The first one was about Omidyar's background, which may or may not be relevant to how the forthcoming news outlet functions. It's of course interesting/noteworthy/disturbing. But it - like Greenwald said - remains to be seen what will become of that outlet. I think Ames having a vendetta vs. Greenwald is an important thing not to forget and I also don't see how Greenwald "dodged the substance of the argument." I think he actually tackled it head on in the very long post. What did I miss in reading it that you saw as a dodge?
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Eleutherios <eleutherios.rizooto at gmail.com>wrote:
> Greenwald mostly dodges the susbstance of the argument, which is
> admittedly better elucidated in the first NSWFCorp article. Greenwald's
> work has made waves and I've defended him in the past against those
> arguing he's a partisan or even libertarian/neoliberal hack/tool,
> partially because of the contrast to Democrat/liberal flacks that
> altered their positions when Democrats led the spying and partially
> because Greenwald apparently shifted left from earlier stronger
> libertarian ideology. The absence of criticism of corporate actors
> speaks loudly, however, as does his typical vituperative offensive
> defense (a writing style which I could accept if more responsive than
> evasive).
>
> For a longer history and more analysis, this blog
> http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/ has been covering these angles for
> months. There is a back story to this, in that Ames and Greenwald are in
> a preexisting feud, but the gist of Ames/Levine's argument remains
> intact and there further issues as yet unexplored by them but better
> covered in this blog.
>
> Wojtek was right to be suspicious but government spying is indeed
> pernicious and it also discredits government and the public sphere so
> the NSA revelations are important and the better response is measured
> criticism rather than outright dismissal. I could see Carol considering
> this a distracting internecine squabble, but I do think it's important
> to understand "NewCo" and the journalists involved considering their
> influence, and that the dynamics of this are revealing. The Rancid
> Honeytrap blog takes a more systemic, less singular, and less "personal"
> view at this.
>
> On 01-Dec-13 15:11, Steve Horn wrote:
> > Here's Greenwald's response:
> >
> >
> http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2013/12/questionsresponses-for-journalists.html?m=1
> >
> > On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Eleutherios wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Ames in a followup for PandoDaily, focusing on the issues of
> >> singular control of the leaked documents by Greenwald and Poitras,
> >> monetization of these by Greenwald including peddling book and movie
> >> rights and holding some of the juiciest revelations for these, and the
> >> apparent sale of the cache to a self-interested ideological billionaire
> >> (whose company PayPal is participating in the coercive
> >> diminution of Wikileaks). http://pando.com/2013/11/27/keeping-secrets/
> >>
> >> On 24-Nov-13 19:45, Eleutherios wrote:
> >>> Mark Ames and Yolanda Levine for NSFWCorp in a devastating take down of
> >>> Pierre Omidyar's odious neoliberalism, countering the unquestioned
> >>> praise heaped on him as the exception of a civic-minded billionaire
> >>> because of his new investigative journalism outlet with
> >>> Greenwald/Poitras, Scahill, etc as cover:
> >>> https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/extraordinary-pierre-omidyar/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>