Glenn Greenwald destroys the Washington Post

[bmags]

Thank you, Glenn Greenwald, for hitting everything that has been plaguing Washington news coverage for I don't know how long.

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...bama/index.html

The whole thing is an awesome smackdown, but the choicest quotes imo are:

The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut today produces an extreme piece of government-serving, stenographic "journalism," publishing a dubious administration press release masquerading as a lengthy news article on Obama's approach to Terrorism and civil liberties. The Post depicts Obama as heavily and heroically engaged in disrupting the alleged Najibullah Zazi domestic terrorist plot and -- repeatedly highlighting that success -- claims "the White House has been charting a delicate course as it attempts to turn the page on Bush-era anti-terrorism policies," whereby "the Obama administration is increasingly confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country." Here are all of Kornblut's cited sources for the article -- every last one of them -- in the order she cites them:

 

Obama aides pointed . . . administration officials said . . . a senior administration official said . . . officials said . . . a senior administration official said . . . senior Obama officials stressed . . . a senior administration official said . . . aides said . . . officials said . . . one senior administration official said. . . . one senior official said. . . . The official said . . . a senior administration official said . . . a senior administration official said . . . administration officials said . . . . a senior official said.

 

Not a single named person is cited, and there's not a syllable of quoted dissent in any of it. Virtually every sentence in the long article does nothing but praise Obama and depict him as stalwartly safeguarding America's civil liberties (unlike Bush did) even as he protects us from the dangerous Terrorists, so why is anonymity needed for that? It's nothing more than what Robert Gibbs is eager to say every day.

 

Per Wapo Ombudsman (figurehead -bmags)

 

The Post has strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. . . . But some of those lofty standards are routinely ignored. . . . News organizations can pay dearly if they're not vigilant about sourcing. At minimum, credibility can suffer. At worst, a damaging journalistic transgression can occur. . . .

 

But anonymity can be overused and abused. Sources can make false or misleading assertions with impunity. That's why The Post has such stringent rules. . . .

 

The Post also is inconsistent in how it describes unnamed sources and the reasons they were granted anonymity. Post policies say that readers should be told as much as possible about the quality of a confidential source ("with first-hand knowledge of the case," for instance). They also say "we must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence."

 

But Post stories often say only that an unnamed source "spoke on condition of anonymity."

 

The Post's article today violates every one of these rules. It doesn't even claim that these anonymous officials have any knowledge at all -- first-hand or otherwise -- of what actually happened (are they national security officials, press people, political advisers?). The article doesn't even pretend to justify why anonymity was granted (there's not a word about that). One doesn't even have any idea how many anonymous officials are dictating all of this to Kornblut -- one, five, ten? Who knows?

 

Beyond specific policies, even the arguments made to justify these claims are redolent of the Bush/Cheney approach. With unrecognized irony, The Post article notes that "the White House says it avoided trumpeting either the elevated threat level or the averted [Zazi] crisis." Really? What do you think this whole article is? It's nothing but Obama officials anonymously beating their chest over "the averted crisis" -- just as was true for previous leaks from "officials" claiming the Zazi plot was "the most significant since 9/11." Worse, in this very article, Obama officials are doing exactly what Bush officials spent years doing -- exploiting Terrorist plots and the fears they generate to justify the powers they demand. And they're using the same convoluted, manipulative logic to accomplish that.

 

Reining in the excesses of the Patriot Act (and, relatedly, of ever-expanding eavesdropping powers) has long been a top agenda item for civil liberties groups -- and, at least so they claimed, for Democrats generally. In fact, when Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 last year in the middle of the campaign, he emphatically vowed that he would "fix" the problems with the FISA framework. But right as these reforms are finally being considered, the administration seizes on the Zazi case to insist that no such changes should be made:

 

I really thought that with the relatively-not-much-ado about the Zazi case it's because the FBI finally had a case/Obama administration was being responsible about fear mongering. But clearly they are going to use it to justify his stupid opinions about FISA and the should-be-reformed measures of the Patriot Act. But because people in the beltway are so obssessed with getting a "scoop" the following happens. "Oh what!? You're going to talk to me! Let me write all this down. Sure. Sure. Anonymity? No problem!!!"

 

It hasn't been a good decade for WaPo, or a good week. They have no idea what's going on. They don't give any context. They merely serve to focus on two things: Democrats and Republicans. They choose to focus on talking points rather than content. So they can go to hell. F*** balance, it's the most misused part of the important basics of news. Balance is not = coverage for political parties, it's a onslaught of a variety of views/topics/people/SOURCES injected into the audience where critical thinking can be made.

 

Fall apart and die, most national now newspapers deserve it.

 

edit: mods, title should obviously say "Post"

Edited October 6, 2009 by bmags

[BigSqwert]

Threw this in the Republican thread but I guess it could have gotten its own thread.

[bmags]

This has now happened for 2 administrations in a row, specifically in this newspaper.

[BigSqwert]

This has now happened for 2 administrations in a row, specifically in this newspaper.

f***ing disgusting if you ask me.

[bmags]

With the amt. of experience at that paper, with an ombudsman, you think they'd have time/resources to sit back and realizing that all they cover is politik, and refuse the content driving it. It's a disgrace.

[lostfan]

Journalists attempting "balance" is annoying as hell. You don't need to try to call attention to some not-really-equivalent example from the other side from 2 years ago to justify your story.

[bmags]

FOr the moment, I'll stay off balance, and just say the laziness of the WaPo to merely frame everything in D/R and nothing else is absurd.