Glenn Greenwald Calls Guardian Book On Snowden 'Bullshit'

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

ERIC LACH – FEBRUARY 14, 2014, 12:40 PM EST

In a recent interview with The Financial Times, journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized a book on former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden published this month by his former employer, The Guardian.

“It is a bullshit book,” Greenwald said, referring to "The Snowden Files" by Luke Harding. “They are purporting to tell the inside story of Edward Snowden but it is written by someone who has never met or even spoken to Edward Snowden."

The book, whose full title is "The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man," bills itself as "the story of the individuals behind the biggest intelligence leak in history and the forces that tried to stop them." It was published earlier this month by The Guardian's publishing imprint. Greenwald was working for The Guardian when he first received documents on NSA surveillance programs from Snowden.

Greenwald also told The Financial Times' Geoff Dyer that Harding came to Brazil, where Greenwald lives, while working on the book and "talked to me for half a day without [my] realising that he was trying to get me to write his book for him. I cut the interview off when I realised what he was up to.”

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/greenwald-snowden-book-bullshit

[BeyondGeography]

1. He is Greenwald

Hear him roar.

[pkdu]

2. Then , reads the book...

Same old Glenn

[DonViejo]

3. Follow the link to TPM...

for this:

Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden.

[OilemFirchen]

10. "New" Journalism

Who, what, when, where, why ME!!!

[FSogol]

11. Correct.

[BeyondGeography]

17. A knee-jerk reaction from someone who suffers from delusions of ownership

[joshcryer]

42. Oh god.

As if my respect for GG could get even lower...

[Helen Borg]

46. I disagree...

The anonymous postings online are used as clues to Snowden's intellectual and emotional journey. At least, they are something objective with a time stamp... It's easy for anyone to rationalize things, but those messages were posted by him and they are a fact.

[DonViejo]

54. Who, or what, are you disagreeing with? eom

[Helen Borg]

55. This

"Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden."

[DonViejo]

56. There are two distinctly different trains of thought contained in that paragraph...

1. Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online.

2. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden.

Presumably you are disagreeing with what I ID'd as "thought #1," yes?

[Helen Borg]

67. Yes, #1

But #1 does not imply that he thought Snowden was being trashed (only that he thought there was too much emphasis).
Glad he agrees that the book does not trash Snowden. It trashes Greenwald a bit, at times, especially early on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. GG's pissed, cuz he has exclusive rights to Snowie's story! "Don't step on my book sales, Geoff".

[msanthrope]

59. He's pissed because Harding scooped him...and Harding is hated by the FSB and Wikileaks....

He was harassed by the FSB, denied entry to Russia, and wrote 'dissdent' articles on the Russian Mafia.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Oh well, if he has pissed off the FSB, he' my new hero.

[msanthrope]

62. He wrote a book about that provides excellent insight into the FSB's criminality....

http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Journalists-Descent-Russian-Mafia/dp/0230341748

There's quite a story here, Tarheel..somehow Greenwald, Wikileaks, and the Russian media are united against this particular journalist....RT's been buzzing about this guy for weeks.

Assange hates him because Harding was involved in The Fifth Estate.

And here's Greenwald...trashing him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. Bookmarking. I'll definitely have to check that out. Thanks.

[leftynyc]

5. Glenn wants

100% of the trademark into this story so, of course, he's going to trash anything that doesn't ask his opinion. Such a freeking clown.

[Renew Deal]

6. It's his cash cow

[leftynyc]

12. Yup

I find the greenwald worship here to be very amusing.

[snooper2]

7. Greeny Greeny Greeny,

Guess are pissed because you didn't get your book out first right LOL

poor sap..you can only milk this so long- Go find the next sucker to exploit!

[Helen Borg]

8. Wait a sec...

I bought the book and I'm almost done with it. I've been following the case since it started. What's in the book is consistent with what I've been reading so far from other sources (e.g., Schneier security blog)... Did Greenwald get pissed because these guys wrote the book first?...

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yes. Greenwald is all about the dolla dolla bill $$$$$$$$. nt

[hrmjustin]

9. You don't have to meet a person to write a book about them.

It helps but it is not required. As for whats in the book I can not speak to.

[Blue_Tires]

15. Greenwald is also implying with that statement

that HE is the only one qualified to write anything since he has met Snowden...Yeah, like the Guardian didn't have a legion of staffers/researchers/reporters chasing down the story when it first broke...Greenwald would have us think he's been doing all this singlehandedly...

[hrmjustin]

16. I understand he feels like this is his story but he doesn't own it and he should accept others

don't see it his way.

[JDPriestly]

22. At least Greenwald met Snowden. Apparently the author of the book did not.

Apparently the book is based on gossip about Snowden and Snowden's online posts.

[Blue_Tires]

23. I've seen nothing gossip-y in the excerpt nor in Harding's previous work,

his journalistic credentials and experience easily trump Greenwald's (as far as I can tell his credentials are baggage-free unlike Greenwald's), and as a member of the Guardian staff I'd like to think he'd have just a little more insight into the story than the average person, regardless of whether or not he's actually met Snowden face-to-face

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024435592

...Absent of more context, Greenwald's comment reeks of jealousy and petty immaturity, which he has long had a reputation for...

And "gossip-y" isn't really a valid criticism -- If Greenwald is publicly calling bullshit on a book, I'd like to think he would put on his wannabe journalist pants and say something like "Points 1, 2, and 3 of this book are slanderous or factually incorrect and I have the truth of A, B, and C backing me up..." Of course the FT reporter doesn't go deeper into that topic and Greenwald yields no more detail so the comment just hangs there...

[JDPriestly]

24. Books that are written about contemporaneous figures without ever talking to the subject of the

book are, perforce, based on talk about the person, i.e., gossip.

The book may be quite good in other respects, but the author apparently never bothered to try to converse with Snowden himself. It shouldn't be all that difficult to call Snowden or somehow arrange to contact him.

[Blue_Tires]

26. Either way, unless Greenwald says something in the book is WRONG

or improperly sourced, his criticism is sour grapes...It would not shock me in the slightest if Greenwald somehow let it be known throughout the industry that Snowden wouldn't be receptive to working with any "outside" writers and that for the time being any books written would be without Snowden's input...

And for someone so heavily reliant on unnamed, anonymous, possibly sketchy sources, Greenwald would do well to not chuck bricks around his own greenhouse...And just for the record, how many biographies have been written about Obama with none of his input whatsoever?

[DonViejo]

27. Did you miss this, Blue_Tires?...

From the article:

Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden.

[Blue_Tires]

28. Even worse...So Greenwald shoots off the mouth without having fully read it

I hadn't even gotten to bringing up this point yet...And I still want to know what really happened in that conversation...I refuse to believe Greenwald opened his door to chat with Harding (who flew in from London to meet him) and an hour and a half into that conversation, he essentially said "You mean you're only interviewing with me to get the head start on writing a book? GET OUT!"...Greenwald knows some of the things he's potentially accusing a former colleague and employer of if that's what really happened, right?? But Greenwald's old attorney instincts keep his comments in the world of the saying-it-without-really-saying-it, non-accusation accusation...

I just hope Harding isn't holding his breath for some kind of retraction or apology...Best case scenario is Greenwald throws the FT reporter under the bus for 'quoting him out of context'

[KittyWampus]

41. Snowden's own posts on the internet are first hand sources.

[George II]

50. "It shouldn't be all that difficult to call Snowden or somehow arrange to contact him."

Sure. Maybe he can arrange for Snowden to visit him in the UK. Better yet, they can all meet at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for a round table?

[JDPriestly]

31. I think that a biographical study of a living person should be based on some direct contact with tha

person if possible. Usually if a biographical study is not based on personal contact with the subject, it is just an attack piece, a political piece. That's why I am a little suspicious.

[Blue_Tires]

32. If that's the type of thing that makes you suspicious

Then there are 3-4 items in the FT interview alone which should make you suspicious of Greenwald...

I'm just sayin'...

[JDPriestly]

33. Greenwald helped Snowden. I am more interested in what Snowden had to say than I am in

personalities. No one has a perfect personality. No one is above reproach. That is my view. Greenwald and Snowden did something courageous that has helped the American people greatly. I don't think we yet realize just how much their courage has done for the US.

There is a video in the video and multimedia group that explains the role of Booz Allen in our government and its ties to the Carlyle Group. I think the focus should be on questions about the corruption in our government rather than on the personalities of Greenwald and Snowden.

[Blue_Tires]

85. Agreed...

I've been wanting this discussion to get past the occasional "so-and-so is spying on so-and-so" leak and fast-forward to the "connecting-the-dots/who benefits/and what should be done about them" -phase...Name names and expose everyone involved from every national government and every boardroom...

Although it has to be said that if Greenwald's version of events was true and one of the Guardian's most experienced and respected correspondents set up an interview under false pretenses just to get a jumpstart on publishing a book (by a Guardian-owned publishing house, no less)...That is a *HUGE* accusation to make and *HUGE* story requiring an in-depth look into Guardian management...

And therein lies the problem -- Greenwald doesn't get to flip a switch from the hysterical, half-truth, thin-skinned, I'm-always-right, pulling unfounded accusations out of his ass, never admits error or fault -persona to the upright defender of press freedom and courageous protector of individual rights without the waters getting murky...

[msanthrope]

57. Mr. Harding was denied entry to Russia, and later harassed, along with his family, by the FSB.....

Last edited Sat Feb 15, 2014, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Did you really think the FSB is going to allow Comrade Eddie to be interviewed by a dissident journalist?

FYI...expain to me how the former Moscow correspondent for the Guardian is somehow less equipped to write about Snowden then a pundit living in Brazil?

[JDPriestly]

68. There were alternatives.

First, he could have submitted questions and arranged for an interview through Snowden's British lawyer and many supporters like Laura Poitras are Greenwald.

Through those same contacts, he could have arranged for a phone call. Others have done. Snowden even received an award and spoke on the BBC. He is not in isolation. The author could have contacted Snowden personally. It would not have been that difficult for him. There is a group of other NSA whistleblowers who might have helped. It would been no more difficult than visiting Greenwald in Chile which is what the author did.

[msanthrope]

69. Right...because the FSB is going to allow Snowden to talk to Harding.

British lawyer??? Who is his British lawyer????

And Chile???? Look that one up again...

[JDPriestly]

70. Sorry. He visited Greenwald in Brazil.

Why would the FSB prevent Snowden from talking to a writer who was preparing an autobiography of Snowden? What could be the harm in that?

Snowden has a one-year grant of asylum in Russia. Russia is not going to interfere with anything that might help Snowden get asylum anywhere else. That would not be in Russia's strategic interests. Snowden, God bless him, is a man without a country. Exiled for an act of conscience.

And learning that the Australian version of the NSA in concert with the NSA stooped so low as to steal law firm communications, I am more grateful than every that Snowden accepted such sacrifice to inform the world of the crimes of the NSA and its allies. They are thieves pure and simple.

Snowden is accused of theft by some on DU. But he essentially has given back stolen goods to their rightful owners. This incident with the NSA and allies' theft of law firm privileged communications is just a very good example of why what they NSA is doing is lawless, illegal and wrong.

[msanthrope]

71. The FSB threw Harding out of the country after he exposed FSB collusion with organized crime, and yo

think the FSB would allow him to talk to Snowden? Yeah, right.

And just who is Snowden's British lawyer????

[JDPriestly]

72. Did the author of the book even try?

All of this is conjecture. The question is, did the author try to interview Snowden? If not, why not? And if so, was he allowed to?

We can theorize this and that. I believe my point of view, and you believe yours. The proof is in the pudding. Did the author ask to interview Snowden? What kind of interview? Phone? In person? Was he refused a visa? Was he refused an opportunity to talk to Snowden?

The author should respond to these questions if he wants to be viewed as a serious biographer of Snowden. It may be a good book, but it would be better had the author talked to Snowden.

[msanthrope]

73. Who, precisely, is Mr. Snowden's British attorney? You've made this claim, and you refuse to

say who you are talking about. Please tell us all the name of the British attorney Mr. Harding was supposed to contact?

[JDPriestly]

81. I have assumed she is British because of her accent. He now has a Russian attorney.

But I should think that his Wikileaks attorney is still in touch with him. Someone communicated to him that he had won a prize for his work and that he was to speak on British TV.

Jennifer Robinson.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/sarah-harrison-wikileaks-edward-snowden/

Sarah Harrison might be able to get in touch with Snowden also, it would seem to me.

Sarah Harrison, one of Julian Assange's young disciples, has been sent by Wikileaks to help guide NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to asylum and safety. Harrison serves under the former Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon on the Wikileaks Legal Defense team. She is currently traveling with Snowden trying to guide toward political sanctuary. She reportedly left the Moscow airport with Snowden on August 1, 2013 as he began his one year temporary asylum in Russia.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/sarah-harrison-wikileaks-edward-snowden/

I have no idea how reliable this Heavy.com is.

[msanthrope]

82. Jennifer Robinson is not Snowden's attorney. Sarah Harrison is not an attorney, at all.

Harrison is currently in Germany. The only attorney Mr. Snowden has is Anatoly Kucherena...who is FSB....you know, the guys who expelled the journalist, Mr. Harding for having the temerity to report on their corruption.

Glenn Greenwald does not live in Chile.

You might wish to acquaint yourself with the players a bit more before you take up their defense.

[JDPriestly]

83. I corrected my error on Chile. He is in Brazil. I watched a great video on Chile very

recently. It was on my mind. The video was about the Andes.

I realize that Snowden's Russian attorney is Anatoly Kucherena. I don't know to what extent he is really representing Snowden and to what extent he is representing the Russian government. But if the author wanted to contact Snowden, he could also have contacted the NSA whistleblower organization and ask them how to contact him. I doubt that he would have been able to contact Snowden without an intermediary because Snowden would not want anyone to know exactly where he is.

Here is the link to a press conference by the NSA whistleblowers responding to Obama's speech on the NSA.

http://new.livestream.com/accuracy/nsa-rebuttal/videos/39824993

[msanthrope]

84. Seriously? You are going down even more of a rabbit hole. Are you suggesting that the attorney who

handled his asylum application, and who sits on the public board of the FSB, doesn't really represent Snowden?

Look--- the fact is that Snowden has one attorney...the FSB one. If you are suggesting that Snowden would have been allowed to speak to a journalist that had been thrown out by the FSB, I think you are making a naive assumption.

And I think you still haven't suggested a single fact that Harding got wrong....still waiting for that.

[George II]

38. "At least Greenwald met Snowden. Apparently the author of the book did not."

And Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house!

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. You should hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say about GG's "Checkbook Journalism".

She takes his 1% ass to the woodshed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

One thing about her, she could care less who she offends, and GG's rabid supporters have called her every name in the book.

[Blue_Tires]

14. I've always wondered if the Guardian management had any regrets

defending Greenwald's work so hard in British court only to see him run off into the sunset with Omidyar's billions....

I'd have thought from Greenwald's perspective that more people writing about the NSA story would be a "good" thing (god forbid Greenwald try to help or collaborate with his former colleague on it), but like I predicted from the start, he wants *TOTAL* control and all the credit, and he's pulling the strings on which documents get released to whom and when...

This quote just tears it:

Greenwald also told The Financial Times' Geoff Dyer that Harding came to Brazil, where Greenwald lives, while working on the book and "talked to me for half a day without realising that he was trying to get me to write his book for him. I cut the interview off when I realised what he was up to.”

How much you want to bet what really happened was Harding came to him for input on his book, Greenwald tried to dictate how he wanted that book to be written, and the conversation broke down from there?? Sadly, these threads are always absent of the DUers who have been calling me a character assassin all this time for exposing Greenwald's immature bullshit...

Another fun quote:

At the time of our meeting, though, he was clearly angry about it. “One of the things about the Guardian that I really disliked is that they used Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and got a lot of benefit from publishing the material [diplomatic cables leaked by Bradley Manning] and then completely turned into being his leading demoniser.”

Did Greenwald say anything to his editors at the time? Or is this just more after-the-fact 20/20 hindsight? And in fairness to the Guardian, when the rape charges became news, Assange's behavior did get weird for lack of a better word, and while I agree the charges are most likely bullshit there were way too many people demonizing the accusers early in the story and dismissing their accounts without even bothering to read or attempt to evaluate them...

[OilemFirchen]

25. The Guardian has taken some justified hits because of Greenwald.

Formerly the gold standard for the British press, their numerous retractions, corrections and well-targeted criticism - as a result of allowing Greenwald to practice his "advocacy journalism" virtually unchecked - has led many of their readers to eye the publication somewhat more suspiciously.

That might be a good lesson for The Guardian. Wandering away from journalistic standards can bite you in the ass, but recovering from such an embarrassing debacle could help solidify their once formidable reputation.

[msanthrope]

29. Indeed...they made an economic decision to get the online clicks that Greenwald generated, but

failed to appreciate the long term consequences of partnership with a narcissistic advocacy journalist.

[MinneapolisMatt]

18. Luke Harding is an EXCELLENT journalist.

Greenwald is just pissed off he didn't get his book out first.

[leftynyc]

19. And people here

get upset when I call him a narcissist. He's the textbook definition. I notice his fan club is avoiding this thread like the plague.

[Blue_Tires]

20. And Greenwald STILL didn't hesitate a second before

throwing him and his former employer under the bus....You ever notice how every confrontation, mistake or dispute is someone else's fault? How Greenwald always remains 'clean' once he tells his version of the story??

He missed his true calling...He should have stayed in law or gone into public relations...

[randome]

21. Now if Snowden returns to the U.S. to face trial...

...all Greenwald's dreams will have been for naught.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

49. I have two predictions for this year...

Greenwald will renounce his citizenship. He'll gin up some incident/excuse, but it's really FATCA.

Snowden should be very nervous after Sochi.

[George II]

51. He's already come up with a phony excuse for being in Brazil instead of the US

[randome]

63. I trust your predictions more than anything Greenwald or Snowden have to say!

I guess that's not saying much, is it? Sorry!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[sadoldgirl]

30. Well, we should not get too upset

and indignant about his so called greed. Remember "All the president's men"???? You don't really think that Woodward and Bernstein wrote this just as a public service, or do you?

[Hissyspit]

34. Why is this in LBN?

[msanthrope]

47. Why not? nt

[DonViejo]

53. Why not? It fully meets the requirements of posting in the LBN area:

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

[debunkthis]

35. Weighing the truthes exposed

by Mr Greenwald's reporting vs the lies spewed forth by the MSM, I'm going to go with Glenn on this one.

[OilemFirchen]

36. Really?

Five hours after this was first posted:

Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden.

... and you're still gonna give Glenn props?

[debunkthis]

39. The man has the balls to take on the NSA's illegal spying activities.

Damn right I give him props!

[ucrdem]

43. More accurately he protects Bush-Cheney by pinning their crimes on Obama.

Unsuccessfully, because the Bush-Cheney NSA is no more and the law is now followed. Meticulously. Epic fail, but he got his digs in, and that makes him a hero to the Ayn Rand crowd.

[George II]

37. Who gives a flying F? Maybe he should go back to the UK and dispute it?

Let's see, it's been about a week since I've read anything about Greenwald. Yeah, that's right. Dole it out Glenny!

[JoeyT]

40. In other words, it's the same gossip-mongering horseshit

people were screaming here, collected into a convenient book form. Chapter 4: Poledancing girlfriends! Chapter 5: Boxes in the Garage. Chapter 6: (Possibly his) Posts on a message board from a decade ago. etc.

[DonViejo]

52. So, you disagree with Greenwald?...

From the OP:

Greenwald had only read portions of the book at the time of the interview, but from what he had read, he thought the book put too much emphasis on anonymous postings Snowden once wrote online. According to Dyer, Greenwald later sent an email after reading the whole book, saying that the book did not actually trash Snowden.

[davidpdx]

44. Hey Glenn

Would you like some cheese with that whine?


Call the WHAMMBBBUUULLLANNNCCCEEE!





Whoops fail.

[Helen Borg]

45. So, specifically...

What parts of the book are BS? By that, I would mean FALSE. There are some guesses in the book, but they are introduced as such... If there are factual errors, Glenn should correct the record. Oh wait, that's what he'll do in his own book? I think that Glenn cannot stand the fact that he did not follow up on Snowden's attempt to contact him. It was Poitras who picked it up and then contacted Glenn. He comes across as too lazy or tech-challenged to even install PGP following Snowden's instructions early on... Perhaps that's the part that's BS?

[randome]

48. The part on the cover that doesn't say 'By Glenn Greenwald'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Comrade Grumpy]

58. The OP is nothing more than an excuse for Greenwald-haters to wank off.

It's basically a little piece of gossip, but look at all the spewing going on.

[msanthrope]

64. I have a question for you..and it's a serious one. Luke Harding was expelled by the FSB

because he documented the utter corruption of that organization, and rise of Neo-Nazism in Russia which of course directly affects gay rights. Understand that Harding was the first journalist to be expelled from Russia since the Cold War.

Greenwald doesn't like his new book on Snowden and the FSB.

The Russian media has been decrying this book for two weeks now....but who can be surprised that the state-run media would of course defend the FSB?

And Wikileaks has slammed it, too. Apparently because Assange didn't like Harding's book on Wikileaks.

My, my....that's an odd set of bedfellows, no?

[woo me with science]

65. +10000 This is the correct answer. The smear machine must smear.

That is how damning and dangerous the revelations about the criminal NSA really are. The propaganda machine is in force 24/7 to try to destroy the messengers.

It is good to see DU calling out the garbage authoritarian propaganda.

EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of a discussion instigated regarding Greenwald's character is an attempt to deflect attention from the NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473478

[Blue_Tires]

86. How is it gossip

when Greenwald GAVE an interview to Financial Times? Those are Greenwald's own comments quoted in the story; not a "I heard from so-and-so that Greenwald this!"

[Cha]

74. Says the kneejerking, bullshiting, lying, ratfucker.

[sheshe2]

77. Would you tell me how you really feel!?

Hugs and a heart Cha!

[Cha]

78. That's about it,

she.. I tried to cover all the bases of how I really feel about one Glenn Greenwald.. from observing his words and actions over the years.

[Cha]

79. P.S.

Mahalo, sheshe~

[sheshe2]

80. Well~

back!

[Whisp]

75. I wonder how Truthout will weigh in on this.

Or have they, I don't go there. I can take a wild guess what their slant will be!
---
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/organizations

Organizations Featured in the Current Bundle

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is an independent, not-for-profit online publisher that works to defend freedom of speech, media publishing and the improvement of our common historical record.

Bureau of Investigative Journalism

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent not-for-profit organization established in April 2010. The Bureau, which is philanthropically funded, is the first of its kind in the UK, and operates on the assumption that investigative journalism is indispensable to democracy.

Center for Public Integrity

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 and is one of the country's oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations.

Truthout

Truthout is a non-profit journalism organization dedicated to providing independent news and commentary on a daily basis. Their investigative reporting has focused on issues such as government secrecy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison, the militarization of law enforcement on the U.S.

[Whisp]

76. Go fuck yourself, GG, you scamming friggen weasel. n/t