Greenwald debuts Omidyar-backed The Intercept

[bemildred]

Source: USA Today

The journalistic venture started by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald launched its first news site Monday, promising more stories based on intelligence documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

The Intercept -- at TheIntercept.org -- is the first of several sites that will be published by First Look Media. While announcing the formation of First Look in October, Omidyar said he is contributing $250 million to pursue independent journalism, and tapped Greenwald to lead editorial operations.

Greenwald, who used Snowden's documents to break the story on the extent of the National Security Agency's mass surveillance activities, left the Guardian in October and has recruited several journalists to join First Look, including war correspondent Jeremy Scahill and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras.

"We decided to launch now because we believe we have a vital and urgent obligation to this story, to these documents, and to the public," wrote Greenwald, Poitras and Scahill on TheIntercept.org Monday morning. "We are determined to move forward with what we believe is essential reporting in the public interest."

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/10/greenwald-the-intercept/5364547/

[Renew Deal]

1. It should be renamed "The Profiteer"

Because Greenwald found a way to monetize his "reporting"

[bemildred]

2. That enterpreneurial spirit is so American, isn't it?`

Jamie Dimon, but without the bank.

[Demenace]

3. Thank you, why people excuse this guy is beyond me!

He is doing the same thing he is accusing the Government of with these information that belongs to us, the people of the United states. Any one else would have put every thing out for the public good, not hope to run a series of web sites using these information for profit. Why does he think I agree with his profiting from my country's information?

[Luminous Animal]

5. He is not the owner or even a partner in the company.

FYI. Anyone else would NOT have dumped the docs. Nearly all of the news agencies who have reported on the docs that they have seen or have in their possession have published then with redactions to avoid putting peoples lives at risk.

[Renew Deal]

10. And your proof that they wouldn't be published is what?

Assange was able to get the documents he got published in the "MSM"

[DeSwiss]

34. No, it's the government who is fucking us.

- He's just showing the pictures.


Geeze.

[cloudythescribbler]

4. RIDICULOUS -- in THIS world, as it is, you need big bucks to be heard in the mainstream!

you would, in the world as it is, consign this crucial reporting work to the margins, except when, say, CNN has Glenn Greenwald on in a debate with Jeffrey Toomer. How can you possibly provide a progressive competing view to the great mass of people without something of at least this scale?

[Renew Deal]

8. Then how did this story get so much attention?

And considering Greenwald a "progressive competing view" is a joke. He's a libertarian tool working for a libertarian fool.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Because they were published by big bucks news orgs.

[Renew Deal]

17. Exactly

It's not the source that matters as much as the quality of the story.

[Luminous Animal]

18. And Greenwald et al have been publishing quality stuff for other big bucks news orgs.

They've merely taken themselves from several big bucks news orgs to one specific big bucks news org.

[joshcryer]

24. And this is good, how?

Dumping the data would allow little news orgs to look over it. As they did with the cables. Which caused revolution and reforms in quite a few countries.

If we're really worried about the safety of people rather than transparency, we can look to Assange's argument about releasing information:

When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan

The only reason to trickle the data is to make money off of it. The argument can be made, as it was by close friend of Snowden, Jacob Appelbaum, that it needs to be "kept in the news" as long as possible. But he's wrong that that's what happened with Wikileaks, it wasn't until the cables were completely released that the impact was seen. In the information age a deluge is far more impactful than a trickle.

This is what the trickle is doing:



You can see each time some "revelation" is dropped. Yeah, the idea that it keeps in the news schedule makes sense. But look at the overall trend. It falls lower every time.

I'll leave you with this graph, Luminous, which you can see for yourself with this link:



You want to take a gander at what that purple line is? People really need to look at the data. The data is in the NSA's favor.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Why do you lie Josh. That shows absolutely nothing. After the cables were dumped by the Guardian,

all reporting dropped off from EVERY mainstream media site. Every single one. The Guardian, The Times, WaPo, all ceased their investigative reporting from the cables as a source.

They all just walked away from the stories. And I believe it was by design. They were becoming too afraid of what they were uncovering. I still read the distillation from the volunteers at Wikileaks. Do you? Do you know what they continue to uncover on a regular basis? Do you see it reported in the news? No you do not.

The fact that individuals used your search perimeters is meaningless because the information in the cables is vast and no one individual can aggregate them into a cohesive narrative.

We are not our own individual media outlet. That each individual human being can read through 250,000 cables and come up with a coherent narrative without a team of researchers to connect the dots is laughable. What you are proposing is a libertarian construct.

[joshcryer]

26. Wikileaks had the cables in Feb. They didn't get traction until Dec.

That's what my data is proving, whether you want to accept it or not, is your own denial. Once Wikileaks started dumping files then shit hit the fan. Wikileaks had tried on numerous occasions to get outlets to buy their cables, it didn't work.

I am a libertarian socialist, so I am not moved by your commentary that individuals can't read the entire database. They don't have to. Common sentiment is what matters here. And when it comes to the NSA it is but a mere blip. This is why I would actually consider Manning a journalist, though you would not. Manning provided information to the public at large (though she could never have predicted that Wikileaks would soak up all of the donation money for her defense or that they'd throw her and other anon hackers under the bus, but whatever).

Dump the data. Stop skirting the issue. Dump it.

[Luminous Animal]

27. You are so wrong. February of 2010 is when Wikileaks received the cables. November of 2010 is when

they started publishing with their media partners.

August of 2011 is when the Guardian's release of the key exposes the cables.

Stop spreading disinfo.

[joshcryer]

29. The first cable was published 18 February.

And you dare call me a liar.

Doesn't surprise me coming from the top 5%.

[Luminous Animal]

31. You are right. Address the rest of my timeline.

Indeed. I am so rich I do bookkeeping for a small business general contractor. An OPEN BOOK general contractor who forgoes his own pay to keep his staff on board.

And we all know that bookkeepers rake in the big bucks!

And, I regularly give free services to businesses that want to organize as a coop.

That is me! The top 5%!

You are barfing on yourself.

[joshcryer]

32. Heh.

You self-admittedly said you pay more in insurance than my mom makes in an entire year, living in SF no less. There is no question in my mind, if you were being truthful, that you're in the top 5%. The top 5% who would be negatively impacted if we released the cap on Social Security, btw. If you were complaining about insurance rates before, golly, you'd be downright mortified by an unlimited Social Security cap.

Don't pretend to lecture me.

Anyone can look at the Wikileaks timeline. That is not for me to waste my time on.

I swear to fuck, all the shitty, hateful, miserable posts happen on the weekend, just when people are about to get into their workweek. I think the most miserable people can't let people relax on the weekends, which is why they toss their irrelevant vitriol out there on those days. It's literally a way to bring everyone else down with them.

GG should release the NSA files, and be done with it. Instead he has appropriated them as his own property, as a good capitalist would do, and is slated to make a lot of money by doing so. It disgusts me.

Don't get me started on Assange's comments on ethical capitalism.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Yes. I have lived 25 years in my rent controlled spartment

My husband and I go into a mini panic whenever the building is sold because we know we would have to leave the city that we love. And yes my insurance is outrageously expensive. And as a cancer patient, I pay near half my net income to hold onto it for my life. I've never once in my life came close to earning the cap and my husband, being self-employed, has to pay both the employers and employees contribution.

And you've made me cry.

[Luminous Animal]

6. So you believe that journalists should not get paid?

[Renew Deal]

7. Your mistake is calling Greenwald a "journalist"

He's Snowdens PR person

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Vitriol is all you've got. Sad.

[Renew Deal]

16. Really?

Apparently accusations is all you have.

[Luminous Animal]

14. I'll try to remember you said that in about 8 days.

But I always forget who you are.

[Renew Deal]

15. That's heartless

[LiberalLovinLug]

20. This is where you lose most everyone

It reveals your blindness to the topic.
Let's overlook for a moment that it shouldn't matter WHAT official professional title a "news writer" has or does not have in order to share information to the public, you are really showing your colours by even denying Greenwald any occupational title.

Let's look at definitions:

"Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information.[1] Journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, disclosure, and editorial independence. Journalistic mediums can vary diversely, from print publishing to electronic broadcasting, and from newspaper to television channels, as well as to the web, and to digital technology." Wikipedia

"The occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business." Dictionary.com

"The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television" oxforddictionaries.com

Greenwald, in case you didn't know, was working at this definition of journalism BEFORE taking on this story. He was a columnist for Salon.com from 2007 to 2012. And he's written for the New York Times, LA Times and other papers.


You have sabotaged any other argument you may make in this snide, baseless accusation. You, and your fellow authoritarian sheep should stick to arguments that the United States of America is going to come crashing down because one lone individual, with the help of brave journalists like Greenwald, helped spur a debate on what should be the limits of who and when and how government spies....because at least that hasn't been unproven yet. Ya never know.....

[Renew Deal]

23. He ***was*** a journalist. Not anymore

Greenwald was a journalist. He has given that up. What he does now is take his clients information and publishes it. He's not much different than Jay Carney. He just has a different boss. Without Snowden, what would Greenwald do? He'd go back to occasional articles of interest.

If Greenwald cared about being a "journalist" and Snowden cared anything about but publicity, they'd put it all out.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Yes. Go back to to occasional articles of interest which of course means publishing near every day..

skewering the Bush Admin (and wrote 3 books skewering the Bush Admin) and then got hired by Salon and then got hired by the Guardian US. And picking up journalist awards along the way.

Oh what a failure as a journalist he has been.

[joshcryer]

33. "Manning wasn't a journalist." - Luminous Animal 2014

Paraphrased. Won't bother to look it up.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Read it and weep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024513688


Reporting Based On NSA Leaks Wins Polk Award (Greenwald, MacAskill, Poitras, & Gellman)

[Luminous Animal]

41. Oops...

The three journalists who broke the National Security Agency revelations from Edward Snowden in the Guardian are among the recipients of the prestigious 2013 George Polk Awards in Journalism.

Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras will receive the award for national security reporting, along with Barton Gellman of the Washington Post.

Janine Gibson, Guardian US editor-in-chief, said: “We’re honoured by the recognition from the Polk awards and delighted for Ewen, Glenn, Laura, Barton and their colleagues that their work has been recognised.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/guardian-nsa-snowden-george-polk-awards

[DeSwiss]

35. Of course he should publish his findings and stories......

...free of charge like all the other news outlets do!!! Why you don't see AP and USAToday, and CBS and Fox News and all those other ones with their hands sticking out demanding to be paid to give news away do you!?!?! Why hell no!!!

- Goddammit, when are people going to wake up and see what the government wants them to instead of always looking for the truth!?!?! Right!?!?!





[font color=red]BTW, you forgot your sarcasm tag. If not, the problem goes much deeper.....[/font]

[bemildred]

37. I figured "The Intercept" was sort of a clue to the intended content.

Intercepted information, i.e. a whistleblower site. The niche Wikileaks aimed at.

But if they want to make a buck, they will have to do more than that, although publishing on the web can be relatively cheap.

[yurbud]

42. only people you like can make a living?

[dionysus]

48. !!! oh shit!

brilliant!

[Blue_Tires]

9. Kind of thin on content so far

although they have said it is a work in progress so I'll reserve judgment...

I am very interested to know how this venture's chain of accountability and transparency will work...Greenwald's name is on the masthead now, and his desk is where the buck will stop...If there's some sort of slip-up or crisis (ala the recent shitstorm at Grantland) he won't be able to simply snipe at critics from the comfort of Twitter...

And does this site's launch mean Greenwald's "partnerships" with other media outlets reporting the NSA story officially come to an end? After all, they'd be direct competitors now...

[bemildred]

19. Well, yeah, but we know they have lots of material to work with. nt

[Luminous Animal]

30. Looking for your insightful critique of the article.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. More power to 'em.

[OilemFirchen]

21. I give it six months.

Then it's another Firedoglake.

The biggest problem with these left wing strident advocacy "news" sites is not their aimless, shoddy reporting by hack wannabes. It's always the utter humorlessness and naivety of all the participants. This one, in addition, incorporates an innate weakness - if, and when, it fails to turn a profit, the principals and donors will bail. Unlike comparable right wing sites, they can't cash in selling coffee mugs and bumper stickers. No money equals no exposure outside the bubble. At the very least competitive sites were never designed to be cash cows, so they can trundle along by merely meeting their minimal operating expenses. 'Taint gonna happen here.

Anyway, good luck to them. And their hundreds of readers.

[Blue_Tires]

36. We'll see...

I'm also interested to see how the wider business plan takes shape, since from the beginning they've been very scant on the details...Omidyar says he's willing to dump in a quarter of a billion so it's clear he's willing to operate without advertising or absorb a loss in the short term (fwiw, $250 million would have bought the Washington Post and their affiliate papers lock, stock and barrel)...Moving forward I'll be interested in seeing how a site which supposedly wants to do investigative reporting in all fields can keep their mission clear while wooing/keeping advertisers...

No one likes me bringing it up, but for such a risky venture in a high-stakes market, naming Greenwald to lead it is highly questionable, unless Omidyar just wanted in the publicity splash of hiring the journalist everybody was talking about for the moment...If Snowden for whatever reason decided to take his goodies to another journalist, would Greenwald even have been in the top 20 of possible candidates (and I'm being generous) to lead this? To say nothing of the fact that despite his fearlessness and fighting spirit; for someone so vested in 'advocacy journalism', Greenwald's writing style is pure shit...

Whatever the price Matt Taibbi is asking for to get pried away from Rolling Stone, Omidyar better scratch out a check...

[SoapBox]

22. Oh great...Greenwad, The Narcissist, needs more attention to his ego.

And he wonders why he can't get back to America?!?

...idiot.

[FSogol]

40. LOL, Greenwald has the cool, calm temperament, & unbiased opinion needed to professionally lead a

media source's editorial operations. What could possibly go wrong?

[bobthedrummer]

43. Kick n/t

[Blue_Tires]

44. Why the necro?

[Lars28]

45. This is NOT LBN.

It was published on February 10, 2014. The Intercept has been up for a long time.

[bemildred]

46. Any poster can kick any post at any time. That seems to be what happened here. nt

[ucrdem]

47. Again? Is this a second-chance offer

or is he just relisting it?