Links to some of your favorite articles by this guy?

Just as an example - two incredibly informative articles in December 2010 -

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/10/wikileaks_media

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/12/13/rosen

I can't be the only person on Glocals who reads Glenn Greenwald every day - can I ?

Quite familiar with the name through either reading his articles (not at Salon but probably CommonDreams.org or CounterPunch.org, the latter in my opinion the best radical left site).  Saw him discussing with some MSNBC talking head about the Israeli raid on the flotilla and he said in my opinion all the right things i.e. fact based and logical.  There are many excellent intellectuals and journalists but in my opinion no one outshines Noam Chomsky for intellectual brilliance with his razor sharp analyses based on an encyclopedic knowledge of what's going on in the world and of other great intellectuals of past centuries.  As for great Journalists in my opinion one of the best is the Aussie John Pilger (though his career has been UK based) who has his own site and writes for socialistworker.org. Writer and film documentarist Pilger has just recently produced 'The War You Don't See':http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7wXhN5h_Pg (a must see for ant-war types) and can also be seen in this interview http://www.alanhart.net/hart-of-the-matter-6-john-pilger/.  Other great journalists who are not in bed with imperialistic armies but actually risk limb and life are Robert Fisk who has lived in Beiirut for ages covering the civil war and was one of the first into Chabra and Shatilla after the Phalangist massacres, almost got killed by Aghani refugees and wrote to report that if he was them he would have done the same.  Patrick Cockburn (brother of the incrediblly erudite no nonsense muckraking journalist A. Cockburn (see CounterPunch.org) is another one who goes out in the field and just doesn't sit in hotels and attend offical press conferences acting as a mouthpiece for those in 'authority'.  Mark Curtis has a good site revealing Britain's real role in the world.  Andy Worthington can tell you more than anyone about the Guantanamo prisoners and there stories.  Jeremy Scahill who wrote a book revealing the mercenary group Blackwater is also an excellent journalist.  The list could go on.  And finally to know the difference between an radical leftist and a liberal listen to Chris Hedges at GritTV (presented by Alexander Cockburn's niece! - an incredible family if you google A. Cockburn): http://grittv.org/?s=chris+hedges

Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for all of that.  I know Chomsky and Pilger but not the others.  I will check them out. 

I think if anyone labels Greenwald "radical" they are merely trying to sideline him as irrelevant, but it's clear that he's not, because his targets very often feel compelled to defend themselves after he's mauled them (but virtually always end up looking worse). 

I'm not saying that Greenwald is the best or bravest journalist.  The thing about Greenwald in particular that fascinates me is his work rate and output - daily posts, thoroughly researched and linked, plus often several media appearances each week; to me he seems to be actually having an effect in altering the daily/weekly discourse, in contrast to Chomsky/Pilger who (it seems to me) make big (perhaps bigger and even more effective than Greenwald) splashes only periodically with books, scoops, movies etc. But my feeling that Greenwald especially is being noticed across the spectrum is perhaps just in my mind, a bias effect from following him closely.

Also very interesting to me is the model he is creating for journalism - funding sourced direct from readers, by solicited donation, much like a charity.  And people do pay, lost, hard cash, paypal-style, enough for him to fund multiple research assistants, I believe.  The future of journalism?  Read for free and pay only if you like the output and want more from him/her?

Just wondering if anyone else out there is also following Glenn's blistering, humming, relentless posts and appearances ... or if I am the only lonely soul in Geneva answering his calls.

I mean "And people do pay, LOTS, hard cash, paypal-style,"

First of all as to whether you are the only lonely soul?  Although the glocal population won't necessarily be a representative sample of Genevans or Swiss for that matter, the paucity of responses to your original posting might suggest an answer.  I think we all have our favorites and only so much time in the day and thus I am biased to reading every article from CounterPunch and most at CommonDreams daily.  I must take some time to read more Greenwald to get a better idea of the fellow as my reading of and about him has been sporadic.  As for the term 'radical', I must say I don't care too much for labels (left, right, liberal, conservative, commie, marxist, trotskyist ad infinitum) as they are either ad hominems (reflecting an absence of substantive argument on the part of those who use them or just simply instances of taxonomy which do not clarify/explain ideas/positions. They do allow to some degree for us to know (limitedly) what perspective one has but beyond that they add little value to discussion.  In my view 'radical' is not a negative term but positive in the sense that one radically rejects the status quo and status quo thinking.  In fact I like the term (puzzling to many) 'radical conservative' (a Chomskyism and one I use to describe myself) meaning wanting to conserve all the freedoms we have gained and radical as described above.  As for 'mauling targets' I am curious even more to read more Greenwald as I admire those who can 'maul'- see (Youtube) the difference between how Chomsky destroyed William F Buckley and compare to Chris Hitchens' tame performance against the same.  It's a reflection of not only being able to say the right things but also to think on your feet and engage in discussion/debate/argument.  Norman Finkelstein is another capable intellectual in that regard.  Anyways enough of the lecture (sorry!).

Radically yours,

Groucho Marksist

Actually one needs both the daily/weekly outputs of a Greenwald and the Chomskys and Pilgers.  Their information and debunking of 'truths' are not mutually exclusive but part of a continuum of radical critique.  Still if you look at the sheer number of books and articles/interviews by Chomsky (see his website), not to mention all the public protests he attended and the talks given around the world then I would venture to say that Chomsky then and now is probably one of the most productive intellectuals (all the while doing his linguistic research!).

Well what can I say but excellent analyses both by Greenwald and Rosen. In the first Greenwald has said everything I have thought about the subject when I read the so-called reporting at the BBC (British Bullshit Corporation) and the CBC (Complete Bulllshit Corporation). (In fact I call the media the 'presstitutes' and refer often to them as urinalist working in urinalism). Not to belittle Greenwald but his critique of the establishment (corporate) media about lies and distortions and later 'corrections' is nothing new to me and I've read this in Chomsky for years and also currently frequently in many CP or CD essays. Not to belittle because in the first place I don't think I've seen this particular example - 'dumping' thousands of cables - critisised, but also because of the importance of continuing to hammer at these media distortions and have more people doing it.  Recently the former senior advisor to Canadian PM Harper (I call him Harpo because he's a joke and so funny) called for the assasination of Assange and later as a result of the outrage at his offensive position he later "regretted" saying what he did which is not to apologise but to regret having said what he still thinks in such an utterly vulgar and public manner.  I don't think I saw any media point this out though I don't read every Canadian media source but I'd be surprised if any major source picked up on this regret and lack of apology for calling for someone's murder. Nir Rosen sounds incredibly informed and eloquent.  Like Greenwald I am more likely to have read about him than things by him - I searched his name in the CP site and come up with numerous articles I will have read that refer to him. Everything he said I agree with because it's what I've heard and seen supported by evidence and documents outlining all his comments on the situation in Afghanistan and the difference with Iraq as well as the reason for the 'success' of the surge (see P. Cockburn's 'Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Shia Insurgency in Iraq').  Finally although Rosen says it's insane to invest billions in these wars and I agree but only from the point of wanting to win the war.  There is another perspective where it is far from insane and that is of the immense profits reaped by the military industrial conflict.  As Chris Hedges wrote 'War gives us Meaning' and referred to endless war being the new reality after WWI in that GritTV interview on the death of the liberal class.  Thanks for reminding me of these two - I'll be sure to search them out and add them to my reading list..

'military industrial 'complex' not 'conflict'

I'd have to disagree about the Jeremy Scahill praise. I have met him and spoken to him on a few occasions and listened to him testify before US Congress on the issue of private military contractors. I must say I wasn't impressed. It felt like he had a number of learnt phrases, which he was 'parroting'. He sounded althogether overly populist making those sweeping statements, rather than statements based on evidence. Just an example:

Although the examples above are of investigative journalism, I just don't see the 'investigative' in Jeremy Scahill. His numbers about private security contractors in Iraq were misleading bringing the number up to somewhere around 60,000, while that number represented in fact the number of all contractors - security contractors being just a 10% fraction of that number. Sweeping populist statement obscuring the actual picture.

Also I felt his attitude towards TCNs (third-country nationals) and especially towards some countries was disdainful.

I overdid it with calling him an excellent journalist as I've only read his one book on Blackwater which (and I'll have to go back and read it again) still I think is valuable in exposing to some (perhaps not entirely faultless) degree an otherwise rather covert organisation (and world), it's origins and it's reach.  You obviously have more personal and closer experience and I am not going to argue with you.  I recently saw something either by Scahill or attributed to him which I found preposterous (I forget the subject unfortunately). There definitely are 'pundits' who say the right thing but you wonder whether they mean it and maybe Scahill falls into that category. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind and I saw an debate between him and William F Buckley where Hitch said 'all the right things' but was quite incapable of debating/countering Buckley. Also Hitch went from radical left winger to supporting Bush's wars.  There are those pundits, An Coulter for example, who find their niche but easily switch to the other side.  Coulter in my view (going off topic I know) would had she grown up in Stalinist Russia been a faithful propogandist for Stalin.  Thanks for the feedback and insight.  I'll have to be more careful in my choice of examples and phrasing and look more into Scahill.

Oh yeah I see what you mean about the 'pundits'. Not familiar with Coulter - send me some links if you can

It would be just as easy for you to google Ann Coulter as I don't have links.  However having just googled I found this:http://www.anncoulter.com/   I've heard her on the typical ranting shows on Fox (Beck, Oreilly et. al.) and she recently was, I think, unfairly trated by the Canadian University of Ottawa where she was invited to speak: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article1509793/.  I defend everyone's right to say whatever they wish even denying the Jewish and Armenian holocausts, saying the earth is flat, calling me names etc.  I am against hate speech legislation as well.  I think words, though powerful, are just words - it's actions that concern me more.  As a child we used to say when teased by others "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". Another way to express this is 'action speaks louder than words' which is quite appropriate to many politicians and international diplomats and organisations, academics, pundits and myself (if I'm honest).