Glenn Greenwald’s Great Betrayal
by Jonathan Cook
February 17, 2014I’m a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald’s work, and I very much hope his new media venture, the Intercept, is a success – not just for his sake but for all of us who want to see the media landscape open up for independent journalists.
That said, I found his responses to Michael Albert in an interview on the problems of journalism utterly disillusioning. Questioned about the ideological constraints on journalists posed by the nature of the media’s commercial, corporate interests, he comes across as smug and complacent. To be honest, he sounds like the Margaret Thatcher of new media.
Let’s start with the best bit. Greenwald agrees with Albert that there are institutional and structural pressures on journalists. Here’s what he says:
These kinds of biases [in media organisations] are cultural and generalized, not absolute. The Guardian has published Noam Chomsky many times [sic]. So has Salon. The nature of theories of media bias isn’t that it’s impossible to ever inject certain ideas into them. That’s just not the case. Exceptions happen. But to the extent that you’re suggesting that most journalists would find it uncomfortable and even damaging to their career to write critically of their employers, of course that’s true. That’s true everywhere, not just in journalism.
Unfortunately, that’s the high point. It goes rapidly downhill from there.
I use my own experience as an example, but there are lots of other people who could report similarly. When I worked at Salon and at the Guardian, there were owners, funders, etc. They all had their own interests. But I negotiated into my contract to be able to write whatever I wanted and to publish directly onto the internet without anyone even looking at what I write much less having the ability to edit or change it except in the most extreme circumstances. And I think that one of the things we are seeing is that there are now journalists who are able to use the resources of institutions and enjoy certain benefits of the institution like readers and traffic, yet very much keep those institutions at arm’s length so the dynamics that you described don’t end up limiting or interfering in the kind of journalism they do – and I guess it is up to the individual journalists to figure out ways to make that happen.
I find this more than hard to stomach. I worked for many years at the Guardian, and unless things have changed dramatically in the last decade Greenwald is talking complete nonsense in suggesting that the arrangement he secured with the newspaper is commonplace, or even possible for the overwhelming majority of journalists.
The word that I used in the past about the deal that Greenwald struck with the Guardian was “unique”. Now, I’m prepared to be persuaded that things have changed enough in recent times that there are other journalists with such absolute independence written into their contracts, but I would want some evidence. And if there are a few – a tiny elite at the Guardian like, maybe, George Monbiot, Polly Toynbee, Simon Jenkins – the point would be that almost all of them are safely within the consensus of the Guardian. Most are veteran journalists who have proved that they are never likely to stray from a broad consensus the Guardian is comfortable accommodating.
The point about Greenwald – what made his appointment so exciting to so many of us – was our understanding that he did not fit into that safe consensus. The Guardian’s decision to give him real independence was a very risky undertaking from its perspective. It was a sign of quite how desperately they needed him, as a way to bolster their credentials among a radical US readership (not least because a strong US presence might finally make their online advertising strategy profitable).
In short, Greenwald was able to dictate his terms. That is simply not possible for 99% of other journalists, least of all radical journalists. For Greenwald to suggest otherwise is, in my view, a betrayal of their struggle. In fact, it is the equivalent of blaming the victim. The inability of most radical journalists to get a high-paid, high-profile job at the Guardian or the Huffpo is, Greenwald implies, not related to structural problems in the industry; it’s simply that they haven’t, like him or Jeremy Scahill, worked hard enough at “figuring out ways to make that happen”.
Or as Greenwald puts it at another point,
I agree that you do get a little ostracized [if you are radical] but again, you have to not succumb to it and instead fight for independence. So you are right that there are real institutional pressures, but I think there are ways to insulate yourself from them so you can do the kind of journalism that you want without regard for what anyone, including those in your media outlet, think about it.
Albert, to his credit, isn’t falling for this. In the end, Greenwald’s answers inadvertently prove the point that Albert is trying to make about structural constraints in the media. Greenwald is now a very well-paid senior journalist in the new media empire of Pierre Omidyar, eBay founder and multi-billionaire. Greenwald’s self-made, entrepreneurial journalism philosophy sounds very much in line with what one would expect Omidyar to believe about the industry.
Albert asks a very important and penetrating question:
So, have you ever written a piece for the Guardian that reveals aspects of their structure, their decision making, their division of labor, their pay scales and internal culture, and shows the implications for the people involved and for journalism, and, if someone did that, what do you think would be the response? Has anyone at the Guardian ever written such a piece even about another corporation, for that matter, much less the Guardian itself? Can they even think those thoughts?
Here’s Greenwald’s answer:
Again, a lot of this depends on one’s individual situation. Before coming to the Guardian I never wrote much about the internal decision-making processes of media outlets because the only work I had done with media outlets previously was at Salon, where I had total editorial independence and worked alone. The same was true at the Guardian, until I began reporting on the NSA documents. But I have zero doubt that – had I been so inclined and thought I had worthwhile things to say about it – I could have easily written about the internal processes of newspapers, including the Guardian, without being interfered with.
If someone had said something like this to Greenwald about any subject other than the media, I think he would have – rightly – torn their argument to shreds. Is Greenwald saying he cannot write about something unless he has direct experience of it? So did he ever work for the security services or the NSA? And does he really want to argue that he has “nothing worthwhile” to say – ever – about the role of corporations in controlling the media, the single most important prism through which we interpret the world and the events around us.
I can only hope enough readers and colleagues call Greenwald out over this interview that he is forced to do a reality check. Yes, Glenn, we hold you to a higher standard than almost anyone else. But that’s because you’re only any use as long as you stay honest. Lose that and you lose us.
Some further thoughts on Glenn Greenwald
by Jonathan Cook18 February 2014 - One does not criticise Glenn Greenwald, one of journalism’s true heroes, and not expect to create a mini-firestorm, at least in my own little corner of the blogosphere. So the criticism that rapidly followed my post last night was not unexpected. I want to address the two types of criticism levelled at me to better explain my own position, which has been misunderstood by some – and possibly, if I have read his initial reaction correctly, by Greenwald himself.
The first criticism is easy to dismiss. Some have stated that they are on Greenwald’s “side”, thereby suggesting that I am not. Greenwald is under constant fire from the right; and he rightly receives wild acclamation on the left. Do critics really think I am with Fox News on the subject of whether Greenwald is a force for good?
But at the same time I can imagine it is very easy in these circumstances of extreme and conflicting reactions to one’s work to lose one’s bearings a little. My post was meant as a nudge to Greenwald in an area where I think his perspective is most susceptible to becoming skewed by his own exceptional experiences.
The second criticism is that I have misrepresented or exaggerated Greenwald’s arguments. I don’t think I have, and I will use an analogy to help clarify my position.
Noam Chomsky has not only explained the structural constraints inherent in the corporate media, he has made parallel criticisms of academia. It is also well known that Chomsky is something of an intellectual mentor to Norman Finkelstein, a man whose academic career was destroyed in the US by his “independent” positions on Israel and Zionism.
Now imagine that one day Chomsky gives an interview in which he argues that there are “lots of people” (academics) who could have successful academic careers while vocally criticising Israel. Not only that, but that it is their responsibility to “insulate themselves” against the pressures. That they should not “succumb” to being “ostracized a little” and “instead fight for independence”. That they should carry on “without regard for what anyone, including those in your [academic institution], think about it”. That it is up to independent academics to “figure out ways” to make their careers a success. Would Finkelstein have seen that as an act of solidarity on Chomsky’s part, or a betrayal?
It is important to note that I am not dismissing the general points Greenwald is making in relation to the new journalism. There are doubtless ways that journalists can try to use the new media to make more successful careers. There are doubtless new opportunities being created – not least, we should hope, Greenwald’s new venture with Pierre Omidyar.
But still, Greenwald’s statements of the kind I reference above need context, context about what independent journalists are up against in the corporate media. And while Greenwald acknowledges that there are problems, at the same time he tries to minimise those problems. In fact, he manages to make it sound as though independent journalists who fail either to get absolute independence written into their contracts with a corporate outfit, as he did, or to find rich pickings in the new media platforms, as he has done with Omidyar, can blame nothing but their own inadequacies. That is simply insulting.
While Greenwald strips out the proper context – structural bias – for understanding the problems faced by radical journalists, Chomsky is careful precisely to include context when talking about academia.
What Chomsky has done in the past when referring to the Finkelstein case is point out that Finkelstein’s mistake was to speak out independently when he lacked tenure. I think Edward Said once made the same point when someone told him he was courageous. He observed that it was much easier to wait till one had tenure to be intellectually brave.
Chomsky’s point about tenure isn’t meant by him as criticism of “failed” academics like Finkelstein. It’s an explanation of the institutional constraints designed to prevent people like Finkelstein from existing in academia. The long tenure process is intended to weed out radicals like Finkelstein. And those who might have early radical tendencies often have to spend so long keeping them well hidden, or more likely suppressing them, that by the time they win tenure it may be no longer intellectually tenable for them to revert to the secret positions of their academic youth.
In short, Chomsky’s positions are in solidarity with Finkelstein’s predicament, as they should be.
What’s so disappointing about Greenwald’s interview is that in this instance (please note the emphasis) he shows little solidarity with other independent journalists. Instead of providing context – observing that his own experiences are exceptional – he tries to generalise from his exceptional experience. That is what I find so misleading – in fact, dangerously misleading – about the interview.
What he does is point to his own personal experiences and imply very strongly that “lots of people” could do the same. That’s preposterous. Greenwald’s experiences in journalism are the result of his exceptional talents, his exceptional honesty, his exceptional bravery and his exceptional good fortune (even if we sometimes create our own luck). For 99% of radical journalists, there is no hope of doing what Greenwald has done, and to suggest otherwise is deeply unfair, both to his fellow journalists and to readers. It is the equivalent, as I point out above, of Chomsky or Said citing their own radicalism and success but not noting the advantages they had of tenure.
What we can hope is that Greenwald may now have a unique opportunity to dent the corporate media system, even if it is through the unlikely figure of Omidyar. I wish him every good fortune in that task. If he creates a real alternative to the corporate media model, then he will have done a real and lasting service not only to his own independent journalism but to that of many others.
Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001. jonathan-cook.net
Reply to Jonathan Cook
by Glenn GreenwaldDear Jonathan –
Thanks for the kind words and (excluding your headline) the thoughtful critique. I’ve long been a fan of your work as well, but in this case, you have profoundly misunderstood and misinterpreted my views. I’m not interested in ascribing blame, as I’ll be happy to concede that the fault may lay with my having unclearly expressed myself in a Skype interview, but I instead want to make clear what I do and do not actually think on these matters.
In sum, I do not remotely deny that structural and corporate constraints at establishment media organizations severely constrict the range of acceptable views that can be aired. I’ve made that very point countless times over the years in all sorts of venues. I knew exactly who I was talking to in this interview: both the interviewer and the readership. We’ve all read, understood, and accepted the fundamental validity of Manufacturing Consent and related media theories. My point wasn’t to deny its validity but rather the opposite: to affirm its validity, but then point out that one nonetheless should try and can sometimes succeed in overcoming those constraints. That is a point
I made quite clearly here:
“These kinds of biases are cultural and generalized, not absolute. . . . The nature of theories of media bias isn’t that it’s impossible to ever inject certain ideas into them. That’s just not the case. Exceptions happen. But to the extent that you’re suggesting that most journalists would find it uncomfortable and even damaging to their career to write critically of their employers, of course that’s true.”
Three points about this:
(1) In most of the interview, I was talking about my own personal experiences at Salon, the Guardian, and now with the Intercept: not generalizing to everyone’s experience. That’s because the context of the interview was the launch of our new media organization, and many of the questions which Michael asked were about whether I have been able, and would continue to be able, to maintain editorial independence and journalistic freedom despite working in conjunction with corporate structures. I have been able to do so, and tried to explain why and how.
I don’t remotely think my situation is common, or that all or even most independent journalists enjoy the same leverage, or that my own experience proves these constraints aren’t real and formidable. Of course they are real and formidable, and I repeatedly said so – both here and elsewhere. But I also know that I would never allow any media institution, or anyone else, to interfere with my journalistic freedom, and that was the point I was making. To me, that was the primary point of the interview: to explain my experiences doing journalism with these media organizations. So that’s what I spoke about.
(2) In general, I dislike theories of defeatism: telling other people that certain institutions or constraints are so formidable and absolute in their design that it’s literally impossible to successfully exploit or infiltrate them. I want to encourage people, especially independent journalists, to do the opposite: to think about how to exploit these institutions, to infiltrate them, to use them to one’s advantage, to overcome their repressive structures.
There are all sorts of reasons why one might try and fail. That’s because these institutions are indeed formidable, and they are designed to be self-protective, and most people will lack the leverage to defy their dictates for a whole variety of unavoidable reasons. But many people do use these institutions to be heard, to do the kind of impressive journalism they want to do, to find ways to inject prohibited and even subversive ideas into the discourse they produce. I think most people are aware of the reasons that’s so hard to do. But I also hope people will think about how to do that successfully. I want to encourage, not discourage, people to think about how to overcome limits and shatter these constraints.
(3) I do believe the internet has shifted the balance of power in journalism as compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago – probably not radically, but definitely substantially. It is simply no longer necessary to go to work for a large media organization if you want to build a decent-sized readership. There are journalists, commentators and activists from around the world who have never been employed by a large media organization who have amassed thousands, or tens of thousands, or even more Twitter followers – more than many if not most of the full-time reporters and columnists for those established media organizations.
In a world where media organizations are financially struggling and are desperate for online buzz and traffic, that vests these independent journalists and activists with real leverage. Large media organizations need them more than they need these large media organizations, and so they can often set the terms of their work. I hope independent journalists don’t assume that they’re destined for failure if they try to use the resources and platforms of these large media organizations to be heard, because I don’t think they are. Many of them are succeeding at this, and I hope more do.
Large corporate media organizations are almost always going to be instruments for narrowing the scope of ideas and ensuring that the views which serve their institutional interests are promoted, favored and amplified. That’s intrinsic to their design and purpose. That proposition is self-evident and not in dispute. I certainly did not intend to dispute it, and don’t think I did.
But I also think that no human system is invulnerable. They all have weaknesses to exploit, and there are always new and innovative strategies that people can devise to undermine them if they believe that doing so is possible. I know it’s extremely difficult, and a huge challenge, and will often result in failure. Many of the independent journalists I admire most do their work entirely outside of these institutions, and that is a vital and obviously valid choice. But it’s not the only choice, and I want independent journalists devoted to the right values and ideals to maximize the strategic options they consider viable.
Thanks again for the critique. It’s always nice to have pushback from this direction –
Glenn Greenwald
No comments:
Post a Comment