Show Me The Difference

The following excerpt is about an exchange that is altogether too reminiscent of exactly what happened to me when I wrote an observation regarding a Times-Standard "As It Stands" opinion by Dave Stancliff. I've enclosed the links at the end of this article and I'd like someone to show me exactly what the difference is in what these two guys are trying to do to Glenn Greenwald and what Dave Stancliff and Ernie Branscomb tried to do to me and the Joe Blow Report. Read the comments too. See who commented and what they said, it is almost word for word what Greenwald defines.

WEDNESDAY, DEC 29, 2010 09:30 ET
Wired's refusal to release or comment on the Manning chat logs
BY GLENN GREENWALD

Last night, Wired posted a two-part response to my criticisms of its conduct in reporting on the arrest of PFC Bradley Manning and the key role played in that arrest by Adrian Lamo. I wrote about this topic twice -- first back in June and then again last Sunday. The first part of Wired's response was from Wired.com Editor-in-Chief Evan Hansen, and the second is from its Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen. Both predictably hurl all sorts of invective at me as a means of distracting attention from the central issue, the only issue that matters: their refusal to release or even comment on what is the central evidence in what is easily one of the most consequential political stories of this year, at least.

That's how these disputes often work by design: the party whose conduct is in question (here, Wired) attacks the critic in order to create the impression that it's all just some sort of screeching personality feud devoid of substance. That, in turn, causes some bystanders to cheer for whichever side they already like and boo the side they already dislike, as though it's some sort of entertaining wrestling match, while everyone else dismisses it all as some sort of trivial Internet catfight not worth sorting out. That, ironically, is what WikiLeaks critics (and The New York Times' John Burns) did with the release of the Iraq War documents showing all sorts of atrocities in which the U.S. was complicit: they tried to put the focus on the personality quirks of Julian Assange to distract attention away from the horrifying substance of those disclosures. That, manifestly, is the same tactic Wired is using here: trying to put the focus on me to obscure their own ongoing conduct in concealing the key evidence shining light on these events.

Here's the link that got it started: "Trolls versus The Thought Police" and a copy of the As It Stands: "Don't feed the trolls" article I wrote about. Here's the link from Ernie Branscomb's blog article, "Not Fair." Be sure to read the comments.

Greenwald's referring article: Response to Wired's accusations - concludes by saying:

But now that I've written critically about Wired, I'm suddenly converted into a dishonest, ethics-free, unreliable hack.  That's par for the course.  That's why so few people in this profession are willing to criticize other media outlets.  Journalists react as poorly as anyone to public criticism; it doesn't make you popular to do it; it can terminate career opportunities and relationships; it's certain your credibility will be publicly impugned.  But journalists need scrutiny and accountability as much as anyone -- especially when, as here, they are shaping public perceptions about a vital story while withholding important information -- and I'd vastly prefer to be the one to provide it even it means that the targets of the criticism don't like it and lash out. 

Ultimately, what determines one's credibility is not the names you get called or the number of people who get angry when you criticize them.  What matters is whether the things you say are well-supported and accurate, to correct them if they're not, and to subject yourself to the same accountability and transparency you demand of others. [Emphasis added]

--Joe

Who Killed Roger Rabbit a.k.a. The Free Press?

My question is, why are we routinely subjected to unchallenged demeaning and degrading opinions and outright lies produced in the newspapers and on TV as if it is the God's gospel Truth?

Notice the subtitle in the picture: "THE ROBIN HOOD OF HACKING"? Look familiar?

The following article "Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again" is about the latest local hack attack on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks where the local Times-Standard newspaper and their use of wannabe authority, to pump out consensus propaganda as "natural matter of fact and truth." If Julian Assange is the kind of a person Dave Stancliff says he is then PRODUCE THE PROOF to back it up. The Times-Standard needs to enforce, if not show, a little common consideration and respect for the reader. We'll decide what kind of a person he is. That worthless "opinion" is nothing more than gossip-mongering. Everyone that reads such tripe should be offended and disgusted. So far I haven't found ONE letter to the Editors complaining about this public insult.

The following article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject is not only an "Update" continuing to refute this unchallenged propaganda, but to demonstrate a non-offensive presentation of the facts. Here's the link:

The merger of journalists and government officials

The following excerpt is offered here because it directly addresses our local problem:

(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists.  What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that?  It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

--Joe

Ron Paul and WikiLeaks

The following was highlighted on MEDIAite.com and says an awful lot about Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s Passionate Defense Of Julian Assange And WikiLeaks On House Floor

Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld.)

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

What are your answers?

--Joe

Majoritarianism

Today I was introduced to a new word that I occasionally exchanged for "majoritarian." Wikipedia says:

Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda which asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism and democracies have increasingly included constraints in what the parliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens' fundamental rights.
This should not be confused with the concept of a majoritarian electoral system, which is a simple electoral system which usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes. A parliament elected by this method may be called a majoritarian parliament (e.g. the British parliament).

Under a democratic majoritarian political structure the majority would not exclude any minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism is sometimes pejoratively called ochlocracy (commonly stated as mob rule) or tyranny of the majority by its opponents. Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, but which may be referring to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule.

From my point of view it's all about anarch and mob rule and George Wills has a good article on this subject and how it is affecting this country in his New York Times: The case for engaged justices - Herein lies the argument for why this country should leave WikiLeaks and Julian Assange alone.

Wills starts out by quoting: "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." - Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The American people are faced with a clear choice today. Either support and defend the Constitution or delegitimize themselves as a  people and a nation.

--Joe