Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

it is incredibly creepy that tabloids set someone up like this, and the police obv then have to act.

Marina Hyde is my hero.

that's pretty booming

There was a column from a few years ago when she really laid into the editors of yr interchangeable celeb weeklies as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2008/aug/01/celebmageditorspecial

PRISM and Verizon scoops showing that the Guardian is still a great investigative newspaper imo

no but a coffee shop tho lol

credit for those is apparently due to greenwald, not the guardian. xp

greenwald is a columnist (not journalist), is american, lives in the US, and often publishes his columns elsewhere at the same time as in the guardian, which started running them a year or so ago. until this he hadn't done any reporting for the paper.

also the prism thing was in the washington post

Correction: Greenwald lives in Brazil because of his partner.

ah ok.

in any case, the guardian is worse than it used to be.

no doubt, but Marina Hyde is bang on the money in this instance

The PRISM document appears to have been leaked simultaneously to Greenwald/The Guardian and the Washington Post at more or less the same time. Given the Guardian have been paying him and Rusbridger presumably knew what he was up to I think you can give them credit as well here, even if the investigation wasn't planned in an office in King's Cross.

They broke the Murdoch story as well and continued with it for months before it became massive news.

the murdoch story is certainly due credit.

the prism thing seems to be them non-exclusively publishing a deliberately leaked document one of their comment is free semi-freelance writers was chosen to be a recipient of, not investigative journalism.

I think they had to do a bit more than just publish the contents of the document but yeah, I agree it's not proper investigative journalism.

i am being ungenerous yes.

i think this being in the guardian doesn't so much reflect well on the guardian as very poorly on the nyt.

It's A Good Story

UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation

Never in doubt iirc

Not surprising at all. iirc they openly do what the US is currently being hauled over the coals about (keeping logs of all call / text details).

details are welcome, but yeah this has been legal and public knowledge since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 unless i'm misunderstanding the story.

like max says, the guardian does deserve some respect for getting these greenwald stories into print

lmao i cant IMAGINE what the original draft of that greenwald piece looked like

― max, Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:24 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

greenwald is a columnist (not journalist), is american, lives in the US, and often publishes his columns elsewhere at the same time as in the guardian,

Does he? Where? He moved from Salon to the Guardian last year and I don't think his stuff gets legitimately republished anywhere else. Maybe the odd thing has been syndicated, I dunno.

greenwald is a columnist (not journalist),

He's not a reporter, but columnists are a subset of journalists.

Or subspecies, possibly

xpost The Guardian got the story first. Washington Post followed.

As to whether being the recipient of a leak counts as good journalism - yes, of course it does. Because to be the recipient of a leak as big as this you have to a) have spent years making excellent contacts b) spent years building trust that you will not betray those contacts c) spent years building trust that you will be able to deliver the best possible story for that leaked document. And you have to have editors astute enough to know who to hire who can do that stuff. It's not as if someone who had the stuff picked a name at random to send it to.

I do work for the Guardian, but this would hold true if it had been another paper that broke the story.

xpost 2 Greenwald's a staffer for the Guardian. And while he may be a columnist, it's not in the sense of "what I did this week" - it's actual reporting in his columns.

60 Minutes should do "A Few Minutes with Glenn Greenwald." Author of If Life Is A Bowl of Cherries, How Can The President Sleep at Night?

ok but surely you don't reject the premise that the guardian is a terrible paper and getting worse though, right? if you reject that then i feel like any follow up debate would not be in good faith.

(xp)

the washington is walking back the prism story (deleting "knowingly shared" from their report) and, without wishing to defend the likes of google, literally every organization implicated in the story is denying it pretty strenuously and unambiguously.

Nah, those denials are full of holes and they all hang on "direct access" or other massive caveats
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/07/the_prism_spin_war_has_begun

credit for those is apparently due to greenwald, not the guardian. xp

greenwald is a columnist (not journalist), is american, lives in the US, and often publishes his columns elsewhere at the same time as in the guardian, which started running them a year or so ago. until this he hadn't done any reporting for the paper.

― caek, Friday, June 7, 2013 11:51 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also the prism thing was in the washington post

― caek, Friday, June 7, 2013 11:55 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...

the prism thing seems to be them non-exclusively publishing a deliberately leaked document one of their comment is free semi-freelance writers was chosen to be a recipient of, not investigative journalism.

― caek, Friday, June 7, 2013 2:11 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think they had to do a bit more than just publish the contents of the document but yeah, I agree it's not proper investigative journalism.

― Matt DC, Friday, June 7, 2013 2:22 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i am being ungenerous yes.

i think this being in the guardian doesn't so much reflect well on the guardian as very poorly on the nyt.

― caek, Friday, June 7, 2013 2:25 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...

xpost The Guardian got the story first. Washington Post followed.

As to whether being the recipient of a leak counts as good journalism - yes, of course it does. Because to be the recipient of a leak as big as this you have to a) have spent years making excellent contacts b) spent years building trust that you will not betray those contacts c) spent years building trust that you will be able to deliver the best possible story for that leaked document. And you have to have editors astute enough to know who to hire who can do that stuff. It's not as if someone who had the stuff picked a name at random to send it to.

I do work for the Guardian, but this would hold true if it had been another paper that broke the story.

― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Saturday, June 8, 2013 5:15 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xpost 2 Greenwald's a staffer for the Guardian. And while he may be a columnist, it's not in the sense of "what I did this week" - it's actual reporting in his columns.

― If you tolerate Bis, then Kenickie will be next (ithappens), Saturday, June 8, 2013 5:18 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...

ok but surely you don't reject the premise that the guardian is a terrible paper and getting worse though, right? if you reject that then i feel like any follow up debate would not be in good faith.

― caek, Saturday, June 8, 2013 11:23 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like *someone's debating in bad faith here, but it certainly isn't ithappens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/14/glenn-greenwald-reader-profile-interactive#615

It's a good paper.

post where i state my case + post where matt basically agrees with me + post where someone who works with guardian disagrees with me + post where i imply the guardian is a bad newspaper.

i feel a right chump now.

all i'm saying, and surely this is something we can call agree on, is that the guardian is truly a toxic force for evil.

it's not just a "disagreement" though, is it? you stated that a) Greenwald was not a staffer but a freelancer for the Guardian, that b) that the piece was in the Washington Post and that c) Greenwald was just "a columnist (not a journalist)".

and the person from the guardian corrected you that a) Greenwald is actually a staffer at the guardian, that b) the Guardian ran the piece first, and c) that while Greenwald is a columnist he is also a journalist, not a "not journalist".

and rather than, i don't know, accept that you were wrong on those points and acknowledge that, you instead respond by challenging the poster from the guardian to nod in agreement with this thread's title, which would be an unusually stupid thing for someone who works for the guardian whose identity even "a columnist (not a journalist)" like you allege Greenwald to be would be able to work out.

i don't care whether you feel like a chump or not, and it might well pan out that the whole NSA story is an empty balloon, but i think its kind of NAGL to accuse someone of arguing in bad faith when you won't acknowledge when you're wrong and when you're expecting them to do something they couldn't really be expected to do without blowback upon themselves, and with which they might not even agree.

if you seriously thing i was seriously accusing him of debating in bad faith then i don't even

ok but surely you don't reject the premise that the guardian is a terrible paper and getting worse though, right? if you reject that then i feel like any follow up debate would not be in good faith.

― caek, Saturday, June 8, 2013 11:23 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean i honestly don't know what you're doing tbh, other than evading admitting that you were wrong about greenwald and the guardian, and it just makes me think you don't really know what you're talking about, but whatevs.

i absolutely agree with you that i was called out on a couple of points of fact. there.

but again, lmao if you seriously thing i was seriously accusing him of debating in bad faith.

serious post now:

the amount of credit the guardian deserves for this is not enormous because of the unusual nature of greenwald's relationship with the paper, and the self-mythologizing they've been doing on their own homepage for the past week is completely and utterly nauseating.

i also regret the existence of autotrader, because without that, the guardian wouldn't be able to afford to participate in the pseudointellectual race to the bottom it's currently winning handily.

I didn't think you were accusing me seriously of debating in bad faith. But … Greenwald's relationship with the paper is not "unusual". He is a paid employee. And if it were unusual, surely the Guardian would deserve extra credit for working out a way to use someone who can bring in scoops like this. The fact is, because of Greenwald and because of the unusual ways the Guardian is presenting itself, Snowden came to it, rather than to any of the other msm outlets he says he's suspicious off. The Guardian did well.

suspicious of, sorry.

yeah fair enough.

and as said elsewhere, fair credit for making his prose less febrile. he seems like a handful.

publishing that g-8 story seems pretty shitty

btw i feel like there are enough pictures of snowden's face on the homepage at the moment. dunno if you can pass that thought on to rusbridger?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/nigella-lawson-domestic-goddess-violence

It's hard to think of a sadder and more brutal undoing of such a high-profile image than what has happened to Lawson. In the past few days, she has gone from domestic goddess to the face of domestic violence.

this feels pretty off. calling her the "face of domestic violence" because... she was a victim of it who happens to be famous. it implies guilt on her part.

and also why would her husband seeming to be a domestic abuser affect her status as "a domestic goddess"? like however showbiz that rep is it's one she built by her work as a writer and a broadcaster - i fail to see how the fact she is in an abusive relationship makes her disingenuous as a tv chef, unless you blame her for saatchi's behaviour.

I don't think it's meant to imply guilt, or even disingenuousness in relation to her TV show, but it's not the most coherent of articles.

Was she even married to Saatchi when the domestic goddess stuff was coined?

No, she was still married to John Diamond.

HF is usually the voice of otm on celeb "controversies" but yeah that's not a good article. I don't really know what this sentence means:

Tina Turner, Lana Turner and, of course, Rihanna have all suffered from it and, just because they all had the means to leave their abusive partners, many of them stayed for some time.

and also why would her husband seeming to be a domestic abuser affect her status as "a domestic goddess"? like however showbiz that rep is it's one she built by her work as a writer and a broadcaster - i fail to see how the fact she is in an abusive relationship makes her disingenuous as a tv chef, unless you blame her for saatchi's behaviour.

― Shamrock Shoe (LocalGarda), Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

HF seems to be saying that the "Domestic Goddess" image was tied up with having an apparently blissful home life and it turns out you can't bake your way to a happy family. Or something.

http://i.guim.co.uk/n/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/21/1371831337646/Edward-Snowden-composite--009.jpg

really enjoying this image. very noise board.