Oh, I get it. If we marginalize Greenwald's journalist credentials to the point...

[Gravitycollapse]

where we no longer consider him a journalist, it totally makes it okay to arrest and charge him.

It's all making so much sense right now. The way to do away with these whistle blower cases is to simply argue away the journalism aspect until we reach a point where we're simply dealing with malicious terrorists who happen to be operating under the cover of being "journalists."

What a great plan guys.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Interesting take. nt

[leftstreet]

2. Good observation

DURec

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. or just realize there are biased and unprofessional journalists and call them on it.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. If a journalist wears jeans to work, is she or he unprofessional?

Is there a book explaining such rules?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. the way Greenwald has for years made himself part of the story is unprofessional

the way Greenwald uses half truths and a marketing blitz of "wait til ya see what I got coming next" is the voice of a huckster--not a journalist.

these are just a couple of examples. more are being revealed each week.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. "Not a journalist if one does not divulge all information in one story."

I'll add that to the list. Thanks.

[nomorenomore08]

10. Which sets the bar improbably high for journalists in general. But of course, it won't be applied

to "journalists in general." Only to guys like Greenwald - who, by the way, I don't always agree with - because they're a potential threat, however small in practice, to the status quo.

[Mojorabbit]

25. Wow! Did you just write these rules tonight? Is there a book detailing these rules? LOL nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. I get your snark. I agree with your snark but I hasten to add

There are no rules and there will never be rules written down. If there were that would deny them the ability to change the rules at and for their convenience.

[JDPriestly]

13. The First Amendment protects biased and unprofessional journalists.

No one is in a position to determine which journalists are biased, which are unprofessional. We all think that the journalists with whom we agree, the ones we like, are unbiased and professional. We all think that the journalists with whom we disagree and don't like are biased.

It's like religion. Every religion thinks it is the best. The members of a religion are members because they like the religion. So of course, people tend to think their own religion is the best.

Yuo can't say that one journalist enjoys First Amendment rights and another doesn't. Does Rush Limbaugh enjoy First Amendment rights? Yes. So does Amy Goodman. So does Hannity. So does Rachel Maddow. They are all classified as journalists for the purposes of the First Amendment. And if that failed, they would all have the right to free speech. So does Greenwald.

Let's drop the hate, please. It comes across really ugly. Greenwald is simply publishing documents many of which were prepared by the government or a government contractor and blogging about his personal experiences doing it and his summaries of the documents. The only bias is that he is describing his personal experiences. He has the right to free speech to do that.

As far as publishing the documents is concerned, that is part of the function of investigative journalism -- publish government information with commentary.

[Recursion]

18. Very good point, and crucial to remember

As someone who has been very critical of Greenwald's actual work here, I think it's very important for me to say that he's precisely the sort of figure for whom it's important to protect press freedom.

Though, as with the whole NSA story, the actual scandal is what was done legally, not illegally.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. My point is...people are maligning him because of his own writing and actions

Not because they want to see him classified as "not a journalist" so he can be arrested.

[cui bono]

26. Some people are maligning him because they can't refute the facts about the issue,

so they go for the messenger.

[Egnever]

4. If that is your take away

You need to do some more reading.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Am I then not a journalist because I haven't done enough reading?

I'll add that to the list.

[Egnever]

17. I dont know

But the state of our journalism is pathetic. Perhaps you are another of the lazy so called journalist who regurgitates anything he reads without sourcing it yourself and checking the voracity of the story.

Based on your response to this thread I would guess that probably perfectly describes you.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. "Not a journalist if Egnever thinks you are lazy."

Adding to the list.

[cui bono]

27. Based on having just read your PUMA thread I'd say it perfectly describes you. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

29. I can testify that Gravitycollapse is a voracious reader

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. veracity

[Bonobo]

14. And you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

As has been amply demonstrated to me in the last 24 hours.

[Skittles]

15. alas, it goes beyond reading comprehension

WAY beyond

[Egnever]

19. Sorry I hurt your feelings

You will get over it I am sure

[Bonobo]

24. You're mistaken. I'm not trying to be snarky.

I mean it literally.

You really need to work on your reading skills and your ability to read with a critical eye.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Exactly! It's no accident they hammer away at that one. eom

[grasswire]

11. well, you know he's abusive to his "lover"...

....and manipulated the lover (aka "the little woman&quot to be his courier mule, and Greenwald himself is greedy, narcisstic, hysterical, emotional, grandstanding, naive, immature, selfish, and not a real journalist after all.

[99th_Monkey]

28. No! You don't say.

Well... ahum ..you didn't hear it from me, but just so you know,
I hear Greenwald has distinctly Libertarian views as well.
so no body should listen to anything he has to say or report
about the NSA.

[otohara]

12. We Sure Are Powerful

Go DU!

[Recursion]

16. It's not about his "credentials", but you have a point

On the one hand, nobody's attacking his "credentials"; people are pointing out that he's done some objectively bad reporting on this story.

On the other hand, even bad journalists deserve the full protection of law.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. You are by default attacking his credentials if you complain about his work.

As they don't hand out journalist licenses, what constitutes a journalist is, in essence, her or his body of work.

[KittyWampus]

35. So? And I saw one post w/conjecture from some talking head about his getting arrested.

ONE.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. Of course, because we haven't demeaned his credentials enough yet to consider arrest.

In the not too distant future, we will have removed him far enough from his body of work, his career path to allow for serious consideration of arrest. That's how it works. Keep chipping away at the foundation.

[LearningCurve]

23. You mean like this?

http://watchdog.org/100682/feinstein-wants-to-limit-who-can-be-a-journalist/

[dreamnightwind]

32. Excellent contribution to this discussion

Thanks, I hadn't seen this. She's one of my senators, and calls herself a Democrat, sad to say.

From the article you linked to:

Feinstein, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee (and a staunch defender of the government’s right to spy on anyone at any time), does not want to see a shield law that would protect employees of WikiLeaks and other leak-driven news organizations.

At a congressional hearing on the matter last week, Feinstein said shield laws should only apply to “real reporters.”

An amendment offered by Feinstein would extend shield-law protections to those who work as a “salaried employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information,” though students working for news outlets would similarly be covered. The definition seems to leave out the new tide of bloggers and citizen journalists who thrive on the Internet.

[LearningCurve]

33. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention

It also leaves out someone who captures something on a smart phone, then posts it to Youtube.

[dreamnightwind]

40. Make it an OP?

You'd need to check that it hasn't been posted as an OP already (I don't know), but you could possibly get more attention for it by making an original post about it. Seems worth it to me, very interesting and revealing re DiFi, and the whole issue of journalism protection, who deserves it, who doesn't, important to know what our reps are up to.

[LearningCurve]

42. I did when I first ran into the info

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023475563

[dreamnightwind]

43. Great, I hadn't seen it

I went over there and rec'd it up, also added some from an EFF article on the same amendment. Hope that helps. I'll try to call her office too, not that anyone there will care, but's it's probably still worth the trouble to let her know we're paying attention out here.

It looks like Durbin is also in on this, so anyone from Illinois could help by calling his office. I suppose anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee could use a phone call or two. This proposal is ridiculous, seems un-American to me.

[KittyWampus]

36. So does Randi Rhodes. LOL!

[Downwinder]

30. Why worry?

I have read:

He has not told us anything new, we already knew all about that.

He is getting it all wrong.

W4 are not doing anything wrong.

Everything we do is legal.

We are not doing ANYTHING.

[jazzimov]

39. Close, but wrong.

Most of us who have been paying attention already knew about 2008, and the Laws that were passed when Bush's policy was exposed. The documents he's leaked doesn't show anything different.

He is misrepresenting it.

Everything we are doing IS legal.

Is it RIGHT or WRONG? Just because it's legal, doesn't mean that it's RIGHT. Perhaps it was necessary at one time, but is it necessary NOW?

IF it is WRONG and not necessary, then we should CHANGE THE LAWS to make it ILLEGAL.

THAT, in a nutshell, is the conversation we should be having. If you don't like what's happening, CHANGE THE LAW.

[backscatter712]

31. That's exactly it - thus the McCarthyist demonization from the authoritarians. n/t

[KittyWampus]

34. I am against arresting him 100%. However, recognizing his agenda & his twisting of facts

is important.

[jazzimov]

38. Actually, NO.

Greenwald is no journalist. If he were, he would have presented these releases factually.

Of course, Snowden wouldn't have picked him. He would have found someone else just as irresponsible.

[sibelian]

44. You are unwholesome.

No longer will you receive my attention.

PLONK.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. "Not a journalist if one does not present facts like a scientific study."

I'll add that to the list.

[sabrina 1]

45. That's the reason for Feinstein's proposed legislation re defining who is and who is not

a journalist.

And today I just saw on foreign media, but can't find anything about it here, that there is a clause in the NDAA that deals with journalists, and I didn't get the full details yet, but apparently it deals with indefinite detention of 'independent journalists' under the terror laws.

There was only one media outlet present at the hearings on this. It also, apparently deals with Whistle Blowers.