If people are going to castigate Mr. Greenwald for shabby journalism

[dsc]

it would be nice if they actually wrote a truthful account of what happened. Dr. James sent an email to the entire list serve of Wright State University, where he is Dean of the Psychology Department. Harvard Law School Human Rights Program forwarded the email to Greenwald. Now maybe he should have called the White House but frankly I am not sure I would have. Only a truly delusional person would falsely send out that email to his entire college. This isn't a case of Greenwald being sent an email from Dr. James and not checking it out as is being dishonestly reported here. My suspicion is that the White House nixed this appointment when it was clear what an embarassment it would be.

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

Thank you

[nashville_brook]

2. k and r

[northernlights]

3. my sentiments exactly

Especially the last sentence.

[many a good man]

71. I think Michele disinvited the torture shrink

It was issued by the First Lady's Press Secretary.

[SidDithers]

4. Your guess is immaterial...

Greenwald should have checked with the White House to see if a claim about a White House appointment was factual, before printing it.

Sid

[Rage for Order]

8. +1

For your signature line which says, "Brussel sprouts suck ass", but not for the rest of your post

:)

[Forkboy]

10. It wouldn't have made a difference.

Those who dislike him would still have jumped on his ass like jackals, and those who like him would have still praised him. The guy isn't bad writer by any means, but on DU the only positions allowed are Love and Hate.

[geek tragedy]

15. If he had posted it as "Did the WH appoint . . .?" there would be

less blowback.

The problem is that he launched straight into "j'accuse" mode without bothering to learn all the facts.

That's why Greenwald can never be put in the same category as someone even like Anderson Cooper, let alone Rachel Maddow.

[SidDithers]

16. He may not have written the article the way he did if he'd sought confirmation...

and received a denial from the White House. And then we would have all found something else to argue about :)

Sid

[Forkboy]

20. "And then we would have all found something else to argue about"

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

94. Baloney. He did exactly what reporters are supposed to do.

He reported the whole sequence.

And all you have is the word of a White House PR flak.

[SidDithers]

99. And the word of Greenwald...

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/25/james/permalink/2cd9d30808e24ef94cf33b8c9ed81e06.html

If someone wants to argue that I should have contacted the WH for comment before writing this, that's a reasonable criticism. I'll concede that it would have been better to do so (though obviously, the WH's denial is hardly dispositive, and there was obviously SOMETHING going on here with James and this Tuesday meeting - not even the WH says it was a wholesale fabrication - and it's certainly possible that the distancing was in response to the uproar).

Sid

[DeSwiss]

5. Such people have an aversion for reality.

I just put them on ignore.

- Life is too short.....

K&R

[madfloridian]

6. Kick

and recommended.

[walldude]

7. SHIT I accidentally unrecced...

Apologies.. can someone zero me out please....


Sorry DSC...

K&R if I hadn't fucked it up....

[iwishiwas]

66. done.

[geek tragedy]

9. An actual journalist would not have assumed but rather would have verified.

Greenwald is not a journalist, he is an accuser.

[Forkboy]

11. Do you see any room between your position and the OP's position?

[geek tragedy]

12. Yes, the OP thought it was good enough to assume Dr. James was telling the truth.

Greenwald acted as Dr. James's stenographer, ironically enough.

[Forkboy]

18. That doesn't really answer my question though.

[geek tragedy]

21. There's plenty of room between "why would he lie" and "get both

sides of the story and do some actual work."

[Forkboy]

41. That sounds like a "no" to my question.

:shrug:

[dsc]

19. actually he acted as the Harvard Human Rights Project's stenographer

but the point is that James didn't just send this email to Greenwald but to his employers and his employees, which would lead me to assume he is telling the truth.

[geek tragedy]

24. Journalists don't get to make that kind of assumption before publishing.

They have to check their facts.

Ironically, the story would be about a failure to vet, with Greenwald being the laziest vetter of all.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Journalists publish rumors of appointments all of the time with zero indication

of no comment or otherwise from the White House.

[tammywammy]

56. When they publish rumors they state they're rumors. n/t

[dsc]

14. Oh Please

So under your standard, if the WH says they hired someone the only way a journalist should print that as a fact is if they track down that person and confirm it with him or her. I really have my doubts that most journalists use that standard.

[geek tragedy]

17. If a person claims they've been hired, yes journalists contact the WH

to see if it's true.

Standard practice for practicing journalists.

The NY Times won't run a story "Obama hires XYZ" without first asking both parties if it's true.

Greenwald is a blogger and a bomb-thrower. he is not a journalist.

[dsc]

25. really

the NYT wouldn't print that the WH hired person x without talking to person x. I really don't think that is true.

[geek tragedy]

26. They certainly would talk to the WH. They wouldn't say "oh, John Yoo

says the WH hired him, it must be true. Let's print it without sending the WH an email."

[dsc]

45. so apparently your standard is

that Obama is to be believed without fact checking and no one else is, and you have problems with Greenwald. Ok then.

[stockholmer]

61. New York Times-- Judith Miller----WMD----Iraq War-- Enough Said

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

Outrage with Obama requires no manufacture. n/t

[JoePhilly]

38. Not here on DU ... I give you a simple example.

During the run up to the State of the Union speech, here on DU, we saw an endless stream OPs claiming that Obama was going to announce major cuts to Social Security. When that didn't happen, that meme died briefly.

It was replaced by claims that Obama was working behind the scenes to ensure that Mubarak would stay in power. When that didn't happen, the meme changed again.

Next was that Obama was going to have major cuts to Social Security in his budget. When that didn't happen, the meme died.

Today, Greenwald writes an article saying the administration gave an important position to this torture guy. Again the manufactured outrage jumps into gear.

Last year, DADT was used this way to claim that Obama was secretly against ending DADT. It was used to attack Obama over and over. Then ... poof, DADT is gone. The machine just moves on.

[tridim]

65. +1, exactly.

[Wilms]

69. Understood. But how does that suggest my comment is off base?

While some may be outraged by manufactured concerns, I'm pointing out that there are sufficient quantities of of actions and inaction by the current administration to justify outrage.

With regard to Greenwald, I believe he reported that Mengale II announced that he had been appointed by the WH. That fact is not in dispute, regardless of the sort-of Swiftboating of Greenwald.

[nashville_brook]

32. that GG reported this isn't of itself anti-Obama

[JoePhilly]

42. Did you read the original GG article?

He goes out of his way to use this "appointment" to claim that Obama is "once again" showing that he supports the Bush torture programs.

I'd call that "anti-Obama".

[Robb]

22. Nonsense. Greenwald should have picked up the phone and called James.

And asked if the news was real. That's the bare minimum here, and he didn't do that much.

[nashville_brook]

28. actually, it's perfectly acceptable to report on an announcement such as James'

and it doesn't require a phone call to the WH that may or may not be returned. it's news enough that James issued the announcement. now, it's even more newsy that the WH is having to do damage control.

[geek tragedy]

33. Acceptable as mere blogging, but not journalism. nt

[nashville_brook]

39. wrong again -- reporters print announcements all the time.

[JoePhilly]

46. Greewald does more than "announce" something ... he uses it to

start a longer narrative that attacks the Obama administration ... in a manner which, at present, appears to be incorrect.

[nashville_brook]

48. yes, i agree, someone should do something to silence these journos.

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

91. Not so. If James sent the e-mail, it's sufficient as a primary source.

[Robb]

40. Perhaps if one writes for the Podunk Weekly Shitrag.

(to steal a fantastic newspaper title from Jon Stewart)

...but no, you call individual people. You can write a lede and slap it on a press release from the Red Cross if it's your first week on the job and you're building clips, maybe.

But Greenwald saw what he wanted, and lacking an editor or anyone else to bounce it off of, he ran with it and got burned.

[nashville_brook]

47. when a the sole party to announcement issues an announcement, you don't usually verify that

the *news itself* is that this person -- Dr James Mengele -- thought he had an appointment. that is news. and now the undoing of that announcement is news.

that's the way it works.

[Robb]

Well, I wouldn't hire anyone who believed that was good enough.

But there you go. :shrug:

For what it's worth, I think the story became Greenwald the moment he got burned. We'll see who's right by Monday, eh? :hi:

[SidDithers]

44. Long Distance from Brazil must be expensive...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

62. You're right. It was a cheap shot...

and it's a tragedy that he and his partner can't live where they want.

My apologies to Mr. Greenwald and our GLBT DU'ers for making it. I'd forgotten why he was in Brazil.

Sid

[dsc]

73. thank you for realizing that

and apologizing.

[nashville_brook]

23. it actually looks like the WH is running (not walking) this "appointment" back

[geek tragedy]

27. What appointment? nt

[nashville_brook]

29. the appointment that he apparently thought he had and the WH is having to deny

[geek tragedy]

30. But which may never have been made. nt

[nashville_brook]

34. you don't know that -- there's an inconsistency, and either way it looks bad for the WH

[geek tragedy]

36. So, the WH is to blame even if they did nothing wrong. nt

[nashville_brook]

the WH looks bad if they appointed him, or if they retracted the appointment

[SidDithers]

51. And how do they look if the WH never appointed him?...nt

Sid

[JoePhilly]

58. GREAT NEWS!!! The White House just appointed ME ambassador to DU!!!

Go ahead, call them and check !!! I dare you!!

Here's how you will know it is true. When you call, they will DENY IT!!!

Yup ... you want to know why they will deny it?

Its a SECRET Appointment!!

No one is supposed to know. So they will automatically deny it.

Which clearly is proof of my new position.

I start Monday morning.

[Forkboy]

82. Well fuck....

[mythology]

57. That seems to be the case

It's rather convenient isn't it?

[druidity33]

81. Greenwald is right...

This is from the update to his piece:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/25/james/index.html

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady’s Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

Why would Greenwald have believed Dr. James was lying when he announced this to his friends and colleagues? Why would Harvard Law School's Human Rights Campaign fabricate this story? It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they appointed this person to a cozy position. They thought no one would notice. People might not have, if the guy didn't announce it to the world "with great pride".

:shrug:

[frazzled]

31. Oh my god, when people get a preconceived notion in their head ...

they will go to any length to imagine a scenario in which their imaginary world is verified.

There was no appointment.

[nashville_brook]

35. James apparently thought there was -- he must be soooo dis-appointed.

[frazzled]

50. You seem to think this torture architect is someone worth believing

That alone shows you how ridiculous this discussion is. It's come down to people defending Greenwald by saying why should he disbelieve James's email?

The bigger question is: why should any of us believe Greenwald? I've been watching him since around 2004, and I got off the bandwagon pretty damned quick.

(1) When I realized his blog was aimed at and filled with crackpot libertarians.
(2) When he wrote in his book that he'd never voted in a presidential election.
(3) When I discovered he voluntarily took on the defense of a despicable neo-Nazi. I guess he didn't see then that his client was soon going to be serving time in federal prison for soliciting the death of a female judge. He doesn't keep very good company.

[Luminous Animal]

53. The torture achitect is President for the Division of Military Psychology of the APA.

"Larry C. James, Ph.D., ABPP is the Dean, School of Professional Psychology at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. Dr James retired from the Army as a Colonel after 22 years of service to the nation. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Defense Superior Service Medal for his dedicated service to our nation in the global war on terrorism. While on Army active duty, he was the Chair, Department of Psychology at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and later at Tripler Army Medical Center. Dr James has published five books and more than fifty scientific papers coupled with one-hundred abstracts for national proceedings. He is Board Certified in both Clinical Psychology and Health Psychology. He is the Past President of the American Board of Health Psychology and President elect for the Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association. Dr James has received numerous awards and honors such as the Dorothy Booz-Black award, The Timothy Jeffrey Award, The Diversity Award and the Military Psychologist of the Year Award. Known for his vision, energy and his ability to engage and motivate others, Dr James is seen as a visionary and dynamic leader who has the ability to push the envelope in the development of innovative projects with colleagues and organizations. He has received over five million dollars in grant funding and his innovative and groundbreaking ideas have led to new models of training, mentoring, research, and service delivery within his profession. "

http://www.wright.edu/sopp/faculty/admin/James.html

[frazzled]

72. You are quoting from his own bio

Which is fine. Just decide: you think he is an honorable person who was misread when he was chief psychologist of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo in 2003, and Abu Ghraib's chief psychologist in 2004. Funny he didn't mention those notable positions in his bio. I realize he is trying to rehabilitate his image, which may be why he was so anxious to pump up any indirect participation he might have as an APA member with regard to a WH conference (not a task force appointment).

He may indeed be a perfectly reputable psychologist who was defiled here unfairly before for the role he played at Abu Ghraib. I can believe that. But you have to decide: we were wrong then, and he is utlimately more believable than the White House: that is to say, the White House is despicable and Larry James is an impeccable saint. But don't change the facts just in order to justify your belief that Greenwald has done no wrong and that the White House is lying.

[Luminous Animal]

75. I understand it is his own bio but he is not lying when he states that the is the PRESIDENT

elect for the Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association.

I believe that James is despicable. I also believe that most people, including his employers, do not care. The International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard has lodged a complaint against him but that has gotten little traction.

[tridim]

43. DU has basically become Faux News.

Fantasy works the same on both sides of the political spectrum.

Note that the original post on this subject is still #1 on "Greatest" and has not been removed. Why?

[JoePhilly]

59. Because its hilarious.

[tridim]

63. It's embarassing.

And forever searchable.

It should be removed immediately.

[JoePhilly]

64. I understand the view, but its too late to hide it.

DU is what it is. Good and bad.

[Bobbie Jo]

85. +1,000,000

Believe It.

[iwishiwas]

67. That's the way I read it also. Wise move.

[aquart]

37. Well, it's good that you have "a suspicion."

Pity Mr. Greenwald didn't.

[sharp_stick]

52. It would be shoddy journalism

if he were a journalist, but as a mere blogger and "columnist" he's got a handy "out".

There is enough shoddy journalism out there already without tossing bloggers into the mix.

[freshwest]

60. I doubt everything I read or hear now. I hope no one on either side of this believes FNN.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. "Greenwald being sent an email from Dr. James and not checking it out"

Actually that's exactly what happened here.

[dsc]

74. No that isn't

He was sent an email from the HARVARD LAW SCHOOL'S HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM which Dr. James has no connection with whatsoever.

[sharp_stick]

77. So he got a link

from somebody that wasn't even James and didn't bother to check it out. Shit, that's not shoddy journalism that's lazy as hell even for a blogger.

[dsc]

78. He had a copy of the email

confirmed it was sent by James to the list serve of the college. My point is that James didn't send the email to Greenwald he sent it to his entire college.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. It's a silly point.

Greenwald got hold of an email from Dr. James somehow or other and didn't bother to check with the White House on it. Getting a reasonable explanation from them wouldn't cause the controversy and drive page hits in the direction of Salon and his column.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. He was forwarded an email from Dr. James.

He was sent (by someone else) an email from Dr. James.

OK, now that the hair is well and truly split, that is indeed what is going on here. Jeez.

[Hannah Bell]

70. that sounds like a reasonable hypothesis.

[markpkessinger]

76. So what if, this one time, Greenwald got it wrong?

I"m not sure he did get it wrong -- I tend to think the Obama administration realized it had fucked up big time with this appointment and are now trying to pretend they never intended to appoint the guy. They are also pissed at Greenwald for reporting on it, so they are trying to smear him. Just my opinion. But setting that aside, whether Greenwald screwed up on this one occasion or not, Greenwald's overall journalistic history has been a stellar one (often to the chagrin of the current Administration). To castigate him as an "irresponsible journalist" over this one incident is nearly akin to what was done to Dan Rather over his reporting on George W. Bush's absence from his National Guard service.

[Armstead]

95. IMO he deserves to get his wrist slapped.....Not consigned to the outer ring of hell, but a slap

If you screw up, you take your medicine and move on and try to do better. That's all.

[markpkessinger]

98. Agreed.

It isn't exactly as if his statement has been proven wrong, either. But he should have done more checking beforehand.

[Armstead]

79. I disagree -- And it's why I sometimes think bloggers should be required to go to J School 101

...or if they altready have journalistic training, go BACK to J-101.

There is (or used to be) a fairly ironclad rule in responsible journalism. Don't run it without checking it out first.

Greenwald should have kept it to himself until he got confirmation or denial from the WH.

Expressing opinion or interpretation about known facts is one thing. But the problem with bloggers is that they often pound out "reporting" without really reporting, and/or print unattributed rumors. Some it's laziness, some of it's "Scoop Fever."

We all make mistakes, as do the best professional journalists. But there's a way to minimize that possibility. Used to be called shoeleather.

[DirkGently]

92. This wasn't an "unattributed rumor." It was a public statement by a public figure. Unless James'

e-mail turns out to be fake, it's a solid enough source to take to print. No one would ever expect a well-known dean and college professor to simply make up something like a WH appointment.

And it's not at all clear from the WH response that there never was such an appointment. It sounds like an equivocation suggesting James was part of a group that received an invitation short of what James claimed, and that he has now been DIS - invited on the basis of GG's piece.

Someone lied here, but it wasn't Greenwald.

[Armstead]

93. I didn't say Greenwald lied...I said it was sloppy

One should never go public on something like that without checking with the real source -- which in this case would be the WH.

If the WH said "No" then it is no. If they confirmed, then it is time to go with it...If the WH said "No comment" thast mersans therer is more to it and it's time to dig deeper.

I'm not saying Greenwald is an axe murderer. I'm just saying the too often these days, people who are dispoensing information are too quick on the trigger and don't do the necessary legwork.

If one is going to take the role of dispensing information, then they should follow standards.

In this case it was not the most serious thing in the world. But it did get a lot of people stirred up prematurely, either castigating Obama or defending him.

And in some cases such things can do real damage to people and institutions.

[DirkGently]

101. Didn't say you said he lied -- sorry if unclear. SOMEONE is lying here. And I still disagree

this was a fact-checking failure by Greenwald. Again, assuming the e-mail is not fake, it constitutes a primary source. A public figure like James, making a public statement of this type, does not require corroboration. If Condie Rice had said she received such an appointment, no one would "call and check." If Joe the Cab Driver said it, yes. James is in the middle somewhere, but there's no reason to think he would make something up so far from what the WH now claims is the case.

It also is not clear Greenwald's facts are wrong. This could quite easily be a case of WH backpedaling.


Speling edit.

[ProgressIn2008]

80. Hm, I'm guessing there's more to this story than meets the eye

I'm thinking two main possibilities: HLS Human Rights Program got punked and bad, and Greenwald in turn. Or, this was for real and James and the WH will walk this back as a "misunderstanding." If it's the latter, my hat goes off to Greenwald, since he may have been part of exposing the controversial aspects of a nom and thereby influencing events. That's the best one can hope for, to shine light on criminality (since there isn't any accountability for criminality among the rich and powerful and connected in this country) and make it scuttle back into the dark.

And I say that as someone who is agnostic on Greenwald. I think he's done some fine work, but I'm not especially invested in him. I consider him a commentator and not a journalist, in any case, for better or for worse.

[druidity33]

83. I completely agree. K&R.

I trust him as a journalist. And as a blogger.

:)

[JDPriestly]

84. Who would criticize Greenwald for this?

Certainly not those members of the media who fell for the WMDs and Al Qaeda in Iraq lies.

Reporting is not always accurate. What is new?

It is not a crime to make a mistake with a news story. If it were, everybody at Fox News would be serving time right now.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. I wish people would castigate the right wingers who make shit up as much as they do . . .

. . . a lefty who gets it wrong.

Maybe it was sloppy journalism. Okay. It happens. But the glee with which some are on this story says a great deal about the gleeful.

[SpartanDem]

89. Quit making excuses

for piss poor journalism if this was some right wing blogger doing this to a Democrat you liked you wouldn't be making excuses for not doing any basic fact checking.

[EFerrari]

96. There was nothing "poor" about this. He had the email in question.

Now, we need to find out who is lying, the torturer or the Obama White House.

[DirkGently]

90. Uh huh. The dean of a psych school just willy nilly made up a WH appointment? Right.

Sounds like, at the worst, GG took a very credible announcement at face value, and James was inflating his role. Who lies about receiving a White House appointment? It's not like no one will find out. Now the WH says it was "indirect" invitation that has been rescinded? Or something?

And unless James's e-mail turns out to be a forgery, it would be considered a direct source, and wouldn't necessarily require further fact checking. If he was simply lying in his e-mail, that's a story in itself, but believing a public figure when he says something like this is hardly irresponsible.

The stretching here smacks of the typical Enemies List bashing of anyone who is ever effectively critical of the administration.

[Armstead]

97. I'm often critical of the administration -- and I still think he screwed up

This is less a matter of politics than journalistic responsibility.

And taking something like that at face value and then running it without any corroborating evidence first is something not even a cub reporter would get away with....

[ooglymoogly]

100. The troll tag team is out in force on this one.

All of us who know Greenwald from his writings, know he is scrupulously honest and a self driven perfectionist. He, more than anyone I know, makes it abundantly clear: "Truth has a liberal bias"; and that is why he is so hated on the right.