Greenwald trashes CNN contributors for 'extreme misinformation' on WikiLeaks

page: 3
101
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


you should ask, is the role of governments to use its citizen money to enrich fat people already rich?




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
i think he should release everything unedited and let the chips fall where they may.

basically v.p. biden was saying in layman terms was " assange is ****ing up our ****, we can't do secret deals and manipulate world governments if our partners can't count on us to keep our house in order. now we are going to get blackballed, no one is going to back our greedy schemes and we are going to lose billions of dollars."

this is major history unfolding right before our eyes. this australian super nerd out manuevered and bullied his way into the big game. the biggest game on earth, world domination, and he's holding all the chips and the other players don't know if he's bluffing or not.

they know their sins but they don't know if assange knows or what he knows. he could be holding 4 aces or king high. they are squirming in their seats. the russians must be laughing and enjoying every bit of this.

hopefully assange doesn't sell out for a permanent seat in the game. i bet it'll be awhile before he shows his hands.

if he can control the game, i hope he ends it by turning over a royal flush. but this book deal looks a little fishy.

he says it's to cover legal costs, but i'm sure big time players who are on his side must have lawyers who will take his case for free. this makes me think that the game is not decided yet and certain people want to remain behind the scenes and hedge their bets in case he flops



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by all answers exist
he should call them what they are, and they are not journalists, to anyone with open eyes and ears can see through this crap, big
Glen

intelligence and truth trumps all the spin they can create

kinda scary how these people can lie with a straight face while being taped the whole time

This is all BS anyway, the media is winning at the moment, WE ARE STILL ON A WITCH HUNT AFTER THE MESSENGER WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT COMMITTED THE CRIMES!?!?...



I remember a Richard Prior telling a joke about going down to the "Court House to get some justice and how all he found was just us N********'s. Well, just like that feeling of justice the blacks felt/feel about the courthouse, it is apparent that justice is for just us "not of political power". Is it me or are we staring at the same type of problems that forced us to act in the 18th century? Is it way too late to beat King George now because the media is bought and paid by big money interests who barely let the truth be spoken? They certainly don't let the truth stand unchallenged but a lot of lies get a free pass. Just consider the way the media has treated Congressman Paul. It is true Nixon's boys went after the people who brought the evidence to the world or whomever could discredit their lies.That had a lot to do with jail time people received.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I love this guy. Where can you see news that isn't complete BS manipulation?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thecinic

Another yawner of a wikileak story..

Just another worthless report, it's yet more senseless wikileak fanboyism following rubbish.

You people eat this stuff up like candy, it is beyond hilarious.


This whole report was set up to make the lawyer look good, to TRY and discredit ANYONE who comes against ye' old great wikileaks, you people buy it???
edit on 28-12-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)


Its funny, because your the one lapping up what the mainstream media is saying about Assange. In fact after reading your posts, you spout the same BS as the reporter and that other jumped up contributor. I dont know why your so jealous of what Assange has done, but every post of yours drips with bitterness.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


You do realize that Glen Greenwald was on CNN because CNN wanted to hear his point of view? Former Bush Administration official Townsend was on because CNN hoped she represented an opposing view. The host was their to moderate what CNN hoped would be an argument which would be interesting to their viewers. Forgive me if I missed the 'shilling' except that of Greenwald for wikileaks and Townsend against it of which their was no attempt to hide by CNN.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

Great video - S & F !

Quarterwit would be an exageration in the description of the CNN newsreader person. I feel a more appropriate title would be "clueless" in her understanding of the subject. But we must all understand that most Main Stream Media newsreaders are just that, not journalists. Lets face it Main Stream Media is owned by a few old power-hungry NWO billionares who tightly control what news is reported, in favor of BigGov that allows them to prosper, in return. 

Main Stream Media is a wasteland in the newsroom. Without sports, the weather and the latest Hollywood slut reports they have little to offer the brain-dead listeners to their drivel.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The whole part about these leaks endangering lives, and relations with other countries is so far above the pot calling the kettle black, its preposterous.

How many Americans (or presidents) has the 'American Government' killed or harmed? Add up WAR, DDT, '___', ???, ??? ....

I'm all for Wikileaks. Thanks for the Greenwald interview. Quite amusing.

ETA: They used the 'exact' same phrase when the pentagon papers were released. Just a scripted response.




edit on 29-12-2010 by ByteChanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Actually, if you CAREFULLY scrutinize what the CNN anchor lady was asking, you would have realized that she supported what Julian was doing, subtley. She too, is a human, not born out of a rock, unlike those Nazis from the Homeland security whom had sold their souls.

She asked if Julian had sold out to the publishers, a member of the Corporations.

By asking such a questions, she too knows what it is like to sell out to the Corporations and beholden to them, to toe their line. She too, with that question, is hinting that she is a prisoner of the Corporations, of which she belongs, of which due to circumstances unknown to us, her betrayal to humanity, BUT not her conscience.

Greenwald certainly put that issue down flat. What the Corporations give, ultimately takes back. They had never lost and will lose nothing. Money had been nothing to them. Only smearing the messenger was the aim, and will succeed if they can buy over the Judiciaries in UK, Sweden and US.

May one day we be all free, when more dark secrets are revealed of the manipulations by TPTB.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger
The whole part about these leaks endangering lives, and relations with other countries is so far above the pot calling the kettle black, its preposterous....


edit on 29-12-2010 by ByteChanger because: (no reason given)


Agreed!

Those who are "endangering lives" are in fact the governments that send their young to fight and die in a war that is ill-defined and only exists to make Banksters more wealthy.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


I agree, wikileaks is a setup show to distract you from the real prize. It is a centralized model carefully packaged and pawned on to you, one which has been carefully designed to empower those who really designed it. Mr. Assange never made the model, mr. soros did. mr. soros is using this as a tool in the globalist plot to get us to agree to global government. Our resistance terrifies them, they know it'll take a lot of hard work to chip away the lynch mob reaction that they so badly deserve by making such a proposition.

A few months ago I saw letters the united nations were sending people here in canada, they were begging for money and heralding world government. How sick and twisted is that?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Those who are "endangering lives" are in fact the governments that send their young to fight and die in a war that is ill-defined and only exists to make Banksters more wealthy.


Exactly! There is nothing like a "little" war to help the economy...

People are just numbers now. I think it is essential for everyone's future well being to know what our governments are doing now. Never mind 50 years after their dead so they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

This is transparency, and look what is happening....



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Glenn just wrote another article about this recent debate, and how it exemplifies a COLLUSION between government talking heads and corpomedia puppets, spouting the same propaganda, and pretty much working in tandem with each other.

He brings up several very good points worth paying attention to, as we see this same formula used on virtually ALL the mainstream media outlets:


The merger of journalists and government officials


The way it proceeded was quite instructive to me and I want to make four observations about the discussion:

(1) Over the last month, I've done many television and radio segments about WikiLeaks and what always strikes me is how indistinguishable -- identical -- are the political figures and the journalists. There's just no difference in how they think, what their values and priorities are, how completely they've ingested and how eagerly they recite the same anti-WikiLeaks, "Assange = Saddam" script. So absolute is the WikiLeaks-is-Evil bipartisan orthodoxy among the Beltway political and media class (forever cemented by the joint Biden/McConnell decree that Assange is a "high-tech Terrorist,") that you're viewed as being from another planet if you don't spout it. It's the equivalent of questioning Saddam's WMD stockpile in early 2003.

It's not news that establishment journalists identify with, are merged into, serve as spokespeople for, the political class: that's what makes them establishment journalists. But even knowing that, it's just amazing, to me at least, how so many of these "debates" I've done involving one anti-WikiLeaks political figure and one ostensibly "neutral" journalist -- on MSNBC with The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart and former GOP Congresswoman Susan Molinari, on NPR with The New York Times' John Burns and former Clinton State Department official James Rubin, and last night on CNN with Yellin and Townsend -- entail no daylight at all between the "journalists" and the political figures. They don't even bother any longer with the pretense that they're distinct or play different assigned roles. I'm not complaining here -- Yellin was perfectly fair and gave me ample time -- but merely observing how inseparable are most American journalists from the political officials they "cover."


(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists. What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that? It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

What an astounding feat to train a nation's journalist class to despise above all else those who shine a light on what the most powerful factions do in the dark and who expose their corruption and deceit, and to have journalists -- of all people -- lead the way in calling for the head of anyone who exposes the secrets of the powerful. Most ruling classes -- from all eras and all cultures -- could only fantasize about having a journalist class that thinks that way, but most political leaders would have to dismiss that fantasy as too extreme, too implausible, to pursue. After all, how could you ever get journalists -- of all people -- to loathe those who bring about transparency and disclosure of secrets? But, with a few noble exceptions, that's exactly the journalist class we have.

There will always be a soft spot in my heart for Jessica Yellin because of that time when she unwittingly (though still bravely) admitted on air that -- when she worked at MSNBC -- NBC's corporate executives constantly pressured the network's journalists to make their reporting favorable to George Bush and the Iraq War (I say "unwittingly" because she quickly walked back that confession after I and others wrote about it and a controversy ensued). But, as Yellin herself revealed in that moment of rare TV self-exposure, that's the government-subservient corporate culture in which these journalists are trained and molded.

(3) It's extraordinary how -- even a full month into the uproar over the diplomatic cable release -- extreme misinformation still pervades these discussions, usually without challenge. It's understandable that on the first day or in the first week of a controversy, there would be some confusion; but a full month into it, the most basic facts are still being wildly distorted. Thus, there was Fran Townsend spouting the cannot-be-killed lie that WikiLeaks indiscriminately dumped all the cables. And I'm absolutely certain that had I not objected, that absolute falsehood would have been unchallenged by Yellin and allowed to be transmitted to CNN viewers as Truth. The same is true for the casual assertion -- as though it's the clearest, most obvious fact in the world -- that Assange "committed crimes" by publishing classified information or that what he's doing is so obviously different than what investigative journalists routinely do. These are the unchallenged falsehoods transmitted over and over, day after day, to the American viewing audience.

(4) If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal."

Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it (see here as CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is completely befuddled in the middle of his anti-WikiLeaks rant when asked by a guest, Clay Shirky, to differentiate what Woodward continuously does from what Assange is doing).


They're all petrified to speak ill of Bob Woodward because he's a revered spokesman of the royal court to which they devote their full loyalty. Julian Assange, by contrast, is an actual adversary -- not a pretend one -- of that royal court. And that -- and only that -- is what is driving virtually this entire discourse.


Full Article:

www.salon.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Jessica Yellin’s response to last night’s Assange discussion

johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com...

She claims she was 'moderating' the interview. Judging by the comments, not many are buying it.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cablespider
 


Heh, yep, it appears some are complimentary of her job, and many are not. I pretty much agree with the sentiment of this comment below her article:


ans

December 28th, 2010 7:53 pm ET

Jessica, your response above is measured but really... Your questions were one-sided and that's why Greenwald argues that you're part of the establishment. From the start, claiming in your question that Assange is "profiting" from his book deal. That's not a neutral statement, that's a judgment. Saying "shouldn't he expect to go to jail for his beliefs?" as if he shouldn't protest his innocence or simply jailing him is a legitimate response by Western governments. Again this isn't neutral – you're pushing the idea that what he's done with Wikileaks is illegal despite there having been no charges or indictment. Would you say that about a political dissident in China or Myanmar? Saying that Assange's goal is to "embarrass the US government." Nowhere has he said this. And if you'd quoted more of the blog entry, instead of cherry-picking a single line, viewers would have seen that Assange sees government and corporate conspiracies as material to injustice around the world and designed Wikileaks to reduce their ability to function.

Meanwhile, when Townsend lied about Assange having indiscriminately dumped the leaked cables, you didn't "push" her to explain it at all. Greenwald had to point out that it's a falsehood.

Fail. It wasn't fair, balanced journalism – it was as if you and Townsend were sharing a script.


Another thing I did notice that some of the commenters pointed out was the sort of 'derision' and 'tone' Yellin used when addressing comments about Assange, she sort of had this sneering demeanor every time she mentioned his name or activities.

Anyone else notice this?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



AWESOME!!! I love how Townsend can only stutter after Greenwald exposes that she is obviously lying! hahaha! this guy is just great! great video OP!
edit on 29-12-2010 by antwerp because: sig



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Oh my god that lady was an idiot!

Really, she should have studied for this interview... so she would have realized the following obvious things

1. Assange has committed no crime in relation to releasing this info
2. He has not released all the info.... and has attempted to get redaction communications from the WH

What a complete and utter moron that lady was....



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
This interview made my skin crawl.

This just shows exactly how corrupt and one sided the MSM is. Every question asked was one sided and was a sorry attempt to trick the lawyer in to slipping up on his words.

I like how they tried to trick him in to making a statement regarding the so called "rape" charges. The lawyer handled this question perfectly by reminding everyone that it was irresponsible to assume guilt or innocence when there has been no trial.

It makes me wonder what the lawyer told CNN he was going to say, because its apparent that his comments and answers to their questions were not expected.

S+F to OP, TY for this post!

Moo



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Starred and flagged DD. Excellent "interview" or should I say stage-play? Greenwald just took the whole charade and ripped it a new one. Good for him!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Assange is a plant. This is all staged.

As soon as Assange said that he agreed with the 9/11 official story, it became obvious.

In addition, he has not revealed anything of any consequence. That there have been civilian casualties? That Afghan officials are corrupt? That our government bad mouths other world leaders? Ridiculous.

But what this conjured up drama allows is the government to now pass strict legislation AGAINST whistle blowers and tighter control of the web, which is the whole point of this charade.





new topics
top topics
 
101
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join