Glenn Greenwald (cc photo: Gage Skidmore)
Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast (2/10/14) has a look at First Look, the new reporting venture led by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill that launched this week with a piece about how NSA intelligence is used in US drone attacks.
But Grove’s piece is about whether Greenwald and Scahill are the kind of journalists that respectable reporters would want to be associated with–mostly because they’re very critical of establishment journalism. Grove writes:
At last summer’s 2013 Socialism Conference in Chicago, Scahill spoke of “lapdog stenographers posing as journalists,” prompting cheers from the audience, and Greenwald inveighed against “the corruption of American journalism,” “actors who play the role of journalists on TV,” and even former Times executive editor Bill Keller, who “defines good journalism by how much you please the people in power you’re covering.”
That would have come as news to Keller. who in a December 2005 showdown at the Oval Office defied President Bush and his demand that the Times not publish an exposé of the NSA’s warrantless electronic eavesdropping program targeting people inside the United States. The story–by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau–earned Keller the Bush White House sobriquet of “traitor” and was a worthy predecessor to Greenwald’s NSA/Snowden scoops last June in the Guardian, for which Greenwald and Poitras are on the short list for a prestigious George Polk Award.
Grove would have a good point about Keller–if that’s what had happened. But the Times scoop he’s referring to was a story the paper famously sat on for over a year (Extra!, 2/06)–which, as many critics pointed out, included the 2004 presidential election.
Bill Keller
When Keller explained why the Times held the story, he seemed to be admitting that the government’s evaluation of its own behavior was being prioritized over the public’s right to know. As he put it, the government had “assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.” When the Times finally published the story, the precipitating factor seems to have been the fact that Risen was going to publish it anyway in a forthcoming book–and mention that the Times had spiked the story.
That history is probably what Greenwald is referring to when he speaks of Keller. And we know that Edward Snowden was aware of this, since he’s said it was one reason he did not go to the Times with his trove of NSA documents.
Grove wonders why First Look hasn’t attracted “mainstream journalists who would otherwise be logical recruits to work on national security issues with Greenwald & Co.,” speculating that they might be “loath to identify themselves with a worldview that leaves so little room for nuance.” That’s a bit much; one could more plausibly look at the record of the Keller-era New York Times (as Greg Mitchell did at the Nation—2/9/14) and wonder why on earth any journalists would want to work with Bill Keller.
Hey, that Greg Mitchell piece is from yesterday and says the Times has just announced Keller is leaving the paper! That was news to me.
I like that Keller is leaving to get in on the ground floor of some new, digital media start up, like a bizarro Glen Greenwald. Hey, Bill, maybe you can bring in Daniel Domscheit-Berg; he doesn’t seem to be too busy!
There’s one other thing that needs to be said about Keller: the man absolutely cannot write his way out of a soggy paper bag.
Long before I had any clear idea of who he was or why I shouldn’t like him for other reasons, I would try to read his columns but, so help me, never managed to reach the end of one. Just … so … boring.
It’s fitting that one of his final Times columns was the recent one where he picks on the blogging cancer patient. Looks like some people finally got to the end of one of his columns, and they realized they didn’t like what they’d just read.
If you search on “nuance definition”
You won’t find “subservience to power” listed among them.
Please let us know what you make of Keller’s latest announcement re The Marshall Project, whatever that is going to be. Collaboration between him, a hedge fund guy and a Daily Beast editor, focusing on criminal justice. Very odd.
‘Grove wonders why First Look hasn’t attracted “mainstream journalists who would otherwise be logical recruits to work on national security issues with Greenwald & Co.,” speculating that they might be “loath to identify themselves with a worldview that leaves so little room for nuance.” ‘
The best excuse I can make for this is that Grove hasn’t been paying attention. The First Look originators all but added an “MSM journalists need not apply” notice to their announcements.
It baffles me why the NYT continues to be trusted by so many people. And why Keller has any credibility with anyone serious about journalism is amazing.
He was, for example, a strong supporter of reporter Judith Miller, and our invasion of Iraq.
Keller was editor during the speculation about whether G.W. Bush was wearing a transmitter under his coat during the debates. But, per a detailed FAIR post in 2004, the NYTimes had rigorously pursued the story–to the point where expert evaluation looked pretty damning. It was before the election, and NYT suddenly dropped the story.
https://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-emperors-new-hump/
Keller strikes me as just another propaganda salesman, not what I would call any sort of real journalist. His venting of spleen at the cancer blogger reveals an appalling personal pettiness, to add to his track record of being such a syncophant.
Maybe he’ll actually wind up at Fox News… or one of the big advertising agencies…might be a better fit for him.
Um did anybody catch that line about Scahill being at a socialism conference?Why was he there?I must tell you that its is good to remember how long this NSA nonsense has been going on.When it broke I had to laugh.I had been listening to Beck talk about it for years and years.I actually joked that Snowden must work for Glen beck.To prove all of Becks theories.I did go back to see how well these two journalists “vetted” Obama in the elections.Put it to you this way.They asked no tough questions.And still have no idea how his college scores looked.They asked nothing.They got nothing.They Know nothing.Great journalists indeed!
LOL! The whole point of independent journalism is to be free from the shackles of MSM in order to be able to speak truth to power. So, if anything, the independent journalists are the ones who would be “loath to identify themselves with a worldview that leaves so little room for nuance” (aka the MSM).
Great piece, Peter! Keller is not alone but he certainly has blood on his hands.
Michael e. Your post is only marginally coherent, and it’s unclear which two journalists you believe failed to press Obama on his “college scores” (I assume you mean “grades” here), as there were three mentioned in the story – Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Schahill.
But it seems that you not only are totally unaware of the numerous blistering critiques of Obama by these three journalists . . . and for the right reasons, not the fantasy that some smoking gun in Obama’s college scores will somehow disprove the reality that he is highly intelligent and more than qualified for and fully deserving of his position. Like these journalists, I have many problems with Obama, but do not question his intelligence. On the other hand I can see why this reality might be threatening to your self-esteem.
As to Jeremy’s presence at the socialism conference, I expect that everyone noticed the reference but (unlike you) understood it as a crude attempt by Grove to smear Jeremy. Happily, however, in poll after poll young people have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. And, to paraphrase Laertes, “ministering angels shall Greenwald, Poitras, and Schahill be while Keller and his fellow corporate whores liest howling.”
Mkcsufi…..Really not an important piece and I was just spoofing.As for his intelligence?Why do you see him as obviously intelligent?My old Harvard yad has never seen anyone that i know of get in with such dismal grades.My friends and I can state unequivocally that with his grades you can not enter Harvard.His SAT score was too low.His grades B minus far too low.His IQ a reported 116 is interesting when matched against Bush 127.As for his qualifications going in….he had none.Lets use a comparison.George Bush Senior.Straight a student. Began working when he was 12.Had numerous jobs.At 17 the Youngest pilot in the navy during WW2.Hero.Graduated 2nd in his class in college.Started a business that flourished.Went into politics from town to city to state.Senator with an outstanding record.His record of bills passed still stands in many respects.Board of director of five fortune 500 companies.Ambassador to China 8 years.Ran the republican national committee during watergate and after.Head of the CIA.Vice president for eight years under Reagan(And people thought he was not qualified)!!Now Obama…Never held a job.School records hidden but reportedly average at best.(he blames it on pot),Got into harvard after a very mediocre early college experience where he did well by all accounts.Other than serving on the very political review head all school records stay sealed.Stayed in academia teaching a class on racism and the constitution 12 times.During this time wrote a book about himself (now believed to be written by Bill ayers)Law carreer sealed.No records of any proceedings.Community activist(whatever that is)Then any number of Shadowy people thrust him into the political lime light where he served for a short uneventful career after first loosing to a black panther candidate in the Senate..Worst voting record of any.Absent most of the time.Began his quest for the presidency almost immediately.Having never held a job of any true significance he actually won the presidency.Zero military or executive experience.Not qualified to run a 7/11.Am I being too harsh.Because other than to quote drunken joe Biden ” he is a good looking ,clean black man who can speak” Im not seeing it.Of course I would say he was much more qualified during his second term.learning curve being what it is.Bur really can you not see that what we used to have (the boy wonders)has morphed into the man in the shadows.What we do Know is not good.And in no way comparable to George Bush senior .Wasnt it Bill clinton who said….”This guy,who is he?He would of been serving us our coffee a year ago”