared as well from the received narrative of Greenwald's intrepidness and daring.

Ah yes, and about that daring... One of the primary themes in Greenwald's narrative of himself has been his trembling fear and anger at the perfidy of the National Security State's potential to arrest him and throw him "in a cage" for being a journalist, because high-ranking individuals in Congress have suggested as much and the lawyers at DoJ wouldn't assure his lawyers that he wouldn't be arrested if he returned to the USofA. Same with Laura Poitras who lives in Berlin.

So, quaking with fear of being arrested and rendered for torture to some demonic foreign land, Greenwald and Poitras sat in exile in Rio and Berlin respectively (though apparently they traveled fairly extensively during the interim, just not to the United States or Britain) until such time as they were awarded the Polk and determined to return like prodigals to the US and to dare the authorities to do anything about it.

Of course, the authorities paid no attention to them, any more than they would to anyone else, and their breathlessly awaited return went off without a hitch. No one in a position to do anything about their arrival in the USofA let alone render them seemed to care.

And so it has been ever since, as Greenwald has embarked on a nationwide book tour, unmolested, and Poitras, well, who knows what's happened to her? She is like a wraith, appearing and disappearing at will, offering stern and sturdy perspectives now and again, but more often she is referred to but neither seen nor heard from.

And Snowden? So far as we know, Snowden is still comfortably ensconced as a resident guest of the Kremlin, in what appear to be very nice digs, somewhere in Moscow or its environs. He has "given up so much" -- and yet seems to be well provided for and happy enough in his Russian exile, able to "appear" pretty much whenever he wants to and wherever he wants to via electronic means, including (notoriously) during Vladimir Putin's annual call in show on Russian television.

It was a notorious appearance not so much because of what Snowden had to say, which was relatively innocuous, but because of the relentlessness of the anti-Russian/anti-Putin propaganda campaign that's been waged by all the capitals of the West for many months now. For Snowden to appear "with" Putin (even if only electronically and recorded at that) was yet another emblem of his supposed "treason."

Snowden doesn't get as many awards as Greenwald, doesn't have a book, isn't -- so far as we know -- profiting from any of this hoo-hah, though he seems to enjoy at least some modest luxury and apparently some freedom of movement while he is a guest of the Kremlin. There have been many stories about his life in the US and as an international spy or perhaps not a spy but a genius at IT matters, or perhaps... the stories are legion. What's true and what's not is open to speculation. There are significant portions of the received narrative that don't fit, but that's another issue for another day. The only question I would ask right now is what Snowden is actually doing in Moscow, as there have been a number of reports that he has been hired by one or another private Russian enterprise as an IT consultant. If it's true, it might be interesting to find out more, but when it comes to Snowden, fact and fiction are so intermingled, the real story is pretty much unknowable -- at least not until the book comes out and the movie is released. Even then, mystery will no doubt continue to abound.

But speaking of Snowden... one thing that was very intriguing to me (though it may not mean anything) is that Snowden was living in Hawaii -- allegedly with his high-class artistic stripper girlfriend -- while he was acquiring the data trove from the NSA through his private contractor employment with Booz Allen Hamilton. Now of course this is the story; we don't know that it is true, and we will probably never be able to know for sure given the nature of spycraft and all...

At any rate, assuming it's true, Snowden was living comfortably in Hawaii, acquiring his NSA data clandestinely while a few miles away, Pierre Omidyar was also living in Honolulu, taking care of his many far-flung projects. Projects, in the Islands, on the Mainland, and well, let's face it... all over the world, including the soon-to-erupt in revolt and civil war Ukraine. Oh yes, Pierre has his fingers in many ((MANY)) pies simultaneously. And he's not shy about it, either. He's one of the richest men in the world and he uses his wealth for whatever objective he has in mind, whether it is educating the masses in Ukraine about the wonders of European Democratic Capitalism (or is it Fascism?), or building luxury condos on unspoiled Hawaiian beaches, or getting into the lucrative micro loan business on the ground floor and making out like a bandit.

Oh but there's more. As far as I know, Pierre lives primarily in Hawaii, though he has a number of homes in United States and apparently in Europe as well.

I'm given to understand he is financially involved with Booz Allen through interlocking boards, and his PayPal subsidiary of eBay is apparently closely tied in with NSA and law enforcement at all levels all over the world. One assumes that eBay is just as closely linked with these contractor, surveillance and law enforcement outfits as PayPal is. Then of course, there's the whole PayPal14 imbroglio which dogs both Pierre and Greenwald.

Pierre owns a news outlet in Hawaii which focuses on aspects of corruption as seen through a particular lens. (There's a similar outfit in New Mexico, though it has a much lower profile and is not, so far as I know, an Omidyar project.) That lens is essentially libertarian.

At some point around the time that Young Snowden went to work for Booz Allen in Hawaii, Pierre was taking the initial steps to form First Look Media, the umbrella under which he has placed a rather impressive stable of journalists -- including, of course, Greenwald and Poitras, whose Snowden docs are their principal claim to fame ...and fortune.

It's been pointed out by some observers that once Pierre's stable was essentially filled with formerly prolific journalists, their output declined, and for some it came to a screeching halt. In other words, going to work for Omidyar meant... silence, or nearly so.

"Transformative media" indeed. When you think about it, saying and publishing nothing on a regular basis can be just as "transformative" as anything else. It's all in the way you look at it, no?

Or in the case of The Intercept, Greenwald's personal fief under the First Look umbrella, "nothing" has been accompanied by fluff, nonsense, and occasional bursts of interesting stories of Surveillance State operations both here and abroad, but without any indication of how or whether they can be controlled, curbed or thwarted.

Of course the lack of any idea of what could or should be done about the All-Pervading and All-Knowing Surveillance State has been a consistent theme in the revelations to date. The world is to know in substantial detail about the surveillance they are under, but they are not, ever, to imagine anything can be done about it. Knowing about it without the ability to thwart it is an Orwellian means of control.

When this was pointed out by Naomi Wolf so long ago now, back in June of last year, she was viciously attacked by some of those who saw her questions about the purpose of what were then called the Snowden leaks as some kind of uncalled-for assault on Snowden and/or Greenwald, no doubt set up by the NSA. Or something. No, she had it right. Knowing that there was mass surveillance going on, without the ability to do anything about it, was and is a means of controlling the behavior of the population; it works quite well, as those who have lived under such conditions can tell you.

One of the keys to understanding the NSA Surveillance is the fact that nothing has been done about it -- and the implication is that nothing can be done about it. Greenwald has shown an interest in gaining exemptions from blanket surveillance for certain categories of people, such as journalists like him, but y no means has he shown an interest in undermining the Surveillance State itself, any more than Snowden has.

Well, it's not entirely accurate to say that "nothing has been done about it." Because something most definitely has been done: The #1 and #2 at NSA were... "retired" under pressure. In other words, they were forced out, though it was with great good will, of course. Policies have been (they say) revised to better attend to the privacy interests of the public, and there has been a good deal more "transparency" about the surveillance programs under way. Further, there are a number of efforts at beginning "reform" of the NSA to enable more oversight of its surveillance activities.

Cool.

So there is that.

Meanwhile, Greenwald seems quite delighted with himself and has even taken to being somewhat less abrasive and contemptuous of others in his public appearances (which are legion). He's explained that his antagonistic and sometimes over the top assholitry/performances in public were meant to propel him into the limelight sufficiently to be heard -- apparently in the mainstream, where he seemingly wanted to be.

Well, he's heard nowadays, but what does he really have to say?

There are those who say that Greenwald is one of the few journalists -- or the only journalist -- they trust.  As far as I can tell, Greenwald is as trustworthy as most others in the field -- which is to say, somewhat, though never absolutely. Critical thinking is necessary no matter who the messenger is. Greenwald has established a place in the firmament, but neither he nor anyone else in that field should be granted blanket trust. His narrative on the Snowden matter is filled with gaps and contradictions, and his stories about it are just that, stories. Take them for what they are worth, but don't take them on faith.

It seems so obvious, and yet the desire for a heroic figure is strong. As conditions get worse for so many, the need for a heroic figure grows stronger.

Many have placed their faith and trust in Greenwald.

Some have felt betrayed by him for various reasons, others feel rewarded to bask in his reflected glory.

But in the end, we're still pretty much in the same place we were vis a vis the Surveillance State. We know a bit more about it now, but we don't have the ability to control it or to thwart it, nor does Greenwald have any intention to provide that kind of control.

Even if we were able to have some measure of control over the government's surveillance activities, there is still the little matter of corporate surveillance which is even more pervasive and intrusive than that of the state. In other words, even if we we were able to tie a rope around the All-Knowing, All-Pervading Surveillance State, it would still go on, unimpeded, through its many corporate partners.

So what ultimately has been accomplished?

And what do we want to accomplish?

The Prodigal Returns -- Or Something

Earlier, I was looking for some kind of news regarding the much anticipated return of Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras to New York to humbly receive their Polk Award for reporting the Young Snowden NSA material last summer, and surprisingly there was nothing but WikiLeaks live blogging their plane's travel across the Atlantic, blogging which ceased approximately half an hour before it landed.

I just checked online for any updates, and the most recent was from Le Monde.

Le journaliste Glenn Greenwald passe sans encombre la frontière des Etats-Unis

Le Monde.fr | 11.04.2014 à 19h26

Abonnez-vous
à partir de 1 € Réagir Classer

Partager facebook twitter google + linkedin pinterest

 

Glenn Greenwald et Laura Poitras, deux des journalistes derrière les révélations sur l'Agence de sécurité nationale (NSA) américaine sont arrivés aux Etats-Unis, vendredi 11 avril. Venus à New York recevoir le George Polk Award, prix américain qui reconnaît l'excellence en journalisme, ils ont passé les contrôles de l'immigration à l'aéroport de New York sans problème, a annoncé Julie Turkewitz, journaliste pour le New York Times.

Arrival in nyc of @ggreenwald. No arrest made. #nytimes. http://t.co/mQPXuLWDf7
— julieturkewitz (@fotojulie)

There you have it. Even if you don't read French, it's pretty clear they got through the tight security at JFK without incident.

Who'd a thunk, eh?

---------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Paul Carr at Pando wants to know if the Intercept has ceased publishing. Hard to say that it's still publishing, as there has not been a new post for ten days or more, and even the comments stopped several days ago.

After the Poynter story about a strategic planning session -- involving unnamed principals, at an unannounced location, at some point in the unspecificed past -- during which discussion centered on First Look's focus and audience and so forth, the basics of any startup, let alone a "transformative" quarter-billion dollar media empire, quite late in the game it would seem, I wouldn't be surprised if retooling and potentially relaunch of the Intercept were in order.

"Cluelessness"

It would be sad if it weren't so stupid, but apparently there is a full-on media war between factions of the ruling class, or that's apparently what we are supposed to think now that the floundering and relatively content-free "Intercept," backed by Pierre Omidyar (eBay, PayPal), is being tweaked by the Big Bullies at Pando, led by Mark Ames and Paul Carr, and backed by a plethora of Silicon Valley billionaires headed by Paul Thiel (PayPal) and Marc Andressen (too many SV software and venture capital endeavors to count). Soon after this supposed media war began, Eric Wemple of the Washington Post chimed in with a mild criticism of disingenuousness at First Look, which had the potential to add the WaPo's owner, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), to the mix, but it seems that for the moment, he has declined. Yesterday, though, Pando published another exposé of monumental Greenwaldian hypocrisy, posting a Bloggingheads video "debate" between Greenwald and Ben Smith of Politico, wherein Greenwald rakes Smith over the coals regarding who finances Politico and what their ("obvious") influence in the newsroom must be.

I saw the "debate" when it happened in 2007, and I read and commented on Greenwald's Salon posts leading up to it. The issue seemed clear enough at the time: big ticket financial backers of media enterprises are likely to influence the way the news is covered -- or if it is covered at all -- simply because they pay the bills and the salaries of their employees. Even if there is no direct contact between the finance side and the newsroom, the influence will be there. As I put it, "Money may not be speech, but it sure talks." (NOTE: Greenwald had only been at Salon for a few months at the time, and tweaking "establishment" media for click bait was part of his "beat" as it were. This was one of the first times at Salon that his goading resulted in a real donnybrook and "debate." Of course, Salon, being the Pioneer in the Online Magazine Field, could accurately be characterized as about as "establishment" as it could get among its internet compatriots. Then again, it was always in financial crisis and needed the clicks... but that's another story for another time.) :-P

The import of this "debate" now is the contrast between Greenwald's questions and certain knowledge then -- that the well known right wing management and funders of Politico must influence the news choices and skew of Politico because they pay the bills -- and the utter cluelessness and disinterest that Greenwald and Marcy have regarding Omidyar and his influence on the virtual "newsroom(s)" at First Look (they know nothing, they care nothing, they have complete "independence" so what their funder and chief does or believes is of no consequence to them.)

In retrospect, it's clear as crystal that not only was Greenwald's 2007 "debate" over Politico's management and funders primarily click-bait, but so were many, many other set-tos between Greenwald and various legal and media personalities. Positions were taken that were for the purpose of the "debate" -- but they did not necessarily have anything to do with personal beliefs or ideology. They were merely taken for the purpose of injecting ideas and getting people to pay attention. Clicks. Forget it, Jake. It's just business.

The pretense of disinterest and cluelessness about Pierre Omidyar's various political and financial operations around the world is extraordinarily -- monumentally -- disingenuous if it is true. To assert that another media outlet's coverage of the news is obviously influenced by the acts and politics of those who fund and operate it, but that First Look is somehow not influenced in any way by Pierre Omidyar's or Glenn Greenwald's positions, acts and interests borders on an absurdist comedy. Of course there is influence, both direct and subtle, and no amount of alleged "independence" can make it go away. As Greenwald rightly noted to Ben Smith all those years ago, journalists "know the work they do ought to be pleasing to the people who sign their paychecks." Of course, it's self-evident. If their work were not "pleasing" to the man or woman with the power of the purse, the journalists in question are not there. Duh.

It was ever thus, it is true everywhere, and it is as true for Greenwald and crew as it is for anyone else in the media business -- if someone else is paying the bills. If their work is not pleasing to the man who pays the bills, their work is not there.  This shouldn't be hard to understand. If one's work is not "pleasing," one is not hired in the first place; if one's work ceases to be "pleasing," one is dismissed. One does not have the option of "displeasing" the boss and staying in one's position, and one knows this -- or at least one should.

"Independence" has nothing to do with it. Or rather, what it has to do with it is that the "independence" being asserted is part of what is found "pleasing" by the boss. Assertion of "independence" is what the boss wants. Got it? What "independence" means in practice is intentionally unstated.

Apparently, for a recent example, cluelessness and disinterest in the boss's (Omidyar's) financial and political activities and interests is pleasing to the boss. When the matter is the financial and political activities and interests of some other media outlet, interfering government agency or targeted organization, however, be it Politico or what you will, cluelessness and disinterest are replaced by dogged investigation, accusation and exposure, which in that case is also pleasing to the boss. You see how this works?

Well of course. It's glaringly obvious.

Greenwald's Apologetics

I've seen enough of Greenwald's -- and others' -- apologetics on behalf of Omidyar and his New Media Venture First Look and on behalf of those employed by it to be a little bit sickened to slog through one of them again. Greenwald is even more prolix than I am, and he is known for being less than forthcoming. Marcy Wheeler has also issued a statement. There are apparently several others out there, but I'll stick with Greenwald for now.

Background

As a lot of people seem to know -- but many are blissfully oblivious, may they remain at peace! -- Mark Ames over at Pando, one of America's most inveterate Big (enough) Media journalists, a muck-raker of muck-rakers, and all around bon vivant terrible, posted a piece yesterday at Pando in which he pointed to documentary evidence that was apparently quite easy to find that Pierre Omidyar, through his Omidyar Network, has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ukrainian opposition that recently succeeded in overthrowing the Yanukovych regime in Kiev.

Omidyar's efforts were aligned with those of a plethora of State Department agencies and activists, NGOs and foundations which together poured millions and millions of dollars into the Yanukovych opposition, providing abundant financial support at the very least. The CIA has also long been rumored to be a part of the funding and support mix keeping the protests going and eventually enabling the end of Yanukovych's rather inept rule.

The fact of direct American involvement in funding the Ukrainian opposition is hardly a surprise, as these things are going on all over the world all the time, and they have a long and brutal history. The surprise, if there is one, is Omidyar's direct funding of opposition groups to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So far as I've seen, no other billionaire is directly funding the opposition in Ukraine.

Ames said he was clued to look into the matter of outside funding of Ukrainian opposition groups by a series of tweets by Marcy Wheeler which mentioned coups and dark or deep forces and American financial and other backing...

And shortly he found documentary evidence of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition groups in the archives of one of those groups. You can find just about anything online if you look hard enough, eh?

Ames suggested that there might be a journalistic conflict of interest, hmmmm, if Omidyar is funding oppositions while his stable of journalists are... ignorant?

Hard to say.

At any rate, after stonewalling yesterday, both Greenwald and Wheeler have "responded" to the Ames piece with what can only be called Apologetics, and like the Catholic kind, one can believe them or not, but it is difficult or impossible to argue with them, for they ultimately rely on Faith Alone.

GREENWALD

I shall now attempt to do a running commentary on Greenwald's response. (Italicised segments are my paraphrases of Greenwald's statement at the Intercept.)

A. Intro. I just found out about this 30 minutes ago, sorry I haven't responded before now. I don't follow Twitter all the time, you know.

1. This would be called a "dodge" in any rational situation, as the story was posted many hours before someone apparently alerted him to it, and Wheeler had been furiously Twittering with Paul Carr for hours already over it. To suggest that Greenwald hadn't been alerted earlier than "30 minutes ago" is disingenuous at best. 

B. I have not spoken to anyone, not Pierre or anyone else in the world about this matter...

1. "Spoken" maybe not, but there is always Twitter and various other communications media that don't require one to "speak"  with whomever one is communicating. To say he hasn't "spoken" says nothing about other forms of communications.

C. I barely know what this is all about, but I'll try to address this and other issues I feel are important. 

1.  "I had no prior knowledge..." (h/t Tanya Harding) A classic dodge. Lawyers and politicians use it all the time. "You've caught me unawares, I know so very little, but if you'll permit me, I'll attempt to respond to your questions one at a time, and if you'll allow me to, I'll make a statement about what I believe is really important here."

D. While I literally know nothing about this article, in five minutes on the Google Machine, I discovered that this supposed Bombshell about Omidyar's funding of a Ukrainian opposition group was already long since made public because the investment was announced on the Omidyar Network website years ago. So obviously there's no story here. Move along.

1. Uh, "investment?" Ok then, so if this was an investment, one would assume earnings -- a return on investment, no? How, exactly, would that work? Oh, never mind.
2. A grant is not an "investment," but in classic Greenwald style, he conflates the two, at one point referring to an "investment" and in the very next paragraph referring to a $3 million "grant" that covers the same thing as his previous "investment."  This is a form of trickery called "sleight of hand," in which terms get deliberately jumbled so that later he can say with a straight face, "I don't know what you are referring to."

E. I am as concerned as anyone else with the financial dealings of corporations and billionaires who fund journalistic enterprises, really, I am, but in this case, it doesn't look to me like the Omidyar Network is ashamed of funding this (single) Ukrainian opposition outfit. Look! They announced it years ago for all the world to see! Hardly hiding it at all.

1. This is both disingenuous and nonresponsive as nobody claims they were ashamed of it or trying to hide it. The fact that a grant (or was it an "investment?" You decide) was announced in a 2011 press release and detailed on a website doesn't indicate anything about how well it was publicized. But that isn't the issue. 

F. I am so confused! What is the "scandal" here? I thought just 72 hours ago EVERYONE was on the side of the opposition. Now we're not supposed to be? When did this change come about? And why in Heaven's Name should First Look be expected to respond to this nothingburger? I didn't support the opposition. Really. In fact, I was called a "Putin Shill" for NOT supporting the rebellion. I'm on your side. Really.

1. Nonresponsive, disingenuous, and distractive. The issue is not that this is a "scandal" but that it is potentially important that a billionaire who is funding a New Media venture is also backing opposition efforts in foreign lands. It has nothing to do with whether Greenwald supports the Ukrainian coup or not. It's not about him in that respect.

G. I am so hurt! My life is in danger! I've been accused of being a criminal by no less than a Congressman of the United States of America! I take these things very seriously! Now I am being accused of not being on the right side of the Ukrainian uprising! This is not fair! This is not right! This will not stand! I put my life on the line, and everyone I work with is a fierce critic of government and corporations, and I will not have you accuse me of being a CIA tool! Stop it!

1.  Nonresponsive, disingenuous, distractive, irrelevant. This is what's known as "grandstanding." It has nothing -- at all -- to do with the article in question, it's merely Greenwald's plea for attention. In fact, Ames never mentions the CIA. We may have to come back to this erm... slip... later.

H. I had no prior knowledge of Omidyar funding of this previously unheard of Ukrainian opposition group, really, I didn't, even though any journalist worth the name should have been able to find it because it was all public and shit and they weren't trying to hide it or anything. I didn't know because I didn't care, I'm a perfessional. It has nothing to do with me. So why would I care? Huh?

1. Typical dodge, but it points to something that, if true, should be worrisome. Basically, Greenwald is using "Lawyer Ethics" -- he'll work for anyone who pays him, and he won't ask questions. That's not journalism. Far from it. The question here is whether he's telling the truth, because if he has never looked into the backgrounds and ties of any of his current/former employers, then he isn't doing even rudimentary due diligence. Or did he, as Alexa O'Brien so elegantly put it, "He fucking lied."

I. No one can tell me what to do! No one! No one! No one! I am INDEPENDENT!!!!! I report what I want to report!!!! Leave me alone! 

1. Irrelevant, nonresponsive, juvenile. 'Nough said.

J. I know you are but what am I? Neener, neener, neener. 

1. Juvenile, puerile, strawman, horseshit. Here Greenwald is accusing Ames, who he refuses to name, of being just like him, unaffected by the "repugnant" views of the of the media outlets they work for. So there. The problem is, Ames hasn't accused Greenwald or anyone else of being "affected," by their employer's political views. That's not the point.

K. I'm not a stooge for the government!

1.   Nobody said he was. But since he's so sensitive to the accusation that isn't made, maybe somebody should look into it...

L.  Everyone who's anyone works for the Oligarchs now, buster, even you, so don't you get on your high horse with me! Even the ACLU gets Soros money. Soros! Soros! Soros!

1.  Irrelevant. Ames has always been very up front about the investors in Pando, and their roles with the organization; Greenwald has always feigned ignorance and/or been evasive when asked about Omidyar and his actual role in First Look. Basically, he won't answer about Omidyar, but he seems to know plenty about the funders of other organizations while claiming to know and care nothing about Omidyar.

M. I'm not responsible for Pierre!!!!

1.   Nobody said you were!!!! Why are you yelling!!!!!

N. Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.

1. We know. Thank you for sharing.

O. Ames [Whose name I shall not utter, no, no, no, you cannot make me!!!] is a LIAR. I don't have "exclusive access" to the Snowden Hoard. Others have lots of docs too, it's not just ME!!!! LIAR!!!!

1.  Lie. Ames says that he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs, something Greenwald has on other occasions acknowledged, but here he implies that Ames claims that Greenwald and Poitras are the only journalists with any of them, but that's simply, obviously and grossly false. Greenwald has done this on other occasions as well when people say he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs. He lies and claims they are saying he and Poitras have the only  Snowden docs. Both Greenwald and Poitras are also employed by Omidyar. The issue in dispute is whether Omidyar has access to the documents. Greenwald denies it, but we have only his word to rely on. And that word is... decide for yourself...

P. My history speaks for itself! I don't approve of US Government interference in the business of other countries. I don't know anything about Ukrainia, I don't know anything about Pierre's funding of the Ukrainan opposition, and I DON'T CARE!!!!! 

1.  Note the dodge here: he is opposed to government interference in the affairs of other nations, but he has nothing to say about private foundations or individuals interfering. Nope. Not a word. 

Q. Pierre lets me do and say whatever I want! You can't stop me! And you better not try!

1.   Juvenile, nonresponsive. Tiresome. Has nothing to do with the topic of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition.

 -----------------------------------------------------------
This is typical of Greenwald's defenses and apologetics. It's mostly about something other than the issue at hand, and when the actual topic is addressed, the answer is basically, "I don't care about anything but ME."

That's long been his answer to everything. What about MEEEE?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh snap! Paul Carr, Pando editor, responds to Greenwald's apologetics.

Should Glenn Greenwald ever find himself curious as to what his boss is up to, he can rest assured the answers will always be found right here on Pando.

The whole thing is kind of precious. But I realize that Twit Wars and pissing contests bore a whole lot of people who have actual lives to lead... ;-)

Further Thoughts on the Boy's Club (and a Few Gurlz) Assembled Around The Philanthropic Billonaire

Practically anybody with a Wordpress or Blogspot site produces more content than Pierre Omidyar's flagship entry into the New Media Market.

"The Intercept," so far, has proved itself to be essentially a self-indulgent, self-congratulatory bust. Gawker and Politico, to name but two, easily run rings around them in terms of content, but so do hundreds of thousands of, well for lack of a better word, workaday blogs.

There still is (practically) no "there" there, and it seems that's the point of it. To assemble as large and as previously productive a team of journalists and commentators as possible, to bring along as many of their fans as possible, and to have them all sit around admiring the furnishings, smiling and laughing and telling one another how wonderful they are, recycling stories of past glories, and wondering when the party will start.

Well, it hasn't started yet, that's for sure.

And we must ask why, if "The Intercept" is supposed to be the start of something truly transformational and amazing, it is so very weak and enervated. Almost as if the life had been sucked out of it even before it emerged on the 'Zine scene a little less than two weeks ago.

Was that the point all along? To have a kind of empty vessel, where various media contrarians could be assembled and offered a permanent safe haven to say and do whatever they wanted and get paid for it at whatever the going rate was (or more), and where they could party hardy if they wanted, or just kick back and relax if that was more their inclination, but where they would not be required under any circumstances to do anything they didn't want to, where there would be no schedule, no demands, no production expectations, and no need to... perform?

Is this the transformative media Omidyar and others associated with him in this venture had in mind all along, and are they laughing now that they could so easily bamboozle those awaiting with such breathless anticipation the debut of this Grand New Media Thing?

Well, in a way, pretty much the same thing worked for Obama, didn't it? Gin up a huge body of fans, work them expertly, suggest -- but not really promise -- something new was on the horizon, tell them hope and change was nigh, hold their attention, but either provide nothing at all, or actually take more from the bamboozled than even the flim-flam artists of the Cheney Regime, and call it wonderful?

Is that the model for Omidyar's New Media?

Why not? It works so well in the political realm. Obama neither invented it nor does he do it all that well, though he's better at it than House Cheney has been (viz: Liz's political implosion). It's basic to post modern PR and marketing.

As an experiment, I went back through the archives, my own and at Salon, to explore perspectives on the Citizens United Thing during the hoo-hah over the Supreme Court's ruling overturning a century of campaign finance regulation and permitting unlimited expenditures of luscious cash by corporations in furtherance of 'Free Speech' as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Recall, Greenwald was out front passionately defending the ruling, while dozens of legal minds took exception to his revanchist -- and in retrospect rather juvenile -- arguments in support of the Supreme Court majority opinion. He simply dismissed the weaker dissents out of hand and he ignored the more trenchant ones altogether, choosing to focus instead on the least informed  or least strenuously agued commentary against the Citizens United decision.

What is striking to me about it today, however, is not Greenwald's casual and dismissive attitude toward the dissent -- he never actually addressed Justice Stevens' well-argued and trenchant dissenting opinion at all -- it is rather his astonishing and surprisingly pre-figuring (again in retrospect) support for unlimited corporate political speech, no matter what the result, because "Teh Constitution."

No matter how cogently and succinctly it was pointed out to him that such a thing is NOT "teh Constitution," and how the SCOTUS majority twisted themselves into knots, and actually ruled on something that was not before them to get to the Citizens United decision, and no matter how often and well it was pointed out how truly malignant this thing was, akin in its own way to Plessy v Ferguson or even Dredd Scott, Greenwald dismissed or ignored the arguments, pressing ahead relentlessly with his ideological position that the Constitution and Bill of Rights required granting full corporate free speech rights and the elimination of campaign finance laws restricting those rights -- because (this is the truly juvenile part) the language of the First Amendment didn't specifically exclude corporate speech, aka: "money," from coverage under the First Amendment.

In other words, his self-declared absolutist and unwavering position was in support of the corporation no matter what the outcome, no matter what the arguments against it, no matter what the legal precedent had long been, and no matter how weak his arguments turned out to be. None of that mattered. What mattered was that corporations have unlimited and unfettered free speech rights based on their wealth and power, and that whatever resulted from their liberation from previous restrictions and legal restraints on them was... just too damn bad. Suck. It. Up.

Corporate rights are to be maximized and if the peasants don't like it, tough. It's constitutional!

Is it any wonder a billionaire might sit up and take notice?

Of course, I don't know that that's when Omidyar's gaze first landed on Greenwald, but it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few billionaires took an interest. The internal dynamic of Greenwald's posts on the matter of Citizens United is fairly obviously directed toward making a pitch for corporate/billionaire support of him and his endeavors. He cannot be dissuaded from his belief that corporate rights and interests are fully supported by the Constitution and that they cannot be restricted in any significant way by something as silly as "law."

This is obviously not a "lefty" position on these matters, and the fact that Greenwald was at the time considered by many to be a significant spokesman for "the left"  -- though he would routinely deny any such label -- his tireless (indeed, tiresome) advocacy on behalf of the Citizens United decision was a distinct outlier in "lefty" circles. His advocacy was strident, bizarre and it was unwavering. It was therefore sure to be noticed in the chambers and halls of money and power -- because it was so contrary to much professional legal opinion and to essentially the entire "leftist" political opinion. Greenwald was seriously out of step. And that can get one noticed.

I suspect he'd been "noticed" well before his strident and contrarian advocacy on behalf of Citizens United, however.

Those of us who noted his sudden appearance on the "progressive" blog scene and followed his meteoric rise from obscurity to "lefty spokesperson" seemingly out of nowhere were more than a little perplexed. It was obvious to many of us from the outset that he was no "lefty;" he was a highly verbose legal observer, one whose political inclinations, to the extent they could be characterized, were essentially reactionary and libertarian -- though he denied and decried such labels.

But then many of those who have been involved in the lefty blogosphere for any length of time recognized long ago that many of the prime movers and shakers in the field were almost all ex-Republicans with a strong libertarian/entrepreneurial bent who felt unwelcome in Republican political circles and who recast themselves as "progressives" -- they weren't really "leftists" in any case.  In that context, Greenwald not only fit right in, he was an almost instant celebrity -- because in addition to everything else, he was out and gay and living abroad with his Brazilian lover.

Wow! Perfect!

He was immediately adopted into the "lefty" blogosphere's A-List and heavily promoted therein. His use of sockpuppets and his frequent vicious attacks on all and sundry who didn't share his opinions or who questioned his perspectives, his honesty, and/or his sometimes reactionary legal and political statements and strategies were largely ignored by his more and more rabid internet supporters, including his backchannel ones.  Absolute submission and conformity of thought was one of the most striking aspects of Greenwald's more and more cult-like followers, many of whom, like he once did, seemed to utilize sockpuppets to bulk up the appearance of support and they were quite proud of it.

Once having secured his position in the "lefty" blogosphere, it seemed there was no mountain he could not climb. His career path seemed extraordinarily smooth as he generated an enormous amount of verbiage in his columns -- not to mention several best selling books denouncing the Bush administration's legal overreach, torture, a dysfunctional political system, the hypocrisy of others, and the routinely disparate "justice" system favoring the interests of the well-off.

He was picked up first by Salon media, then by the Guardian, where he used his ever louder megaphone to "inject" (his word) his contrarian, not infrequently reactionary, ideas and political points of view into liberal and lefty consciousness, and where he built a rabid following of internet fans, most of whom were of a similar libertarian and contrarian persuasion. Few of them showed any interest in or knowledge of actual leftist or even progressive politics, politics which Greenwald himself often denounced or declared irrelevant or an out and out failure.

He made his career denouncing the mainstream media (unless it provided him or those he favored an outlet, or otherwise conformed with his interests, in which case it was "doing its job" --  regardless of his denunciations), denouncing politicians and their hypocrisy, denouncing anyone who disagreed with him, denouncing.... well, you get the picture. He was instrumental in setting up numerous non-profits and political action committees, none of which actually accomplished much beyond raising lots of money. The financial and operational transparency of these outfits was close to opaque, so much so that he was given to lashing out at critics rather than providing the kind of transparency he demanded of others.

And then, once he had secured possession of the Snowden Trove of NSA documents, he (along with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras and a stellar media staff) plighted his troth with Pierre Omidyar, the founder and chairman of eBay, whose companies are primary beneficiaries and users of NSA and other (inter)national surveillance state data and security.

And, to a not particularly surprising degree, very little -- some would say nothing -- has come from this union of strange bedfellows. So far, it is barren.

Greenwald maintains a presence on Twitter, but for the most part, his infamous Twitter wars with critics and media personalities have pretty much ceased. He has published very little for "The Intercept," though it is substantially more than Laura Poitras has, as she has published absolutely nothing on behalf of the New Media Transformational Enterprise. Jeremy has posted one piece that rehashes old news about cell-phone targeting of militants -- leading to the occasional "oopsie!" by drone pilots and night raiders in America's endless wars.

"The Intercept" itself (often without attribution) maintains an active Twitter and Facebook presence, generally referring to other media stories about "The Intercept" since "The Intercept's" own content is so very sparse. Self regard and congratulations on how awesome it all is, of course, is de rigueur. 

The few others who have posted at "The Intercept" have broken little new ground, but they have managed a good deal of self-regard and congratulation as well. Most of what is there is recycled from other news sources or opinion about what's appeared elsewhere. Gawker or Politico it ain't.

"The Intercept" would be dismissed as nonsense and piffle but for its claim of being "transformational." If that is so, and this is what the transformation of media looks like, then we can only assume we are looking at the extinction of the genre.

If this is the transformational End of media, it's going out with barely a whimper...



--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohhhhhhh! Katie Bar The Door!  Now Pierre has picked up Taibbi! (h/t Pathman in comments, or I wouldn't a noticed it at all) Taibbi!!!!!!™ My doG in Heaven! (*Heavy breathing, heavy breathing, heavy breathing... huff huff huff huff...*) /s

Speaking of The Archives, there was a time, going on a decade ago or so, when I really did consider Taibbi, Greenwald and Scahill to be just about the only major media players with (ahem) balls, and I really did look forward to their patented eviscerations of the PTB. Sy Hersh was fading -- apparently due to knowing too much when you got right down to it. These New Kids on the Block (so to speak) were taking up the cudgel. I cheered them, and I sincerely wish they were still on paths of righteousness.

But too many questions have been raised and left unanswered. The work product at "The Intercept" is weak, and it's still almost non-existent. Pierre's (companies') activities in collaboration with and on behalf of the (Inter)national Surveillance/Security State are incompatible with notions of free inquiry, free press, and free speech. It simply doesn't scan, any more than any billionaire's personal financing of media enterprise does. No matter what your "contract" says, you're not going to have what you think you have -- not if you're honest with yourself and your audience.

When it's boiled down, it's not so much that Pierre is buying up so many of the principal antagonists to at least some of the factions of Power, it's the dishonesty and opacity of this operation. It's the near-silencing of the voices bought by Omidyar.

Greenwald himself was called out directly by Alexa O'Brien for his lies about her contacts with him in regard to joining First Look and her questions about Omidyar and the PayPal 14. Scahill's "Dirty Wars" may get an Oscar, but it's been criticized for its focus on Scahill rather than the real stories of the Dirty Wars being conducted by the United States and its allies.

Poitras is absent from Pierre's stage, as is Segura and Wheeler. What? The Gurlz have nothing to say? Nothing to show? Isn't that something...

And now Taibbi has left Rolling Stone to set up his own little shop under Pierre's wing. Given what's gone on so far, we can be all but certain that he won't be saying much for attribution and publication for the next few months, and if "The Intercept" is the model for what's to come, he won't have much to say after his own operation (under Pierre's wing) is up and running, either, nor will those he cajoles and brings along with him.

Many observers speculated that the point of Pierre's operation was to consolidate, tame and partially silence as many of the loudest media voices speaking out against Power and Money as possible, and so far, that seems to be the case.

Which leads me to speculate that others, witnessing the spectacle, will arise and take up the cause.

But that remains to be seen...

Just a Friendly Reminder on What 'The Intercept' Was Touted To Be

On February 14, 2014, five days after Pierre Omidyar's Flagship Online Magazine, Glenn Greenwald's "The Intercept" went live in the dead of night, the Financial Times published an interview with Greenwald in its "Life & Arts" section entitled "Lunch with FT: Glenn Greenwald" -- which presents an extended description of being in Rio de Janeiro,  the heat, the restaurant, the menu, the food, and the interviewee before actually interviewing him on the topic of the Snowden Leaks and the New Media Venture, First Look.

Part of what made the piece interesting was its emphasis on the locale, the history of this restaurant in the lives of Greenwald and spouse David Miranda, the menu, the food,  the oppressiveness of the heat and humidity, the details of the bill, and so on. While some people might object to such personal, even private, detail in a story about portentous matters of state, in fact, it struck me as one of the first times Greenwald has been featured in a news article which doesn't obsess on those portentous matters -- at least not initially -- and instead presents a human interest story about... having lunch with a celebrity. Gosh! Who'd a thunk it, right?

Of course, Greenwald has become the media celebrity of the moment, far eclipsing what he objectifies as  "the source," ie: Edward Snowden, who is apparently ensconced in a luxury suite of rooms somewhere in the Moscow area. Actually, the public has never known more than a tidbit or two of Snowden and his whereabouts. Apart from rare interviews that have taken place in or near Moscow, there is no independent confirmation that he is even in Moscow -- let alone that he was ever marooned in the Sheremetyevo Airport for weeks.

This lack of evidence and confirmation or even visualization of Snowden, his history, or his whereabouts contrasts starkly with Greenwald's nearly continuous interviews for print, radio and television, interviews conducted by the many, many journalists who have traveled to Rio where they have met and interviewed him (and his dogs) at his home or as in this case, at lunch at a fine restaurant in the Ipanema district, Bar do Beto, where, according to Greenwald, he and Miranda once came regularly for meals and to hang out. As they no longer live in the area, however, they don't often return and have only begun coming back recently. (I was once told where in Rio Greenwald and Miranda -- and the dogs -- now live, but I have since forgotten. All I recall is that it was in a western district bordering a favela on one side and the jungle on the other.)

As reported, the meal included an appetizer of squid rings and prawns for two, (R$93.80), a serving of bread, and some soft drinks, which, together with the cover and service charge, came to a total of R$171.58, or about £43 in real money, or $72 or so American, not an inexpensive lunch to be sure, but probably typical for lunch in Ipanema -- on the FT expense account no doubt.

I go through all these details and side stories because that's basically how the FT writer, Geoff Dyer, approached the story. It is, after all, in the "Life & Arts" section, not the hard news section. So, we can all meander for a while and fan ourselves as we vicariously settle in, enjoy the ambiance and develop our narrative. Why it's almost like a Tennessee Williams play, isn't it?

Greenwald, according to Mr. Dyer, is quite charming in person -- as opposed to his aggressive and combative persona on the teevee and the internet.  His laughter can even become a "giggle," says Dyer, who quotes Greenwald speaking candidly about his often abrasive public persona, “People are sometimes not sure what to expect,” he says. “They think they are going to meet this total asshole and get screamed at.”

Yes, well... actually everyone I know who has met him says pretty much the same thing about him: he's nothing like his reputation for bullying and aggression might suggest. He's actually kind of... erm, sweet. Cough.

Which only goes to show, perhaps, that what the world sees of Greenwald on the television, in print, and on the internet (particularly his infamous Twitter wars with journalists and random critics) probably shouldn't be taken at face value. On the other hand, the extreme dichotomy between his constantly raging public persona -- that "total asshole" of which he speaks -- and his behavior in person as a rather charming gentleman might give one pause and perhaps might make one think there is something a bit off about him. We all understand "playing a role," but in Greenwald's case, is there something more going on? ("I'm just asking questions...")

In fact, during the time I was part of his commentariat at UT and later at Salon, I witnessed his sometimes appallingly abusive, hostile and aggressive behavior toward regular commenters and casual visitors alike, often on no pretext at all. He'd just go off on them, viciously. I came to believe these displays of extreme cruelty and viciousness were fundamentally part of his make up. He could no more prevent himself from attacking others in that way than a Pavlovian conditioned dog can keep from salivating at the sound of a bell or a wife-beater can keep from beating his spouse... as it happened, I came to see this behavior as toxic and poisonous, and I withdrew from his commentariat four or five years ago.  I look at what we see of him on teevee and internet these days as very much the "real Greenwald" -- or rather, as one of the personalities of the "real Greenwald."

As lunch continued, Mr. Dyer asks Greenwald about "The Intercept," and among his responses,  one stood out -- especially given what has been posted at "The Intercept" to date:

Greenwald said that "The Intercept" will be publishing daily news stories (it does not), that he, Greenwald, will write a column every day as well as reporting stories (he does neither), and there will be guest op-ed writers, something that has not occurred, as all material so far posted to "The Intercept" is written by staff or -- in the case of the night-time pictures of NatSec parking lots -- is a guest photo-essay. (I would have quoted from the FT article, but their lawyers say I can't quote more than 30 words, which is bullshit, and I refuse to play these games with the FT legal department.)

Greewald also claims that "The Intercept" will be "like a news outlet." But it isn't. It's very much like an extremely slow-moving group blog, with very widely spaced posts, all of which, so far, consist of rehashes of previously reported news, or in one case, Greenwald's usual and previously aired polemics against James Clapper and President Obama. There has been no "news" in the "breaking" or investigative sense at all. The closest to an investigative report is Jeremy Scahill's lead article (also bylined Greenwald) on the use of NSA signals intelligence to target drones and night raids in Afghanistan and elsewhere, based principally on the testimony of two former drone pilots, but this, too,  is "old news" in the sense that A) it is NSA's job to provide signals intelligence to the military and its other clients -- ahem; and B) the use of cellphone metadata and geolocation information to target strikes against so-called "militants" and others has been well known and widely reported extensively for many, many years. Except for some scraps of testimony and some strangely disembodied and unidentified clips from "documents", there is nothing at all new in the lead article for "The Intercept."

The stark contrast between what Greenwald claims "The Intercept" will be and what it is and has been so far, strikes me as somewhat similar to the contradiction between Greenwald's aggressive and bullying public persona in print and other media and his relatively low-key and charming behavior in person. But there is also the contrast between the phantom-like Edward Snowden and the peripatetically in your face Greenwald, or the contrast between the shy and retiring billionaire Pierre Omidyar and the blustering, ever-furious Greenwald... There are so very many contradictions and contrasts, aren't there?

What "The Intercept" eventually will be is anybody's guess, but what it is is nothing at all like what  has been touted for the last several months, nor is it even remotely like the online publication Greenwald recently described for Geoff Dyer at the Financial Times.

But I'm sure it's serving its purpose... I go to Rio... 

The Question is One of Policy

Pretty pictures, taken at night from a rented helicopter by Trevor Paglen, contributor to "The Intercept":



So far, "The Intercept," Pierre Omidyar's first of a myriad of digital "magazines" intended to transform media in the Post-Modren Era, has been very weak tea indeed.

There is -- so far -- very little content, and what there is tends to be recycled, rehashed, and recapitulated  from previous work by the participants in the venture, or -- as in the case of Jeremy Scahill's lead article  (also bylined Greenwald, but there is no indication of his contribution to the piece) about the NSA providing targeting data to drone pilots and others responsible for killing various suspects in foreign lands -- warmed over old news with a dollop of the Snowden NSA Trove mentioned for spice. (Nothing in the Trove is actually clearly identified in Jeremy's piece).

Froomkin offers nothing new in his think piece, nor does Greenwald in his froth-laden but largely substance-free polemic attacking James Clapper and "the media". There has been no word, so far, from the third member of "The Intercept's" editorial triumvirate, Laura Poitras, who has seemed strangely silent about the venture from the moment of its "leak"  to the public last October to its launch early  Monday morning -- and up to last night, the last time I looked in on the site. As for the night-time pictures of NatSec facilities -- mostly their vast parking lots -- shown in the header video above and featured in large format stills taken by Trevor Paglen (a previously unmentioned contributor) ...yes? Pretty. But....? "What does a Surveillance State look like?" Trevor asked portentously.

Is it really buildings and parking lots at night? Ask somebody who's been through the Surveillance/Security State's wringer. There are plenty of them, quite a few of them very easy to contact and who are more than willing to tell their tale; and if there are no videos or photographs of what they have been through, there is always the option of hiring an illustrator or two to help us visualize what they are telling us...

The weakness of "The Intercept" has mostly been excused by apologists as the result of  a "rushed launch" -- they wanted to get something up and running for some reason. Now. Just wait, they say. It may be a somewhat rough and limited start, but things will smooth out and content will increase over time. Give it a chance. Of course, that is their standard response to criticism of this titanic and heroic new media venture funded by press-shy billionaire, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. From the outset they were saying, "It hasn't launched yet; wait till it launches before asking questions or criticizing. Its content will be the proof of its merit. Wait till it launches!"

Then it launched, just after midnight on February 10, with no prior announcement of the actual launch date (only a vague reference to "early next week.") "The launch was rushed," They said. "We wanted to get content up now, rather than wait any longer. You need to wait till there is a body of work before criticizing. This is only the beginning. There is much, much more to come. It's not fair to criticize it now."

When critics pointed out the startling whiteness and maleness of "The Intercept" staff, apologists tried to claim that since First Look's owner is "brown", the ratio b/w ratio is higher than one thinks, and who cares anyway about the gender of writers as long as their product is good? Clue: not all Persians are "brown." Most, in fact, are quite as "white" as any European.

Why they wanted to launch it now, with such soft rather than hard news is a mystery.  But then there are many mysteries associated with First Look Media and its entry into the mainstream media marketplace. "Mainstream" is a term I use advisedly in this case. For what has been put up so far is about as "mainstream" media-friendly as anything on the internet.

From my perspective, the launch of "The Intercept" is a disappointment, and for all intents and purposes, a flop. There is very little -- almost no --  "there" there.

The weakness of "The Intercept" is partly due to its striking lack of content. Given the high-caliber staff and the months of prep time they've had, that crew and its stringers should be able to roll out at least a dozen decent articles a day, a blockbuster or two a week. At the current rate of publication, however, that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. In fact, the molasses-slow rate of posts at "The Intercept" is remarkable given the nearly constant output Greenwald alone has been noted for since he entered the media market almost a decade ago. Most of the others involved are certainly capable of multiple posts a day on their own.

Given the huge amount of money Omidyar claims to be investing in the venture, the striking lack of content cannot be rationally attributed to any lack of funding.

What's slowing production to absolute crawl might be of some interest -- if some intrepid investigative journalist wanted to look into it -- but from my perspective, it is what it is. A very, very slow and cautious entry into the high-stakes -- higher-level -- digital media market with nothing so far that might offend a certain faction of investors in that market. With nothing so far that would even interest them.

Jeremy's lead article for "The Intercept" is a long and very detailed account focusing on the NSA's provision of telephone location and metadata used for targeting suspected militants and "terrorists" abroad. The upshot is that the drone pilots rely much more on signals intelligence provided by the NSA to the CIA and the military for targeting their quarry in the various theaters of the (Glorious) War on (Some) Terror(ism) than they do on informants and on-the-ground human intelligence, and because of that, drones take out significant numbers of civilians in addition to, or sometimes rather than, the militants and/or terrorists who are allegedly being targeted.

We knew that.

In fact, the use of cell-phone meta data for missile targeting purposes has been known and extensively reported since the 1990s, and its use for the locating, targeting and liquidation of militants and terrorists in the (G)WO(S)T(ism) has been hailed for many years. Jeremy is not telling us anything that has not been reported previously about it, not even that the NSA produces and provides a significant amount of the information used for targeting and extermination purposes. Strangely enough, it's their job.

The issue isn't that the NSA provides this information despite all the hyperventilating over this "revelation."

The issue is the policies that allow and enable the more or less random identification and extermination of "suspects." That's the problem.

But Jeremy never questions those policies in his inaugural post for "The Intercept." This is particularly jarring given his large body of work to date, most of which aggressively questions the policies involved in the targeting and liquidation of "suspects" -- leading to the fiery dismemberment and death of thousands of ordinary villagers going about their daily lives,  together with an abundance of women, children and old people.

This is what a Surveillance State looks like, but let's not show pictures of that. God knows. Not that!

It might harsh somebody's mellow, and we wouldn't want that.

A follow up Think Piece was posted at "The Intercept" by Dan Froomkin some days later that went over the various matters Greenwald, et al, have covered since the Big Reveal of the Snowden Leak in Hong Kong last summer, and Froomkin, like Jeremy, also does not question the policy of "Death From Above" (h/t Starship Troopers) but implying, as Jeremy does, that if only these things were done better, targeting and killing the right suspects only, all would be fine.

It's jarring, extremely jarring, to see this kind of apologetics for criminal policies wherever they appear, but for it to appear in the inaugural posts at "The Intercept" is worse in many ways. Together with Greenwald's jeremiad against Clapper and the Media (writ large), but not against the policies nor the agencies involved in maintaining the Killer State, I think it shows quite clearly that this digital publication is intended to advance a factional -- but pro-kill -- agenda that doesn't question the underlying policies of the more and more generalized (Glorious) War on (Some) Terror(ism) but only questions the tactics employed and the merits of the lead intelligence agency (ie: NSA) providing sometimes inadequate or erroneous information on who should be liquidated this time. 

When I've brought up some of my reservations about Jeremy's piece specifically, I've been told it's "just one small article," and that because Jeremy has written other things questioning these policies and tactics, I shouldn't be concerned that this one doesn't do so. I disagree, strongly. His article continues to be the lead article for "The Intercept" and thus it sets the tone for the publication and its point of view. There is -- so far -- nothing at "The Intercept" that questions the policy of "Death From Above." So long as those policies are not being questioned by the writers at "The Intercept," but only those who are carrying them out and the tactics they are using are held to account, then I'll be of the opinion that this thing is a joke, a bad one, being played on people who convinced themselves that finally there would be a strong, independent, investigative, antagonistic media outlet that they could believe in...  So far, it consists of little more than polemics and propaganda.

The way it's going so far, it might turn out more like the Obama campaign vs the reality of the Obama administration...

Oh dear...

The question then will be "How long will it take readers to catch on?" 

---------------------------------
ADDENDUM: In other fora and communications, I've pointed out that while neither Jeremy nor any of the other writers at "The Intercept" have so far questioned the policies of "Death From Above" -- at least not in their writing for "The Intercept" -- Jeremy did go on Democracy Now! and was very aggressive in raising questions about it, as he usually is in both his writing and in personal appearances. That's part of why I was so perplexed by his failure to question those policies in his inaugural article at "The Intercept."

Earlier today, though, I saw an interview by Jake Tapper with Jeremy on CNN -- and shockingly, to me -- again Jeremy did not question those policies. What is going on? Is he tailoring what he says to what he thinks his audience wants to hear? That, unfortunately, was one of the criticisms I saw of "Dirty Wars," both the book and the movie. Not only was he suspected of tailoring his message, but he was accused of pulling punches so as to achieve "mainstream" acceptance. And this was well before his Academy Award nomination.

"Mainstream acceptance" seems to be very high on the list of Things Desirable by "The Intercept's" team, as they fluff and puff themselves up over every positive (and some negative) mainstream notice they receive, as they strut and preen over awards they may or may not get, as they hob and nob with the modestly high and mighty (and in Greenwald's case, go on every television venue he can find that will book him.)  I have little doubt that all the appearances and interviews they do with the mainstream media they supposedly are skewering and ostensibly loathe must be interfering with their journalism... mustn't it?

And finally, as for the extraordinarily slow and stately pace of publication at "The Intercept," I find that the site has a very active Twitter account (there is was also a pretty hilarious parody account which could be confused with the real one, sadly now suspended... but wait! It's baaaack! "The extra underscore is pronounced "WOOSH!" to illustrate the excitement of it all!" "Pierre" had that one shut down; another arose; it was shut down, too. Now there is this one... how long before "Pierre" has it's plug pulled, too? Billionaire Power, yeah baby! ) and a chock full Facebook page, both of which are being constantly curated and updated, unlike the main site itself. Which just sort of... sits there, belonely and forlorn.

Even the comment sections at the main site -- which rather quickly accumulated thousands of posts as predicted -- have pretty much ground to a slow crawl, after, of course, a not unexpected descent in to brawls and madness. There's a reason Greenwald's commentariat and the comment sections of his various outlets were sometimes referred to as a pit of vipers...