The Independent got a black eye today from a former editor who shamelessly confessed to being an authoritarian.
Blackhurst, in explaining why he would never have allowed his newspaper to publish any of the documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, actually wrote:
If the security services insist something is contrary to the public interest, and might harm their operations, who am I (despite my grounding from Watergate onwards) to disbelieve them?”
Most people, let alone journalists, would be far too embarrassed to admit they harbor such subservient, obsequious sentiments.
Greenwald sums up:
But it does still surprise me when people calling themselves “journalists” openly admit to thinking this way. But when they do so, they do us a service, as it lays so vividly bare just how wide the gap is between the claimed function of establishment journalists and the actual role they fulfill.
Caution about The Guardian*. While they may be publishing Greenwald right now, I don’t expect that to go on forever. Blackhurt gives a clue as to why:
The former Labour cabinet minister was incandescent with rage. […]
I was puzzled as to why she would be so angry – normally she and The Guardian would be of one mind.
UPDATE: I swear I didn’t read this article first, I’m just that good at predictions sometimes…
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who published multiple reports this year based on former security consultant Edward Snowden’s files detailing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance in the U.S. and abroad, will be leaving the British newspaper the Guardian for an unidentified new media outlet, Buzzfeed reported on Tuesday.
“My partnership with the Guardian has been extremely fruitful and fulfilling,” Greenwald said in a statement. “I have high regard for the editors and journalists with whom I worked and am incredibly proud of what we achieved. The decision to leave was not an easy one, but I was presented with a once-in-a-career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly decline.”