• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grunwald Tweets About Assange, Suffers Backlash (1 Viewer)

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
37,285
Reaction score
30,285
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Time Magazine Reporter, Michael Grunwald, recently tweeted: "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange"

Outrage ensued from both Assange supporters and detractors.

Reporter Glenn Greenwald responded by saying: "Things like this make you not just understand, but celebrate, the failings of large media outlets."


I couldn't agree more with Glenn.

Michael Grunwald, Time Magazine Reporter, Sends Out Shocking Tweet About Julian Assange
 
Time Magazine Reporter, Michael Grunwald, recently tweeted: "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange"

Outrage ensued from both Assange supporters and detractors.

Reporter Glenn Greenwald responded by saying: "Things like this make you not just understand, but celebrate, the failings of large media outlets."


I couldn't agree more with Glenn.

Michael Grunwald, Time Magazine Reporter, Sends Out Shocking Tweet About Julian Assange



Guy kinda sounds like a douche, and i am not the biggest fan of time magazine, but i fail to see how it works as an indictment of an entire industry. And it's not exactly as if greenwald writes for obscure fringe outlets, either
 
Don't announce it on twitter. Proudly think it and maybe tell your friends instead.

Assange still sucks, however.
 
Guy kinda sounds like a douche, and i am not the biggest fan of time magazine, but i fail to see how it works as an indictment of an entire industry.

It's only one example out of many. I have removed my cable and television from my home because of the trash on most mainstream news/media.

Snowden Coverage: If US Mass Media Were State-Controlled, Would They Look Any Different?

And it's not exactly as if greenwald writes for obscure fringe outlets, either

It's a general statement. Obviously, Greenwald doesn't believe ALL mainstream journalists are failing in their duties but the vast majority are.
 
It's only one example out of many. I have removed my cable and television from my home because of the trash on most mainstream news/media.

I'm not sure how that answers my question
 
Don't announce it on twitter. Proudly think it and maybe tell your friends instead.

There's probably at least 3 or 4 examples of prominent individuals doing this each week. They never learn.

Assange still sucks, however.

It certainly sucks to have a thorn like Assange in your side when you are a corrupt government/corporation.
 
I'm not sure how that answers my question

As I said, by itself its not meant to be an indictment of an entire industry. But it is one out of many many examples on how the mainstream media has failed the People.
 
As I said, by itself its not meant to be an indictment of an entire industry. But it is one out of many many examples on how the mainstream media has failed the People.

maybe I am a cynic, but I really don't see a failing of mainstream media here. Being that the numerous fringe outlets one can find online suffer from the same ills. In fact, the only outlets that seem to be doing the actual job of the media are those that focus on objectivity and reporting, regardless of size of readership, financial backing, or larger associations.

Take the Guardian for a particularly apt example here. A paper that cares nothing for actual fact checking, when such interferes with the narrative they want to represent
 
It certainly sucks to have a thorn like Assange in your side when you are a corrupt government/corporation.

Like Assange and his allies aren't corrupt.
 
There's probably at least 3 or 4 examples of prominent individuals doing this each week. They never learn.



It certainly sucks to have a thorn like Assange in your side when you are a corrupt government/corporation.

See, now that is a truly logical post!
 
maybe I am a cynic, but I really don't see a failing of mainstream media here.

Watch Fox News or MSNBC for obvious examples. Much of the "news" and "reporting" has resorted to commentary at best and cheerleading for the govt at worst.

Being that the numerous fringe outlets one can find online suffer from the same ills.

Certainly. But, fortunately, thanks to a true free market in the internet we have true choice in sources (many of them quite sound) compared to limited choice in mainstream media.

In fact, the only outlets that seem to be doing the actual job of the media are those that focus on objectivity and reporting, regardless of size of readership, financial backing, or larger associations.

Yes. And few mainstream sources actually do that.


Take the Guardian for a particularly apt example here. A paper that cares nothing for actual fact checking, when such interferes with the narrative they want to represent

Examples? Not saying that the Guardian is perfect, but such claims should be backed by sources. Anyways, Greenwald only works through the Guardian. It does not mean he supports everything they do/fail to do.
 
Glenn Greenwald is a champion for the Bill of Rights.
 
Like Assange and his allies aren't corrupt.

No one is perfect. But it does not mean we should not hold our public officials responsible.
 
Watch Fox News or MSNBC for obvious examples. Much of the "news" and "reporting" has resorted to commentary at best and cheerleading for the govt at worst.

Yes, I agree, but such is not obviously limited to fox news or MSNBC. The majority of fringe outlets do the same, and usually in a more egregious manner. Because it's what the average reader wants

Examples? Not saying that the Guardian is perfect, but such claims should be backed by sources. Anyways, Greenwald only works through the Guardian. It does not mean he supports everything they do/fail to do.

1) I didn't mention Greenwald, so am unsure why you would interpret it an attack on him, as opposed to the outlet he is working for

2) one example that comes to mind is their reporting that Obama would negotiate with hamas during the 2008 election
 
Working with Anon is good enough for me.

I would work with Anon (which is a loose collection of individuals, most good some bad) any day over murderous dictatorships.
 
Yes, I agree, but such is not obviously limited to fox news or MSNBC. The majority of fringe outlets do the same, and usually in a more egregious manner. Because it's what the average reader wants

Sure they do. But sources like Infowars and Motherjones don't hold sway over a large percent of Americans the same way the mainstream does. And while the fringe groups do have clear leanings (libertarian, socialist, anarchist, etc.) most don't push the destructive illusion that we can only choose between two parties or that anyone who exposes wrongdoing is somehow a 'traitor.'



1) I didn't mention Greenwald, so am unsure why you would interpret it an attack on him, as opposed to the outlet he is working for

Well, you mentioned the fact he works for a fairly big media source.


2) one example that comes to mind is their reporting that Obama would negotiate with hamas during the 2008 election

Do you have the link? Not saying you're wrong. Just curious.
 
Sure they do. But sources like Infowars and Motherjones don't hold sway over a large percent of Americans the same way the mainstream does. And while the fringe groups do have clear leanings (libertarian, socialist, anarchist, etc.) they don't push the destructive illusion that we can only choose between two parties or that anyone who exposes wrongdoing is somehow a 'traitor.'

1) many do push a two party narrative. And as mentioned before, tend to be much more extreme in their pressing of such issues.

2) while each outlet may only reach a small number of readers, when compared to a major network, on the whole they are able to reach many individuals

3) If those are the only issues you have with mainstream media, then your issue seems to be more partisan driven, than one of content and style. For myself, I see the issue as one of content and style


Well, you mentioned the fact he works for a fairly big media source.

No i didn't. I mentioned Greenwald's working relationship in a totally unrelated post talking about his thrashing of mainstream outlets. On another point you raised, about the virtues of "non-mainstream" media, I cited the fact even outlets like the guardian love pushing a political narrative, undermining your argument that the issue was one of being "mainstream" as opposed to outlets, of all stripes and backgrounds, simply catering to the interests of the consumer


Do you have the link? Not saying you're wrong. Just curious.

Barack Obama administration 'prepared to talk to Hamas' | World news | theguardian.com
 
1) many do push a two party narrative. And as mentioned before, tend to be much more extreme in their pressing of such issues.

Alternative sources are much less likely to push the two party narrative. The vast majority of mainstream sources, though, do push it. And 'extreme' is such a subjective word.


3) If those are the only issues you have with mainstream media, then your issue seems to be more partisan driven, than one of content and style. For myself, I see the issue as one of content and style

As stated before, I don't necessarily have a problem with sources having a particular lean. However, I do have a problem with sources that push State or Party agenda without question. Only 6 major corporations control much of the media and they have conflicts of interest. The presidents of CBS and ABC, for example, have brothers working in the Obama Admin. Many 'big stories' only get out through alternative sources because those stories may conflict with State or corporate interests. The press should be the counterbalance to bloated corporatism and statism, not tools for them.

No i didn't. I mentioned Greenwald's working relationship in a totally unrelated post talking about his thrashing of mainstream outlets.

On another point you raised, about the virtues of "non-mainstream" media, I cited the fact even outlets like the guardian love pushing a political narrative, undermining your argument that the issue was one of being "mainstream" as opposed to outlets, of all stripes and backgrounds, simply catering to the interests of the consumer

You stated yourself that the Guardian is a mainstream source. So really don't get your point.
 
Alternative sources are much less likely to push the two party narrative. The vast majority of mainstream sources, though, do push it. And 'extreme' is such a subjective word.

Really, based on what? I can name numerous fringe outlets that push a two party narrative. Surely there are others with a more nich market, but it's hardly surprising a major media outlet wouldn't target a small minority fringe group.


I do have a problem with sources that push State or Party agenda without question.

But you can find numerous fringe outlets that do exactly that.


Only 6 major corporations control much of the media and they have conflicts of interest. The presidents of CBS and ABC, for example, have brothers working in the Obama Admin.

Yeah, and I'm sure you can toss a connection to Kevin Bacon in there, as well. But as a means to criticize anything, it's about as pointless and weak as you can get


Many 'big stories' only get out through alternative sources because those stories may conflict with State or corporate interests. The press should be the counterbalance to bloated corporatism and statism, not tools for them.

I see ****ty reporting and agenda pushing from a number of different outlets, and again, it doesn't seem to be defined by "fringyness". What defines it seems more based on their approach to reporting.


You stated yourself that the Guardian is a mainstream source. So really don't get your point.

No I didn't. I stated "And it's not exactly as if greenwald writes for obscure fringe outlets, either". Because while the guardian doesn't exactly have the exposure of CNN, they are hardly some obscure outlet like "WND" or "truthout.org"
 
Any media outlet that focuses more on the crimes of Assange and Snowden than on the crimes of the government which they exposed should be boycotted into bankruptcy.
 
Alternative sources are much less likely to push the two party narrative. The vast majority of mainstream sources, though, do push it. And 'extreme' is such a subjective word.

I don't know about that. If by two party narrative, you mean Repub vs Dem, then the mainstream media definitely do push that more than alternative media does. However, the "us vs them" narrative seems to be popular all over.
 
It certainly sucks to have a thorn like Assange in your side when you are a corrupt government/corporation.

Sucks for all the people he steps on, and throws under the bus, too. He doesn't care who gets hurt, as long as he's able to save his own hide.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom