Snowden Backlash US Media Get Personal

As the mainstream American press goes after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, the leakers' revelations are becoming an afterthought.

 Guardian reporter Greenwald: Under attack for his revelations.

Guardian reporter Greenwald: Under attack for his revelations.

By in New York

Walter Pincus, 80, knows his way around a scandal. The columnist and former reporter at the Washington Post has written about Watergate and Iran-Contra, numerous intelligence-related affairs and has won the Pulitzer Prize. But he has been criticized, even by his colleagues, for being too close to the US government -- especially the CIA, for which he spied in his younger years.

But now, Pincus has truly embarrassed himself: Last week the Washington Post had to add a three-paragraph-long correction to a two-day-old Pincus column, invalidating its core claims. This was an unprecedented measure in the 136-year history of the American capital's most lauded newspaper.

Pincus had speculated that whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as the two people centrally responsible for publicizing the NSA revelations, Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras, had a political agenda and were surreptitiously "directed" by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Pincus' "evidence" turned out to be demonstrably false, rendering the "corrected" column -- or what was left of it -- little more than malicious gossip.

Photo Gallery

15  Photos
Photo Gallery: Timeline of the NSA Spying Scandal
Greenwald, who has been caught in the US media crossfire for some time, immediately protested against the "baseless innuendo" in an open letter. The Washington Post waited over 48 hours before correcting its blunder without comment.

A Growing Anti-Snowden Chorus

In his broadside against Snowden and Snowden's press contacts, Pincus was going along with both the government and the zeitgeist. A growing number of mainstream media outlets have been focusing their criticism on the leakers -- Snowden in Moscow, Greenwald in Rio -- instead of the content of their leaks. American headlines aren't being dominated by the latest details of the seemingly endless scandal, but by the men who brought them to light.

This began at the Post when Snowden, before contacting Greenwald, offered his secrets to security reporter Barton Gellman. Gellman quickly discredited Snowden as "capable of melodrama," partly because of his uncompromising terms. Since then Snowden hasn't provided any more revelations to the paper.

And so it has continued. The financially struggling Post, which was responsible for exposing the Watergate scandal, derided the Guardian as "financially struggling" as well as "small and underweight even by British standards." "Why is a London-based news organization revealing so many secrets about the American government?", it griped, as if that were only permitted of American journalists.

A recent Post editorial, that may as well have been written by the White House, argued that Snowden's leak harms "efforts to fight terrorism" and "legitimate intelligence operations." The leaks must immediately end, it argued -- a strange conclusion from the grandmother of leak journalism. Columnist Richard Cohen didn't hold back either: Snowden is "narcissistic," Greenwald is "vainglorious."

He wasn't alone. In the New York Times David Brooks accused Snowden of having "betrayed honesty and integrity." Roger Simon, chief political columnist at the website Politico, referred to Snowden as "the slacker who came in from the cold." Jeffrey Toobin, a New Yorker essayist, called him a "narcissist who deserves to be in prison." And Melissa Harris-Perry, from the otherwise progressive cable channel MSNBC, critized Snowden's behavior as "compromising national security."

In the Huffington Post, media critic Jeff Cohen called MSNBC the "official network of the Obama White House" -- a White House which, under president Obama, has famously declared war on whistleblowers.

Guardian's American Triumph

There's another reason for the united media front: The Guardian is becoming a competitive threat for American media outlets. The first Snowden video interview received almost seven million clicks on the newspaper's US website. "They set the US news agenda today," Associated Press star reporter Matt Apuzzo tweeted enviously.

Why? Janine Gibson, the Guardian's American chief, told the Huffington Post that their competition has a "lack of skepticism on a whole" when it comes to national security. Critical scrutiny, she said, has been considered "unpatriotic" since 9/11.

The greatest humiliation would be if the British usurper won a Pulitzer Prize. Only American media can apply for it, but the Prize committee accepted one submission by the Guardian last year. Its reasoning? The newspaper has an "unmistakable presence" in the United States.

Discuss this issue with other readers!
32 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
ShaneN 07/15/2013
1. American MSM
The US media has really embarrassed itself with the Snowden affair as their WMD (weapons of mass distraction) have more often than not fallen flat and wound up causing more blowback than fireworks. Being subservient to power doesn't make for good journalism -
spon-facebook-10000517224 07/15/2013
2. optional
There is no media in America. Just a bunch of hacks re-doing press releases from Big Brother!
peterboyle.4848 07/15/2013
3. Dead
Critical thought, investigative journalism, and truly independent news are all dead in America. Killed off since 9/11 by jingoism, repressive administrations and apathy. We get endless coverage of Self Defense trials in Florida, bright reports on the sucess of Wall Street, horrible crimes, accidents, and natural disaters. But we get no real news. Many intelligent Americans have resorted to going abroad for their news, and have found the BBC, der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, and others far more reliable for real news and investigative reports that actually live up to the name.
peskyvera 07/15/2013
4. optional
For lack of truth, smearing has always been the 'in thing' to do.
spon-facebook-634581271 07/15/2013
5. optional
You are correct that Snowden has become the story and not the "Leak", but I do not think this is a matter of the Mainstream Press ignoring the story of the "Leak" so much as a function of how Snowden has conducted his business as a whistleblower and how Greenwald has inserted his political viewpoints into his reporting. Greenwald is not a passive entity in this saga, and Snowden has moved beyond leaking information about the US's vast data mining operation into seeing to cripple the entire US spying apparatus. (His plans to release the mechanics of the entire US spying network.) Unless one believes that nations should not spy on one another, what is to be gained by crippling the entirety of the US spying operations? The whistleblowing has been done, now Snowden seems to want to engage in an act of sabotage.
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.