Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the anyone-who-expects-to-give-up-freedom-for-security-will-get-neither dept.

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept writes A Response to Michael Kinsley

Kinsley has actually done the book a great favor by providing a vivid example of so many of its central claims. For instance, I describe in the book the process whereby the government and its media defenders reflexively demonize the personality of anyone who brings unwanted disclosure so as to distract from and discredit the substance revelations; Kinsley dutifully tells Times readers that I "come across as so unpleasant" and that I'm a "self-righteous sourpuss" (yes, he actually wrote that). I also describe in the book how jingoistic media courtiers attack anyone who voices any fundamental critiques of American political culture; Kinsley spends much of his review deriding the notion that there could possibly be anything anti-democratic or oppressive about the United States of America.

But by far the most remarkable part of the review is that Kinsley--in the very newspaper that published Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers and then fought to the Supreme Court for the right to do so (and, though the review doesn't mention it, also published some Snowden documents)--expressly argues that journalists should only publish that which the government permits them to, and that failure to obey these instructions should be a crime.

I can't say I want my government to have its fingers in what is and what is not reported.

See also: Cory Doctorow's review of Greenwald's book at BoingBoing

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:47PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:47PM (#48871) Journal

    Nice theory, except the shit the NSA was doing prior to 2004 is laughable compared to what they were doing in 2013.
    They have gotten progressively more intrusive under democratic administration, not less so.

    After a full term and a half, the problem isn't Bush's fault anymore.

     
    I don't think the GP's post was intended to be partisan but to point out that it is easiest to stop a rock from rolling at the top of the hill, not half-way down.
     
    However, I will point out that PRISM launched in 2007 and Obama was inaugurated in 2009.
     
      Reference 1 [wikipedia.org]
      Reference 2 [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:58PM

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:58PM (#48875) Journal

    We are not discussing rocks. Please pick an appropriate analogy.

    Who ever is sitting in the white house has:
    1) Official Stationary
    2) Official Pens
    3) The ability to issue an executive order.

    The fact that a Democrat is in the white house is not the main point here, how ever much you seem want this to be about republican vs democrat.

    The main point is that this president replaced the prior administration, AND promised (twice) to put a stop to this type of government abuse (along with many similar abuses), and was elected based on that promise!

    In the absence of a "Stand Down" executive order, it is THIS president's problem.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.