Glenn Greenwald: The merger of establishment journalists and government officials

[Better Believe It]

The merger of journalists and government officials
December 28, 2010


It's not news that establishment journalists identify with, are merged into, serve as spokespeople for, the political class: that's what makes them establishment journalists. But even knowing that, it's just amazing, to me at least, how so many of these "debates" I've done involving one anti-WikiLeaks political figure and one ostensibly "neutral" journalist -- on MSNBC with The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart and former GOP Congresswoman Susan Molinari, on NPR with The New York Times' John Burns and former Clinton State Department official James Rubin, and last night on CNN with Yellin and Townsend -- entail no daylight at all between the "journalists" and the political figures. They don't even bother any longer with the pretense that they're distinct or play different assigned roles. I'm not complaining here -- Yellin was perfectly fair and gave me ample time -- but merely observing how inseparable are most American journalists from the political officials they "cover."

It's extraordinary how -- even a full month into the uproar over the diplomatic cable release -- extreme misinformation still pervades these discussions, usually without challenge. It's understandable that on the first day or in the first week of a controversy, there would be some confusion; but a full month into it, the most basic facts are still being wildly distorted. Thus, there was Fran Townsend spouting the cannot-be-killed lie that WikiLeaks indiscriminately dumped all the cables. And I'm absolutely certain that had I not objected, that absolute falsehood would have been unchallenged by Yellin and allowed to be transmitted to CNN viewers as Truth. The same is true for the casual assertion -- as though it's the clearest, most obvious fact in the world -- that Assange "committed crimes" by publishing classified information or that what he's doing is so obviously different than what investigative journalists routinely do. These are the unchallenged falsehoods transmitted over and over, day after day, to the American viewing audience.

If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal."

Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[ljm2002]

1. Really excellent article...

...I especially enjoyed the bits comparing Bob Woodward's activities to those of Julian Assange. It would be highly amusing, except that it illustrates so well a very dangerous trend in our so-called "journalism" these days.

K&R

[EFerrari]

4. It's a very clear sorting out of what actual journalists do

as opposed to our embedded corporate kennel.

[gratuitous]

2. Jounalists no longer see their job as adversarial to the establishment

They're only there to provide a conduit and a little polish. St. Timothy of Russert sort of gave away the game when he acknowledged before his death that his default setting was "off the record" whenever he took a call from a public official. Nobody in the reporting media thought or thinks this is unusual or bad, and so they never mention it. This is the kind of statement that really should have professional journalists in high dudgeon, but everyone at the popular media outlets apparently agrees with it. Given that, why shouldn't journalists be on the same side as government officials, especially government officials who are embarrassed (at least) or criminally exposed by the Wikileaks revelations?

[DCKit]

3. Yet they no longer seem to read directly from the WH faxes.

What's up with that?

Would the MSM go into a total tailspin if someone cut Kkkarl's phone lines? Or would they simply begin reading his tweets, as nooze?

The comedic potential is immense, as they can barely speak English.

[EFerrari]

5. Why do you say that? This morning, the AP reprinted a Pentagon fax.

and people still take it as reporting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x80790

[DCKit]

6. I say "WH", you say "Pentagon". Let's call the whole thing off. nt

[EFerrari]

7. If the WH isn't in charge of the Pentagon, we have a problem. n/t