Matt Taibbi is the latest journalist to join First Look Media, the new operation started by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and others. Since he is not on the national security beat, it reinforces the impression that this is going to be a fairly full service media outlet.
What with other good journalists like Dan Froomkin, Jay Rosen, Marcy Wheeler, Ryan Gallagher, and Peter Maass already on board in various capacities, this is shaping up to be a powerful operation.
Matt Taibbi would be a perfect fit in the new outfit. Perhaps he would do the financial beat since he has a history of going after low lifes in high places in Wall Street. He had a special place in his heart for the saints in Goldman Sachs.
Great news!
Glenn Greenwald is a good journalist? Good grief! Big mistake Matt. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe
Good for First Look and their group of journalists, and a tremendous loss to Rolling Stone, who I do thank for supporting Taibbi’s very long pieces for so long.
Oddly, perhaps out of all those names, the one that impresses me the most in terms of being a wonderful detective/journalist who never seems to promote her own name is that of Marcy Wheeler.
@thomaspaine: I read the article you link to. Although it highlights some views and associations that Greenwald might have and some decisions on his part about what to publish and what not to publish that trouble me, I don’t see anything in the article that leads me to conclude Greenwald is not worthy of being called a “good journalist.”
Re thomaspaine @ #3
Prof. Singham and his acolytes on this blog (I’m looking at Marcus Ranum and Nick Gotts in particular) will denounce Wilentz as a shill for the establishment. Anyone who writes anything negative about his heroes, Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, etc. is ipso facto a shill for the establishment.
Re thomaspaine @ #3
In addition to hating the United States, Greenwald is a two fisted Israel basher and Hizbollah apologist.
http://goo.gl/1eSIeb
@thomaspaine,
I discussed the rebuttals to Sean Wilentz’s strange article here.
I see a lot of anti-Israel sentiment there, but my glance through it only shows “Israel firster” as an anti-semetic statement. http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/20/glenn-greenwald-on-anti-semitism/
I dislike anti-Israel sentiments, but in general, “well, that’s just, like, their opinion, man”
I think the statements he makes there that are anti-Israel in nature are not just opinion but sadly resonate a bit of truth and are based in fact in ways that various statements at this blog do not.
In general I find Greenwald much more intellectually honest, and open about his positions and what facts he bases them on, then many in this conversation who merely seem to be retweeting others. In that sense he is both a better “partner” and worse “enemy” in the public debate than most.
Re Mano Singham @ #8
I am a believer in the old saw that one who gets into the pen with the pigs may expect to emerge with a coating of mud. Greenwald’s flirtation with Ron Paul, and by omission of his racist acolyte Lew Rockwell, who actually wrote much of the objectionable material to be found in the newsletters, is symptomatic of poor judgement on his part. The adulation of many on the left for Greenwald reminds me of the adulation of many religious people for Mother Teresa, another hero to many with feet of clay.
colnago80@6,
As so often, you prove yourself a liar (in addition to being an advocate of genocide, a stinking hypocrite, and a cackbrained fool). Snowden and Greenwald have done us all an enormous favour by revealing the activities of the NSA and GCHQ, as Assange did by publicising Manning’s revelations. But none of them are my heroes: anyone who associates with Ron Paul has indeed shown a lack of judgement at best. Assange is a misogynist arsehole with a planet-sized ego, and probably a rapist. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are advocates of genocide, as you are.
Re Nick Gotts @ #11
I hate to be put into a position to defend Assange but I would point out that there is, apparently, some indication that the charges against him in Sweden may be trumped up. It is clear that he has good reason to be concerned about being sent to Sweden as there is evidence that he would be extradited from there to the US where he might well find himself before a kangaroo court, similar to the situation that Snowden finds himself in. One of the reasons he is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is because the British Government was about to extradite him to Sweden.
Prof. Singham and his acolytes on this blog (I’m looking at Marcus Ranum and Nick Gotts in particular) will denounce Wilentz as a shill for the establishment.
A lie by Colnago80. Color me shocked.
How can I be an “acolyte” of Singham’s when I also feel free to disagree with him? For example, his recent posting about consociational democracy -- meh, I think it’s misguided. Mano, do you want my Acolyte’s Badge back?
I haven’t read Wilentz, and I wouldn’t dream of “denouncing” someone without first understanding their views and words. That’s why, when I debunk your inanities and lies, I quote your own words; I actually read them.
It’s ironic that you sloppily mis-characterize me in an attempt to accuse me of being likely to mis-characterize someone I admit I haven’t read. Your game is so poor, you’re more of an object of justified ridicule than anything else.
I would point out that there is, apparently, some indication that the charges against him in Sweden may be trumped up.
I don’t expect you to remember everything I’ve posted on the topic, but I absolutely do not absolutely support Assange. I’ve commented to that effect before -- perhaps here -- do your own research. I have publicly questioned that Sweden’s attempts to extradite Assange from the UK was an unusual level of response given the accusations against him, which made me suspect that it’s not really about the rape accusations. I’ve also said repeatedly that we should withhold judgement until evidence is presented at a trial.
Your deliberate mis-characterization of others’ positions amounts to lying. So let me now refer to you as a “racist, tribalist, genocidal, liar” fortwith.
Re Pennsylvania pipsqueak @ #13 & #14
I don’t think that Sweden has any intention of trying Assange, considering that the evidence for the alleged rapes is suspect. IMHO, the Swedish Government is acting as an agent for the US Government and, if Assange ever ended up in Sweden, would extradite him to the US to face a kangaroo court, much as would Snowden if he ever ended up in the US.
I don’t see any comments by the Pennsylvania pipsqueak on the consociational democracy post so I have no idea what his position is. Considering its failure elsewhere, I don’t see it as going anywhere.
I don’t see any comments by the Pennsylvania pipsqueak on the consociational democracy post so I have no idea what his position is.
I think it’s not even worth talking about, so I said nothing.
So you admit that you had no idea what I thought about the topic, but elsewhere are willing to mis-characterize me as having a position. Wow, you admit you’re a liar, while you’re in the process of lying! You’re not even a good liar!
Re Pennsylvania pissant @ #16
Excuse me, Wilentz had nothing to say about the consociational democracy issue so I could not have accused the Pennsylvania pissant of having an opinion on the subject. In no way, shape, form, or regard was I referring to this “solution” when speculating that he would be less then enthralled by Wilentz’s article, as it is decidedly negative on Assange, Greenwald, and Snowden.
Like I said, I have no opinion about something I know nothing about.
You ought to try it.
Ps “speculating” and “asserting something as fact” are different things. When you are speculating but try to pass it off as a statement of fact, you get called a “liar.”
This is fantastic news. Greenwald is rounding out his team, and it will be a breath of fresh air in the stale and wretched media cesspool of toadies that run around today. I have read Greenwald with admiration since his early days at salon.com.
Most important, he is well funded…$250m+ from Iranian-American Pierre Omidyar. He is an entrepreneur who knows when and how to seize an opportunity.
Re readysf
Have you bothered to read the article that thomaspaine linked to in #3? Greenwald is an apologist for Hizbollah. Forget Hizbollah’s views on Israel. Their intervention in Syria is contributing to the mass slaughter there (130,000 dead so far with no end in sight).
I have been reading Greenwald for a long time. I may not agree completely with everything he says, but he is a profoundly analytical and rational thinker. I do not put labels on people.
Colnago80, you seem to specialize in soundbite slander. You accuse Greenwald of being an “apologist for Hizbolah”. What does this mean? Huh? It is such a silly statement, the kind that kids make when taunting each other. It is the kind of statement that Greenwald would ignore, and correctly so.
Re readeysf # #22
Here’s Glenn Greenwald denying that Hizbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations.
http://goo.gl/Y00tE7
@colnago80,
You have used a clip that has been truncated to distort the message. That clip was from the Q&A portion after a speech given by Greenwald at the Socialism 2011 conference. In his answer he was looking at the history of the word ‘terrorism’ and arguing that it had been twisted so much that it had become meaningless because there was no way to define the word objectively that did not also include actions taken by the US and Israeli governments. So now all the word ‘terrorism’ means as used by the US is any action taken against US and Israeli interests, and a ‘terrorist’ organization is any one that does so.
You can see the full speech here. His full answer to the question is from the 53:35 to the 58:50 mark.
colnago: yawn!
@colnago80: I commented before I saw Prof Singham’s post #24, and I think this brings up an important point.
People make situational comments, and it is very easy to take comments out of context and label them. Countries also make sub-optimal choices from those available. There are those who call Israel a terrorist state…remember Gaza, and the refugee camps? Terror is a tactic…remember shock and awe?
I used to dismiss people who attack others with this type of childish label. But, they are dangerous. So, it is better to call them exactly what they call you. Acting just as stupid as them act cancels it out.
@#25,
Truth is always boring to those who make up their own reality.
Re readysf @ #26
Are Hamas and Hizbollah terrorist organizations? That’s a yes or a no. Does Greenwald think they are terrorist organizations? That’s a yes or a no.