There has been a storm of controversy over the question that Meet the Press host David Gregory (6/23/13) asked Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald about NSA whistleblower Edwards Snowden:
To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?
To the surprise of no one who is familiar with Greenwald’s work, he pushed back hard:
I think it’s pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence, the idea that I’ve aided and abetted him in any way.
Gregory’s immediate response was that he was just asking questions:
Well, the question of who’s a journalist may be up for debate with regard to what you are doing. And, of course, anybody who is watching this understands I was asking the question; that question has been raised by lawmakers, as well. I’m not embracing anything.
And Gregory returned to that later on in the show:
Here’s what Greenwald has tweeted after his appearance this morning: “Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?”
I want to directly take that on, because this is the problem for someone who claims that he is a journalist, who would [be] objecting to a journalist raising a question which is not actually embracing any particular point of view. And that’s part of the tactics of the debate here when, in fact, lawmakers have questioned him, there’s a question about his role in this, the Guardian‘s role in all of this. It is actually part of the debate; rather than going after the questioner, he could take on the issues and had an opportunity do that here on Meet the Press.
The thing is, Gregory didn’t just “ask a question.” He said, “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements…” To Greenwald, the assumption is that he is involved in a crime–aiding and abetting–and the question Gregory is pondering is the extent of his wrongdoing.
If Gregory did not intend to put the question that way, he should say that–not criticize Greenwald for accurately understanding the question as it was posed.
It’s not as if Gregory was alone in wondering about Greenwald’s role. As his NBC colleague Chuck Todd put it later on in the show:
Glenn Greenwald, you know, how much was he involved in the plot? It’s one thing as a source, but what was his role –did he have a role beyond simply being a receiver of this information? And is he going to have to answer those questions? There is a point of law. He’s a lawyer. He attacked the premise of your question. He didn’t answer it.
When Gregory and Todd suggest that Greenwald is not an actual journalist–“someone who claims that he is a journalist,” or someone “involved in the plot”–what they ware really saying is that Glenn Greenwald is not their kind of journalist.
And that’s true. During the Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial, Gregory’s predecessor Tim Russert revealed, as Greg Mitchell noted (Huffington Post, 6/13/08), that “he considered his chats with sources all off-the-record unless put on the record, the opposite of the usual journalistic approach.” Likewise, when former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was embroiled in a bizarre extramarital affair saga, Gregory emailed Sanford’s office to extend a helping hand, letting him know that “coming on Meet the Press allows you to frame the conversation how you really want to…and then move on.” And, of course, there’s Gregory’s backup dancer performance piece with George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove at the 2007 correspondents’ dinner.
You see, that’s how real journalists behave.
Today the Washington Post (6/24/13) has a piece headlined, “On NSA Disclosures, Has Glenn Greenwald Become Something Other Than a Reporter?” If the standard for “reporter” is the likes of Gregory and Chuck Todd, Greenwald is certainly more than a reporter. Thank goodness.
I think the standard for “reporter” embraced by Gregory, Todd, Russert et al. comes down to
If you don’t have blood on your hands
I don’t want to shake it
Doug Latimer:
Or: If you can’t be invited to the same country club I am a member of, screw off.
Maybe we could call it the “Caterpillar School of Journalism – what they (Gregory, et al) decide is Journalism, is nothing more nor less than what they decide it means to be a Journalist”. It’s the old “conservative” game, I am a conservative, so if you don’t agree with me, even if your right, then your not one. The same process they used to declare Reagan, Bush and Nixon as “Liberals”.
I don’t agree with it, but it was a fair question … and a fair answer.
Once again the mental predisposition of the “establishment” position demonstrates that the “establishment” reveals no possible way opposition or critical voices can live with it except to be small enough to be ignored.
Once something gets to a certain point, the “big guns” kick in and the weights of the USA is brought to bear on a single individual … which I would call unnecessary and cruel and unusual punishment.
We should at least include in the measure of our power – how strong we are to face the truth … and our government is a complete wussy in being able to look at the truth.
David Gregory and Chuck Todd??? Please… Since when did either have anything of substance to say???
the verbal tennis match today is exactly why I quit going to hear speakers at the press club and started going to the magic club there instead….card tricks, a great hobby and a real frat…..the magic club, I mean. I wore out a lot of shoes in the news biz and it just makes me sad now–not mad, just sad.
And let’s not forget, in the context of David Gregory’s implication that Glenn Greenwald has enabled leaker Edward Snowden, that when Gregory did his “rap dance” with Karl Rove at the correspondents’ dinner, it was already widely known that Rove had played a key role in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity to the media. Perhaps Greenwald is not Gregory’s type of journalist and Snowden is not Gregory’s type of leaker, but for a journalist like Gregory, Rove IS his type of leaker.
Mr Greenwald is a fun guy.A backer of marxist organizations, and a lead speaker at the upcoming socialist 2013 conference.So without any doubt I would be willing to state that his intentions are suspect.But the question of did he aid and abet is a legal determination.If he did….my guess is this government would be all over him like a duck on a june bug.That he is not- is the best evidence that he did not go that far.So I would say it is overstepping to state as much.
The idea of Gregory, a paid television presenter, attacking Glenn Greenwald, an independent writer, for his apparent presumption is allowing people to call him a journalist, is hilarious.
Greenwald to the Press Club, Gregory to Friars.
-dlj.
The world of journalism is divided into two kinds of Journalists, the anointed (like Gregory) and the non-anointed (like Greenwald) and the anointed do the dividing.
this whole thing has made it ABUNDANTLY clear which fake TV journalists are AIPAC WHORES. lets, see…david gregory – check, chucky todd – check..of course chuck todd has that personal axe to grind because Greenwald hurts his feelings so bad by exposing him as a fraud on that episode of Bill Maher …don’t watch television news (with the exceptions of Bill Moyers Now and Democracy Now) …Let FAIR do it for you. Im not being facetious and if any one asks why you don’t watch corporate news,, mention by name the corporate whores who are making a fraudulent mockery of the word “Journalism”, David Gregory, Chcuk Tood, Andrea Mitchell,Wolf Blitzer, and all the other FOR SALE WHORES who are feeding at the trough of lobbyists and political bosses and calling it “Journalism
….actually, I doubt either gregory or todd call what they do “Journalism”
What “self-respecting” journalist doesn’t aspire to be a “gate-keeper” for the powerful over the other journalists. (un)fortunately one of the possible results of the ruling classes monitoring of all communications puts real journalism out-of-business and therefore these gate-keepers then only have the position of court jester to perform (at the same rate of pay). I like to pretend too.
How dare that Snowdon presume to become a newsmaker!
Jim None writes “The world of journalism is divided into two kinds of Journalists, the anointed (like Gregory) and the non-anointed (like Greenwald) and the anointed do the dividing.”
I think this is very odd. The first time I have seen this putative division into anointed and non- is here, and the division is being made by Jim None.
Is this to be known as the None-division?
-dlj.
I know I’m late to the party, but I’d take the real reporting of the Guardian over any of the US ‘news’ organisations any day. It’s sad that in a land where the free press allegedly exists, we often have to get the truth about the US from a British newspaper!
There are three kinds of journalists – the house journalists, the field journalist, and the journalists with a conscience . The field journalist is always reporting from war / disaster zones. The house journalist puts his tushy on the padded seat of a swivel chair and asks innane questions to talking heads in insipid news shows. The house journalists are so institutionalized into their comfortable existence, cushy lifestyle and celebrity status that they do not want to rock their world. Most of them are pro establishment and appear to be reading scripts handed to them or thinking thoughts predigested for them.
It is the third kind of journalists that are true to their profession. They uncover abuse of constitutional provisions, corruption, negligence and bring it onto the centerstage of social consciousness. Sometimes it is a one act show that makes these journalists immortals. Getting a few likes of Gingrich to form a “snowden pomelling” team was pathetic. Gregory stank. Way to go, house journalist. Get up kiss the cushion on which you place your arse on and then sit happily ever after. You can never be a Greenwald or Bob Woodward. The Ilk of David Gregory thrive on the excrement of their corporate handlers.