The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations, except the NSA surveillance scandal.
Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."
Imagine a hypothetical world where one political party does more illegal and immoral things than the other. Now imagine you run a news site that covers both parties "equally": for every illegal and immoral thing one party does, it finds another from the other party and covers both. Is your news site partisan or non-partisan?
Yes. And many people believe they live in such a hypothetical world.
My experience under the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and Obama administrations leads me to believe that there is plenty of misconduct on both sides of the aisle that should be exposed. You don't have to look very hard to find examples - it just takes listening a little bit to the other side occasionally, and not automatically disregarding everything they say.
It looks to me like the party that abuses power more is the party that has more of it at the time.
And yes, the Republicans have a worrisome amount of power at this time, so there is a lot of discussion on those potential abuses. The apocalyptic rhetoric is very similar (but of opposite polarity) to that in 2009 and other times, back at least to 1993.
It would seem to require a lot of coordination between the parties if they were _not_ to live in such a hypothetical world. I really don't think they're talking to each other and asking "Hey, have you done something wrong or immoral yet this week? I'm waiting to take my turn."
Agreed. I'm primarily a 3rd-party voter, and as such am highly attuned to the hypocrisy I see coming from supporters of both major parties. And in my mind, Greenwald has been extremely good at attacking corruption and authoritarianism from those in power, regardless of their party. Most hard-core Democrats strongly dislike him because of how he "treated" the Obama administration.
On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a PO Box.
Who funds the Intercept anyway?
I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin.
The word "partisan" impies actions and beliefs on a "side" without considering it independently.
The intercpt, and glen greenwald, were a thorn in the obama administration's side with their reporting. Now they intend to be a thorn in Trump's side. That sounds non-partisan, at least in the sense of republican and democrat, to me.
The Intercept has been plenty critical of the Obama administration, from the drone strikes to the surveilence state, to their handling of Manning and Snowden.
They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
The Clinton Impeachment, which was blown open by the media leak of the stained blue dress on the DrudgeReport. The media was largely silent on Obama's scandals, but he had plenty, off the top of my head: IRS targeting of political opponents, U.S. Ambassador death at Benghazi, Secretary of State Clinton's mishandling of classified data on her personal server, giving guns to the Mexican cartels (Gun Walker), Chinese hack of all the federal employees' personal information, etc.
Those weren't leaked by public servants acting on their conscience, they were stolen by hackers and delivered to Wikileaks, so it's not a relevant example.
I'm glad that their shameless cheating at that debate with the help of Donna Brazile got exposed. But what are some other examples of "rigging the primary against Bernie"? While the DNC obviously didn't like him (in the same way that the RNC didn't want Trump), what concrete actions were taken to undermine him?
If you're expecting independents to vote for your party, you should probably allow them to contribute to selecting your nominee. Otherwise, people like me who would've voted for Bernie Sanders voted for Donald Trump.
> Otherwise, people like me who would've voted for Bernie Sanders voted for Donald Trump.
You're doing a really, really good job of making my point for me. I suspect the Democrats aren't all that moved by the argument "Trump supporters should be allowed to help pick the Democratic nominee!"
Then the DNC can continue to lose future elections.
I'm not a Trump supporter; I voted against Clinton, and my vote was first to Sanders. I'm happy with my vote; Trump winning has galvanized progressive coalitions in a way that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won.
Establishment Democrats who aren't progressive enough need to die off faster. Then the Demoractic party might run candidates worth voting for.
Exit polls considerably off from what the primary election results were, specifically in states with electronic voting machines, has been well documented.
I think Greenwald disagrees with WikiLeaks firehose model of get it all out there, unfiltered. In the case of the diplomatic cables leak, that effectively exposed undercover agents.
A simple way of knowing something is biased is by analyzing the content of the intent. For example:
> If President Trump tries to turn public institutions against the people they are intended to protect and serve, then leaking will be more important than ever.
This is a conflicted statement. Whistle blowing, or leaking if you must, is always important and should not be weighed on a single individual's threat to the people. It is always important to report a biased judgement against others, but the importance should not be indicated in the same breath as stating "if" someone does something it's "more" important.
This "twist" in conflicted logic in the statement makes it a blaming statement against Trump, which might indicate it's biased. That's not to say Trump isn't biased, but that's another problem entirely.
> but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."
Misinformed statements like these are what somewhat dismissive of democracy. If you would have put in the slightest bit of effort and done some research instead of spouting off the first thing that came to your mind. If you don't want to do the research, you don't have to have a strong opinion on things that you have little domain knowledge in. He is especially dubious of Russia's involvement in election hacking and deems it a sideshow.
Read something, anything written by Glenn Greenwald in the past 4 years. There is probably no greater, substantive critic of Obama The Drone reports would be an excellent start.
The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the writers bias in equating them.
There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.
You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false.
Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical.
In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent?
What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article?
How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
Your top post shows that you can't see shades of gray. Every list of examples is proof that the examples are all equal. You follow it up with equating a smear campaign based on sensationalism and spearheaded by a charlatan, with journalism demonstrating the value of whistleblowing. Just like our president, you are allergic to blame, even when it's spelled out in plain English. I have no illusions that you will deny the wetness of water, if it stands between you and being "right".
Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things.
I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago.
You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
I guess you must have stole from the store. They let you pay and walk out but that wasn't consent. You're thief who just hasn't been charged or arrested yet.
You can find a kernel of truth in anything and extrapolate it to your favored conclusion. After all, Bernie Madoff was the chairman of Nasdaq at one point. His marks were so convinced he was on the up and up, because their returns were so good. He was 4x as successful as Donald Trump. His investors had no problem seeing up as down, and black as white, because they were making good money. Their consent was trivially simple to manufacture. Madoff was eventually found to be a charlatan, but it's only obvious in hindsight. What if there's another charlatan who is a master negotiator, and simply needs to read enough single issue voters. Then he could just promise them all of their single issues will be solved. It might help to take credit or claim to have a simple solution for general trends that have existed for decades, like sensationalism in the media, or violence in places we've bombed for 50 years. Also, if you have no reputation to ruin, and are a billionaire, you have no incentive to act civilized, so just the simple act of the media predicting your political demise allows you to point out their inaccuracy as proof that theyre out to get you. You'd probably find it trivially easy to manufacture a whole bunch of consent. But that would never happen, right?
Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet" who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal regarding a story where the parent company of this newspaper has sent my startup an injunction and this journalist was sent to harass me (no other papers, media printed the story because there was none)
f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the story and lie lie lie
You had one single bad experience with one single reporter and now you generalize it to be a fair representation of how all reporters act?
That sounds to me as no better than if some reporter had uncovered the criminality of one single company and now assumes all companies are criminal.
I understand that you feel you've been wronged in this situation, and have very strong feelings about it, but can't you try to be a just a little more objective?
Campaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
Twitter's mobile interface really isn't made for looking at tweets from months ago. If I accidentally tap on a tweet and click back, I'm brought back to today's tweets.
I can't manage to copy links to individual posts without losing my place in the timeline, but there were a number of retweets of non-WikiLeaks related posts about Clinton. They also retweeted this tweet from when Clinton appeared with Pussy Riot in 2014:
I don't think see that as a particularly strong correlation here. I see comments on both sides that are grey or dead, many of which have clearly violated the guidelines.
You need to learn more about The Intercept. Glenn Greenwald and his crowd spent the election cycle relentlessly attacking Clinton over her emails and Obama over his drone strikes.
Had you preferred he joined the relentlessly attacking of Trump over the leaked video recording?
What is more important, the content of a private conversation between two people off-camera, or drone strikes? Or is the content of such private conversation more important than say, keeping a private server for government business and outside of official records?
Why is only the most important topic worthy of discussion? Why can you only see the other side's extremities?
Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered.
Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."