TIME reporter 'can't wait' to justify drone strike on Julian Assange

TIME reporter 'can't wait' to justify drone strike on Julian Assange

au.news.yahoo.com

A reporter for TIME Magazine sparked a Twitter war when he said that he "can't wait to write a defence of the drone strike that takes out" Australian-born Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Michael Grunwald deleted his tweet after a follower argued that it would only encourage Assange supporters.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.businessinsider.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.daily mail.co.uk
www.rt.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Wikileaks have just released three insurance files

Seriously, wtf!?

It's unclear why Grunwald was discussing Assange — who is a publisher, writer, activist, and facilitator of leaking information — though WikiLeaks did just released an massive, encrypted insurance file.

link


Just for giggles I'll throw in this little gem of mainstream "journalism" brought to you by the DailyMail:

Michael Grunwald was pressured into deleting the offending tweet after it was greeeted with hostility online - particularly by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian - who broke the story of NSA whistle-blower Edward Norton..

link

"NSA whistle-blower Edward NORTON" ??? Snowden/Norton very easy to mix up... whatever, DailyMail!


Glenn Greenwald tweeted:

Things like this make you not just understand, but celebrate, the failings of large media outlets

link

Indeed!


Some background about Grunwald from the DailyMail article (so take this with a grain of salt...)

Grunwald has written extensively about his support for the United States strategy of killing terrorists using unmanned military drones.

And from the Russian Times article:

WikiLeaks tweeted that they have sent a letter to the publication demanding Grunwald’s resignation. They have said that the magazine must show that journalists calling for the murder of other journalists is “never acceptable.”

link


au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


This just goes to show that there is no such thing as real journalism anymore, when a reporter advocates the murder of a journalist's source... it must've really backfired for him though. I visited the contact page on his website, and both his twitter feed and email address have been removed.

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


There are those who believe they will thrive in the coming police state and NWO. They welcome the "peace" and "security" they imagine. They're "not doing anything wrong," you understand, and thus have no need of silly old "rights" and constitutional protections—and have scant sympathy for those who do.

As Useful Idiots, of course, they will be first to know the full might of the all-powerful State. May the entire lot of them roast in Hell....

reply to post by sine.nomine


It must have been clear to him that this would backfire though. So... was he just off his meds or is this part of a strategy that takes the backlash into account? Is this part of the "war on journalism/whistleblowers". Hastings comes to mind - again...


@Ex_CT2

That is certainly part of the answer!

Greenwald/Grunwald

This guy is probably fake someone, somewhere looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Nothing to get serious about.

As attributed to P.T. Barnum, 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'. In this day and age of 'tweets' and the ability to delete them or easily brush them off as 'I misspoke', it draws attention to the person. Compound that with how these writers and/or 'journalist' make their livings, it doesn't surprise me at all he would say what he said.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Publicity whoring? Could be.

Although I wouldn't be easily persuaded that any self-styled journalist would make remarks like that if they didn't believe in what they said. Think of it this way: Would Chris Hedges make a statement like that in the interest of publicity?

reply to post by amkia


First let's not mix up Greenwald and Grunwald.

Second about Grunwald being fake:

Michael Grunwald, a senior national correspondent for TIME, has written numerous cover stories, on topics ranging from the myth of biofuels to the future of California, from Person of the Year Ben Bernanke to the future of the Republican party. He joined TIME in May 2007...

...Before joining TIME, Grunwald spent nearly a decade at the Washington Post, where he served as a congressional correspondent, New York bureau chief, Outlook section essayist and national investigative reporter. He also wrote the Post’s lead news story on the September 11th attacks. Previously, Grunwald spent more than five years as a local and national reporter at the Boston Globe. He has also written for The New Republic, Slate, Foreign Policy and many other publications.

Grunwald is the recipient of the George Polk Award for national reporting, the Worth Bingham Prize for investigative reporting and the Society of Environmental Journalists award for in-depth reporting, among other journalism honors. For his August 2007 TIME cover story on New Orleans, Grunwald was awarded Understanding Government’s Prize for Preventive Journalism.

link


He is not exactly a nobody or fake - the more reason to take this serious, VERY serious, actually!

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


Well, his list of awards and accolades tells you pretty much all you need to know about him. CFR too, probably. I say again: Roast in Hell....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Probably not, but when one becomes irrelevant and they seek to once again become relevant -- just tweet something stupid.

I believe we are in new frontier here with the explosion of the Internet and how the media (especially those that haven't adapted to it), react; hence these 'tweets'.

The way I see it is this: A journalist wants/needs exposure so they 'blurt' out something on the Internet. People hem and haw, forward it to friends so they can also hem and haw, post it on a social media site, discuss it on the back-channels of information, etc, etc...

Like me, I knew nothing of this guy, but I looked him up. I sought what he has written before. Mission accomplished and it was helped along by people reacting to his tweet.

I would be excited about that too if I were a journalist.

Assange seems like a dirt bag to me, not some altruistic hero. He wanted fame and a stable of young women to rape. His hippos are coming home to lay eggs. Even though the men hippo can't. Not even his festive woolen socks and garters can keep him strung up now, not after the hippos are in the trousers. I think you know what I mean.

His time is sagging like an egg filled stocking, and it was his own doing. Why defend him? I don't want him to come to harm, just think the egg stockings will soon crack under the weight. A true hero doesn't celebrate the celebrity like him.

tl:dr if you want hippos don't put them in the socks of the likes of Assange

One thing I rally have trouble understanding in the Assange case is this

Assange has a website that is in the business of leaking reporting controversial information. Now there is a number of these wiki leaks type sites around and so his should of stood out as a website of Nsa interest, since we all are publically aware these are the sites that Nsa target in their surveillance.

Lets establish the context of Assange identity which is hes a business man, trying to make money by selling controversial whistleblower stories and is Not a US citizen. Assange has not ever worked in a military establishment and therefore has never taken any military security oaths.

Assange gets possession via Manning videos and information which show insights to the US foreign policy decisions and military operations.

I can understand why the US politicians and military are embarrassed by release of the information, but given the context of Assanges back ground just described what rights does the US government have to bring him into the US for questioning?

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex

I would call that Self Inflicted Character Assassination.

His career is over. For him to tweet something like that out into the public knowing that damn near everyone is going to see it reeks of complete disregard. Maybe he is jealous of Assange. Regardless there really is no excuse for such behavior.

In today’s Government, making a statement like that, he could easily be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder. It will be very interesting to see where this goes in the next few days.

Maybe he's a CIA wannabe. A journalistic career is a great cover. He has kind of a big mouth though.

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


Bootlicking A##H###

If he was well informed then he would've known that the drone strike on Yemen was ordered by the Saudis.



Pathetic Journalism.

My bad I didn't read the link!

How I see it.

"Oh look at how much of an uncaring, evil being I am. LOL!"

reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex


Outspoken government shill, he'll probably get a bonus for that statement

I'm not in favor of using drones at all but I wouldn't lose sleep if one were used on this guy. Crappy thing to say, I know, but if he's a "journalist" for one of the biggest agencies in this country then it just goes to show how low our MSM has gotten.

How he can live with himself after advocating murdering a person who has not broken any laws is beyond my comprehension.