This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

It's Acts of Journalism that Matter Not People Called "Journalists"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.

- Brian R. Roberts from a October 29, 1955 article in the London periodical “Time & Tide”

Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves. Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.

- U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham

I am extraordinarily bothered by the manner in which the oligarch gatekeepers in the mainstream media and elsewhere are attempting to discredit Glenn Greenwald by saying he is “not a journalist.” While the powers that be are extremely unenlightened and unwise by their nature, they are masters at the art of deception and maintaining their positions of power and status. Thus, whenever they are dealt a crushing blow, they will regroup and fight back in subtle, manipulative and clever ways.  It appears their primary strategy in fighting back against truth-tellers, whistleblowers and journalists in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations is by attempting to control the definition of the term “journalist.”  This way they can then proclaim who is a “real journalist” and who isn’t.  Of course, those crowned “real journalists” by the government and mainstream media will be well known statist lapdogs who would never publish anything embarrassing to their masters in power. Those who are not crowned “journalists” by the state will be hunted down to the ends of the earth like Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  We must nip this meme in the bud before it starts to spread and gain acceptance, because not only is it a total fraud, but it also represents a serious threat to the First Amendment.

When fascist Senator Lindsay Graham stated the quote at the top it sparked a well deserved firestorm.  Of all the commentary on it, I found the most powerful to be the following written by Mike Masnick at Techdirt.  He wrote:

As we’ve pointed out, there’s a simple way to solve that problem: just make the shield law cover acts of journalism rather than target journalists. Many people may not be journalists by profession, but still, at times, perform journalism. And it’s not that difficult to figure out which is which. Otherwise, you’re carving out a special class of people in an arena in which people doing the exact same thing would face different rules.

 

And the problems of trying to carve out “journalists” instead of acts of “journalism” become pretty clear, pretty quickly. The last time the shield law concept was being debated, Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein tried to add a carve out that made it clear that Wikileaks should not be protected by the law. And that should scare people. Because when the government can magically decide that this kind of journalism is protected, while that kind of journalism which embarrasses the government is not protected, then you no longer have freedom of the press. At all.

Those two paragraphs right there describe perfectly the manner in which we must protect freedom of speech and the press in these United States.  We must see the power structure’s propaganda early on and counter it with truth.  There is absolutely no need to define who is a “journalist” and who isn’t.  What must be protected and defended at all costs are “acts of journalism” not a class of people defined as “journalists.” If we merely do the latter, then we are falling onto a very slippery slope toward creating certain privileges for people that fall into a certain category rather than defending the act itself, which of course is the most important thing to protect.

 

As most of you know, David Gregory is at the center of the current irrelevant debate over who is a journalist and who isn’t.  Not only did he question whether Greenwald should be charged with a crime on Meet the Press, but he also had this to say:

GREGORY: Well, the question of who’s a journalist may be up to a debate with regards to what you’re doing. And of course anybody who’s watching this understands I was asking a question; that question has been raised by lawmakers, as well. I’m not embracing anything. But obviously, I take your point.

One of Gregory’s main points and the point being made by much of the establishment media is that to be called a journalist you must be neutral.  Interesting, because clearly David Gregory is the furtherest thing in the world from “neutral.”  He is a lapdog to the establishment and a gatekeeper for the powerful.  As Ben Cohen writes in The Daily Banter:

Gregory has been a journalist for over 20 years, and a major public figure for at least 10 of them. Gregory has never been involved in taking down a powerful figure or putting his career at risk to reveal information to the public. Just take a look at Gregory’s Wikipedia page. His career is one long tribute to corporate and political power – a perfect resume in the eyes of Washington’s elite. He covers presidential elections, gets exclusives with prominent politicians, is married to a federal prosecutor and sends his children to the same school as the Obamas. Gregory is so popular with the establishment that George W. Bush threw a birthday party for him during the 2000 election campaign.

Furthermore, if Gregory interviewed Obama on his show do you think he would ask: “So since all you’ve done since you took office has been lie to the citizenry and destroy the Constitution, should you be impeached?”  No, of course he wouldn’t.  So does that mean Gregory is not a “journalist?”  Who cares, the whole debate is a red herring.

Journalists should be protected, but not because of who they are or the title next to their name, but because they are engaged in acts of journalism. At the end of the day journalism is much like porn, hard to define but “you know it when you see it.” Whether you want to call Glenn Greenwald a journalist or not, what he did in the Edward Snowden affair was clearly an “act of journalism” and therefore must be protected and defended at all costs.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 01:54 | 3693717 dunce
dunce's picture

Why didn't some "real" journalist break the story months ago? This was an open secret, the only thing missing was a whistle blower.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 02:11 | 3693728 Bloodstock
Bloodstock's picture

All of these useful idiots such as David Gregory will be thrown to the peasants once their (job) is no longer needed. They are seriously ignorant.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 03:55 | 3693793 Kiwi Pete
Wed, 06/26/2013 - 04:12 | 3693804 All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

David Gregory likes gladiator movies.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 05:17 | 3693835 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

I want to see Obama order te shoot-down of a Russian commercial jet full of innocents in order to get Snowden. It will even be better if Putin has Obama tricked, Snowden is not on board, and the plane is full of Journalists.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 05:34 | 3693848 smacker
smacker's picture

 

MSM has progressively become a shameful organ of the state over the last ~25 years and is now little more than a State Propaganda/Information Service, where highly paid so-called journalists do little more than read out official statements and government press releases and present it as 'news'.

In the UK, the BBC always fell into this category and nowadays Sky News is catching up fast. Both are overflowing with garbage news items while the important stuff is ignored. Never will you see one person On Air who advocates a serious change of govt policy on QE/Zirp or who criticises BoE flawed monetary policy etc. Sky's News Chief - John Ryley - gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry about The Media and said "Our job is to report the news, not to make it." Well, that was a lie because Sky often makes the news but only about innocuous issues that have little to do with real news.

Enough on this before I disappear thru the roof in a shower of sparks!

On blogs - yes, every blogger that delivers 'news' is a journalist of sorts. It has to be said that some web blogs are better than others and make every attempt to deliver news that's backed by fact. ZeroHedge is very high on this list, which explains why it's got an enormous readership: people want to hear the truth. There are others which are little more than spreaders of gossip, tittle-tattle and political-agenda-driven garbage, sometimes with the covert aim of misleading readers. Their blogs are little more than soap boxes and I know one or two like this. But it's up to readers to differentiate between good & bad, not the state.

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 05:53 | 3693857 DonGenaro
DonGenaro's picture

And bootlickers (like Gregory) should be shunned because but because they engage in bootlicking.
This lickspittle is in bad need of a napkin and a set of knee-pads.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 06:00 | 3693864 Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

I was just thinking about this the past few days... completely agree that the definition of Journalist is anyone who is journaling events / information for the public to consume / analyze / use.  The fact that this titling is being raised as a question is proof that there are evil mother fuckers who are hell bent on conspiring against the people of the world - stay alert!

 

I heard that interview the day it took place, and I was appalled.  Any individual / organization that engages in the distorted form of journalism that David Gregory was practicing, should be imprisoned for conspiracy to defraud the people.

 

People of the world, LET US MAKE A LIST, of all the traitors who have colluded with the wealthy scum of the earth, to misinform / confound / imprison / defame and so on, the citizens of the world, so we can act accordingly when we WIN THIS WAR THAT THEY STARTED. Everyone must be held accountable, for the choice they make, for the side they pick. We are all adults, and ignorance is not an excuse, pressure is definitely not an excuse. We can use the NSA as the backup media for this list, since we know they'll be copying it down with each passing minute...  .

 

O.O

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 07:10 | 3693986 BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture

Funny, isn't that the same David Gregory who, to a was clearly shown to be inposession of an illegal, oversized AR-15 clip on national television, yet was never charged? Yeah, that's him, the dirty commie taintboil licker.

I wonder how that happened??? Let's see who is wife happens to be, shall we? 

____________

Beth Wilkinson

Lawyer

Beth Ann Wilkinson is a Washington, D.C. lawyer, and partner in the New York City-based law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. 

______________

David Gregory is married to  BETH WILKINSON NBC White House correspondant and laywer. What folks are not being told is that Wilkinson served as Fannie Mae's executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary from February 2006 until September 2008. She bolted and resigned her position at Fannie Mae along with three other senior executives on September 19, 2008, after the troubled mortgage giant was taken over by the government.

____________

So? So how does that have any relevance to the AR-15 clip he was able to tote around and have in his hand on TV? Well...

________

District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin Nathan issued a lengthy letter today explaining the decision not to prosecute David Gregory “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law,” despite rejecting NBC’s claims of a subjective misunderstanding of the law, and despite vowing vigorous enforcement of gun laws.

 

Emily Miller of The Washington Times, who has written extensively about the overly aggressive enforcement of D.C. gun laws, including as to high capacity magazines, reacted as follows:

 

It is shameful that the politicians running the nation’s capital have sent the  clear message that there are two systems of justice in the city: one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

 

It further undermines public confidence in such decisions to find out that Nathan knew Gregory and his wife, high-powered attorney Beth Wilkinson.

 

Anne dug up the connection in which in 2011 Nathan and Wilkinson participated together in a charity mock trial for the Washington, D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company (emphasis in original):

 

In this town full of lawyers it should be no surprise that this event sold out in 44 seconds….. The attorneys were Beth Wilkinson a partner at Paul Weiss (and wife of David Gregory, aka the Silver Fox, who was snapping pictures like a proud hubby!) and Irv Nathan, Acting Attorney General for DC.  Both were hilarious and Beth looked so great in her black dress and patent leather heels, I was totally motivated to stick to my overly arduous diet.

 

Google. The best tool I know of for peeling back the layers of the stinking shitpile that is leftwing journalism. Fuck David Gregory, the sanctimonious cuckold.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 07:39 | 3694032 Elliptico
Elliptico's picture

He's no George Stephanopolous, by golly. 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 07:49 | 3694045 mayavision2012
mayavision2012's picture

do they deserve First Amendment protection?

 

EVERY American citizen has 1st Amendment rights!  Lindsay Graham cannot pick and choose who is protected in this country and who is not.  He needs to go.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 08:02 | 3694067 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

Why is it impossible to remove Obama from office or have the people who are doing this charged and tried?

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 08:40 | 3694156 esum
esum's picture

TONS OF JOURNALISM.................WHERE'S THE JUSTICE

fast and furious  /  executive priviledge

benghazi /what difference does it make

doj selective political enforcement of the law

irs / irs / irs

fbi

gsa

doj

homeland buying 4700 mraps and 1.6 billion hollow points ...

Camp Bastion in Helmand Province

open borders / czars / executive edicts

nsa / circumventing fisa

use of outside contractors to circumvent fisa

epa / interior circumventing congress

obamacare / Roberts

Michael Hastings   /  Andrew Breitbart

attacks on the Constitution / 2nd / 4th / 10th amendments

congressional insider trading

rule by executive orders by passing congress (even as useless as they are) war in libyia war in syria without due process

executive branch contempt of congress and the constitution

 

 

 

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 08:44 | 3694171 esum
esum's picture

main stream media = PRAVDA

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 09:34 | 3694354 RedToad62
RedToad62's picture

"One of Gregory’s main points and the point being made by much of the establishment media is that to be called a journalist you must be neutral."

Yes, but looks like the MSM has extended the meaning of "neutral" to "neutralize"... all those that investigate, question and/or challenge.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:39 | 3694687 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

 News organizations like ABC, Fox and the Emmy awards are not establishment then since they recognize Arnold Diaz and his Shame Shame Shame news pieces by employing him and broadcasting said consumer investigative journalism which is not neutral and biased towards the consumer and the Emmies for awarding him 36 times for the same series.

David Gregory needs to fuck off and die.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 18:50 | 3697131 BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture

David Gregory could be said to be media's main watercarrier for the Obama administration, so it's pretty funny how he gets picked to run this story criticizing "journalism".

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:32 | 3694561 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Just a reminder that Constitutions are only as good as the people enforcing the social contract with the counterparty of said contract aka the government.

The 1936 USSR Soviet Constitution specifically Article 125

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

  1. freedom of speech;
  2. freedom of the press;
  3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
  4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

 

They had a Constitutional freedom of press under Stalin, that is a fact (at least on paper), we all know how that actually worked. My point is where is the fucking outrage of this issue like their was when they wanted to take your guns assholes. That is the problem people cherry pick what is important to them ignoring the rest and in turn ultimately screwing themselves and everyone else in the process.

 

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 10:38 | 3694679 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

I suppose guns are more important than the eroding of the Constitution.

People voice their ire when the news breaks and are quickly distracted.  That is no excuse, but it is the way it seems to be working.

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!