Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/my-statement-and-guardians.html

by duck • 13 years ago

201 93 13 years ago

ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br

pcrh2• 13 years ago

Holy cow... The implication is that he is aiming set-up his own news organization.

latj2• 13 years ago

I didnt get that at all. He could just be joining a venture with other journalists? Similar to propublica.org.

redthrowaway• 13 years ago

He's stated he's forming a new organization "with serious backing":

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...

buro92• 13 years ago

The original source of the leaked story:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...

The headline:

"Glenn Greenwald Will Leave Guardian To Create New News Organization"

All of the info being quoted elsewhere stems from that story, and is now confirmed by the post on Glenn's blog.

driverdan• 13 years ago

Since when does BuzzFeed break real news and not just blogspam? That's newsworthy itself.

buro92• 13 years ago

I (and others) tried submitting it, but all BuzzFeed links are [dead] on arrival due to the blogspam they've done over the years (along with gawker, etc).

dailyrorschach• 13 years ago

They actually break quite a bit of news, along with clogging the internet with blogspam. It's a pretty fascinating business model.

oskarth• 13 years ago

Interesting. If it indeed is a new venture, which seems likely, where's the money coming from? Benevolent billionaire?

martythemaniak• 13 years ago

He could crowdfund it by selling yearly subscriptions. I'd easily pay $60 a year for a investigative-minded digital magazine with Greenwald as Editor-in-Chief.

masmullin• 13 years ago

I wouldn't pay 60. But I might cough up 30 for some sort of digital edition so long as the reporting is high quality.

zmitri2• 13 years ago

Hey, if you don't mind, would you take a look at this http://www.beaconreader.com and let me know what your thoughts are?

Readers pay a single $5 a month fee, but get access to everything on platform (Over 40 professional journalists). Example of an article http://www.beaconreader.com/eric-randolph/what-one-refugee-s...

malandrew• 13 years ago

I'd pay $60 easily, but not for news. I'd pay $60 to an organization that consistently topples corrupt power structures through investigative journalism. Heck I'd pay $60 per head that rolls.

I would expect the organization to uncover wrongdoing irrespective of political affiliation or national origin. I'd expect it to push extremely hard for transparency, forcing transparency where possible. Any news organization that leaves no rocks unturned where people can hide their weaseling is awesome in my book.

Basically, I'd pay very good money for an investigative news org with journalistic might equivalent to the military might of US Armed Forces.

People in politics, finance and all sorts of equivalently powerful organizations need to feel as naked and vulnerable from and information security perspective as we do after learning about myriad NSA surveillance programs.

wavesounds• 13 years ago

Bezos bought the Post - the other newspaper thats been a big part of the NSA leaks - perhaps its Bezos?

jusben1369• 13 years ago

The new venture, described by a source familiar with it as "rather extraordinary," will be web-based and funded by a philanthropist, POLITICO has learned.

In his interview with Smith, Greenwald said it would have major financial backing and would have hubs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. He disclosed no further details, but called the venture "momentous" and said it will be "be unveiled very shortly.”

peterjancelis• 13 years ago

Just dreaming here:

1) DHH is a huge fan of Greenwald and very political.

2) Peter Thiel likes to make bold bets in the future of our culture (e.g. Ron Paul donation).

lmm• 13 years ago

"Bold bets" by having a foot in both camps? That seems more like timidity.

toyg• 13 years ago

Believe it or not, in this day and age creating a news org from scratch is incredibly cheap: you don't have to deal with legacy tech, expensive manpower and flashy offices in downtown NYC...

What is hard to get is brand recognition and mainstream credibility, which you can't get unless you break something extraordinary like CNN did in Gulf War I and Al-Jazeera in the post-2001 invasions. Greenwald's name should help in that regard.

stfu5• 13 years ago

I can definitely see that working. The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures. On the libertarian side there is very little between full blown conspiracy theory mongers (ala Axel Jones) and those more affiliated with one political who pick up the stories that advances their viewpoints (Drudge, Mother Jones). Greenwald brings the right level of mainstream credibility to carve out a new brand in that space.

dublinben5• 13 years ago

The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures

Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.

stfu5• 13 years ago

Yes, at least for the way he presets himself. He is able to put a serious argument forward and able to discuss things head to head with conventional journalists. If you compare the video where Greenwald gets some hard questions by some BBC reporter in comparison to how Jones handled the interview with Piers Morgan it feels like two completely different worlds.

Terretta• 13 years ago

I think he's different. Polarizing on given stories, sure, but also non-partisan.

I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.

jimbokun• 13 years ago

The way he has so skillfully broken stories from the Snowden documents at just the right pace has been brilliant. It is hard for me to imagine another journalist handling it better.

Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.

Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.

Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.

In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".

phaus2• 13 years ago

I think you are on to something.

My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual.

I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics.

The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.

To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others.

EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?

dmix2• 13 years ago

It seems all conservatives are beginning to reference themselves as libertarians (partial or otherwise) these days.

Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.

stfu5• 13 years ago

Druge's sole existence is based on how well he is able to spot fringe stories and push them into the mainstream. There would be not reason to go on that site if it weren't for his (and his team's) talent to spot some detail in some overlooked story and blow it up into a scandal. Somebody looking for the complexity of in issue is certainly not going to find that on Drudge. But Drudge is an amazing place to learn how to spot the right angle of a story and making it newsworthy.

Steko• 13 years ago

"(Drudge, Mother Jones)"

Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.

dbrower• 13 years ago

MJ "leans in" pretty hard too. The recent story on Elon Musk tries very hard to be a hatchet job, and comes off badly because of the forced angle.

stfu5• 13 years ago

Even Wikipedia refers to Mother Jones as a "politically left-wing American magazine,".

The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.

kevinpet• 13 years ago

MJ is serious original reporting and opinion from a committed liberal point of view. They are equivalent in bias, if not in quality.

aclevernickname• 13 years ago

Drudge and Alex Jones are not libertarian. Drudge is a heavily-conservative pundit that preaches holier-than-thou morals in his biased reporting. Alex Jones spreads "we-are-all-going-to-die" fear porn to his terrorized audience.

Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief.

This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.

swalsh• 13 years ago

Who leaked the news that he was leaving?

gkoberger3• 13 years ago

Snowden.

kmfrk• 13 years ago

He just can't help himself.

GigabyteCoin• 13 years ago

Buzzfeed apparently: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/exclusive-glenn-greenwald-w...

gkoberger3• 13 years ago

I'd assume wherever he's going (some people are saying it's his own organization) will be well funded -- he'll need a good team of lawyers watching his back. Now probably isn't the time to "go it alone" for him.

The Guardian sent lawyers to take care of the Miranda airport incident, and I presume they've been working around the clock to keep him protected with the Snowden stuff.

EDIT: he'll be head of building an "entire journalism unit" for a general-interest (sports, etc) organization, and it is well funded by a "particular backer": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/1...

sjtgraham• 13 years ago

Bezos

backprojection2• 13 years ago

Is this just speculation? It's fine if it is, I'd just like to know.

dmix2• 13 years ago

When asked whether the new organization would have a big video presence, Greenwald said it would be “very innovative — very, very innovative.”

I hope it's not too video oriented. I rarely consume journalism/news via video anymore unless it's real life footage of some incident.

Hopefully it's NYTimes style innovation, utilizing good modern web design.

grandalf• 13 years ago

yes, great web design without subservience to powerful interests would be ideal.

macinjosh• 13 years ago

Vox media perhaps? Maybe they are looking to get into the hard news business.

znowi• 13 years ago

going to be funded by a particular backer

Somehow, when I read this, I imagine this guy :)

http://i.imgur.com/IF7omHj.jpg

ttttannenbaum• 13 years ago

Greenwald has said that the Brazilian government has offered him physical protection (but he has declined iirc). I'm sure he has all the help he could want.

arca_vorago• 13 years ago

I can't wait to find out what it is and what kind of participation is available. GG has been doing some of the best reporting on a variety of issues for at least a few years.

frabcus• 13 years ago

Philanthropy is one of the few credible models left for good journalism. (The other being pay-for niche, like the Economist).

So I like that another really excellent philanthropically funded news organisation is starting (Pro Publica has been good).

pekk4• 13 years ago

I suppose it is also "philanthropy" when a very wealthy donor pays for journalism which reflects his political views or objectives.

As long as you share those political views or objectives, that is, then it is "philanthropy" rather than journalism bought and paid for.

alex_doom• 13 years ago

That's pretty cynical, I highly doubt he's going to be asked to shape a story to fit someone political viewpoints. Unless you think he's going to work for Fox News ;)

hannibal5• 13 years ago

The Guardian is also independent. It is owned by the Scott Trust and has been consistently loss making. The Scott trust turned into The Scott Trust Limited in 2008, but the same independence is maintained. Of course, the problem is that The Guardian may run out of the money eventually.

ereckers• 13 years ago

Is he looking to fill that huge hole left from the shuttering of Current TV?

comice• 13 years ago

If it's funded by advertising, it will still have pretty major journalistic limitations. I for one hope it's funded some other way (and no, not by Bezos either!)

Glyptodon• 13 years ago

So maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, then?

glomph• 13 years ago

Does anyone think this might be because the UK has such a terrible record on the free press front in recent months? Such a shame if it is costing UK papers serious talent (which I would not be surprised at).

I mean why the hell work for a UK paper when you could work somewhere else given we have the internet now.

lostlogin• 13 years ago

Where is good? A friend who works for Al-Jazzera recently described going through customs in Israel and the US. It's blatant intimidation as far as I see it. Kids with gun holding him in hot rooms while interrogating him when in Israel and only a little better when in the US. Given the way most countries kowtow to the US and Britain, where could one work from without problem? And even then journalists usually need to travel and you're back at the mercy of other countries.

ThinkBeat• 13 years ago

Is it possible that the Guardian cannot afford to keep him on anymore?

I would bet the English/US government has been leaning very heavily on the organization, legally, financially, intimidation, blackmail?

It might have reached a tipping point?

DanBC• 13 years ago

I think the Guardian would have published any details of government pressure, and other UK media would have joined in with strong condemnation.

Our publishing industry does have problems, but we're not that bad yet.

summerdown2• 13 years ago

There's certainly government pressure, which seems to be ramping up. Even if you ignore the destruction of media drives (and relocation to America), and detention of Miranda.

1. Pretty well all parts of the story have D notices in the UK:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-m...

2. The Home Affair's committee is looking into the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/16/mps-investiga...

and

3. They've been criticised by the Prime Minister:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24555955

tg3• 13 years ago

The announcement said "We are of course disappointed by Glenn’s decision to move on, but can appreciate the attraction of the new role he has been offered." - that sounds like a news organization losing a great reporter rather than letting him go.

pekk4• 13 years ago

To the fanatic, absolutely everything is further proof of his own pre-existing beliefs.

AsymetricCom• 13 years ago

I seriously doubt it. That's like saying Michael Jordan is too expensive for the Bulls.

vpeters25• 13 years ago

I hate to be a conspiracy nut here. I think I've watched one too many political thrillers where they get rid of the nosy reporter by offering him a job he just cannot refuse.

Edit: grammar

dombili• 13 years ago

So, if he's launching his own thing, then it's going to be like Democracy Now, except Greenwald's project will be privately (?) funded. That's good, I guess. Greenwald has my respect as a journalist and I can't wait to find out what he'll do next.

chipotle_coyote2• 13 years ago

The (apparent) sponsor of the new venture is Pierre Omidyar, the original founder of eBay.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-usa-security-gr...

llamataboot• 13 years ago

I have heard speculation that it is Omidyar, which feets his personality and post-ebay activities. He has been funding investigative journalism in Hawaii for a few years now, has a ton of $$$, is interested in changing the world, etc

andrewcooke• 13 years ago

i just searched for the name (since it meant nothing to me; turns out he founded ebay) and there are reports saying this - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/uk-usa-security-gre...

Myrmornis• 13 years ago

Ugh, I don't like the sound of this. But he is one of the people I respect most on the planet so I suppose that means I should have faith that he's doing the right thing. Call me unimaginative but I thought it was an extremely good thing to have someone with his views at a respected, establishment media organization.

ethanhunt_• 13 years ago

Statement of the Guardian's Jennifer Lindauer: "Glenn Greenwald is a remarkable journalist [...]"

Better late than never, I guess.

Glenn Greenwald is leaving The Guardian

Related Stories