<p>[Greenwald</a> vs Keller - adversarial journalism vs mainstream journalism | Media | theguardian.com](<a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/29/new-york-times-newspapers]Greenwald”>Greenwald vs Keller - adversarial journalism vs mainstream journalism | Roy Greenslade | The Guardian)</p>
<p>Fascinating debate, including the cynical fact that it is brewing at the NY Times.</p>
<p>I disagree with Greenwald more. One reason is exactly what he often demonstrates: a near-complete disregard for objectivity in which his sense of what he thinks is right is all that matters. This turns much of his work into propaganda. </p>
<p>Another example is Robert Fisk. Terrific investigative reporter with amazing contacts in the Muslim world but also prone to report rumor as fact, to grab on to any bit of information - true or not, distorted or not - and use that to condemn in terms of utter black and white. All in Fisk’s case while living in Lebanon and turning a nearly blind eye to its problems, outside a few laments about their existence. Try to find a Fisk column about the degree of discrimination the Palestinians face in Lebanon. As in this excerpt from Reuters:</p>
<p>"Lebanon’s Palestinian areas are still called “camps,” but they are really more like city districts - hodgepodge areas packed with old cars, nests of electrical wire, and narrow streets crowded with shoppers, schoolchildren and merchants. A sign inside Ain al-Helweh welcomes you to “the Capital of the Diaspora” as soldiers at the entrance check IDs and search cars. Jumbles of murals, images and slogans from some of the 16 or so political factions that run the camp cover the walls.</p>
<p>Poverty is rife and water-borne diseases are common because of shoddy infrastructure. Healthcare and education are provided largely by UNRWA. Arrival can be especially hard for refugees from Syria, where they had had access to schools, healthcare and government jobs. The hopelessness occasionally inspires spectacular acts of desperation."</p>
<p>He doesn’t write that story. This makes it difficult to distinguish him from a collaborator in that injustice, willing to hold his tongue for the country where he lives? This kind of moral blindness is a cost of advocacy. </p>
<p>What Greenwald really describes is investigative journalism by the motivated. That seems to entail advocacy almost as a matter of course, even when done by huge news organizations. The NYT wouldn’t look into illnesses caused by a polluter without a point of view. Greenwald, Fisk, etc. do a real job, a valuable one but it’s important to realize that kind of thing often crosses the line into propaganda and that news organizations of any sort take points of view even as they pretend to objectivity.</p>
<p>It is laughable to call Greenwald a journalist. He is an activist who writes. He is no different from any other commentator. At least he is honest about his extreme views. If more “journalists” were honest about their views, they would be exposed as activists too.</p>
<p>To me, it is obvious the news coverage in the NY Times is biased. It would be more intellectually honest if reporters were forthright with readers about their political views.</p>
<p>But partisans aren’t either. Greenwald, for example, doesn’t say he’s biased; he believes he’s arguing for what is right. Robert Fisk doesn’t say he’s biased against the US or that he’s biased in favor of certain Arab factions. If we admit biases, we admit we’re telling untruths.</p>
<p>I don’t know, but I find it annoying when a reporter who is obviously biased, swears on the holy bible that he is able to put aside his opinions and report the story objectively.</p>
<p>Frankly, much ado about nothing. I think Keller is just jealous. He didn’t get the story - actually many stories - with them staring him right in the face. It wasn’t biased journalism on the part of the Times - it has been bad journalism, an inability to find the news and report it. It’s not bias in the story; it is failure to get the story at all.</p>
<p>Keller did not sound the least bit envious in a Sunday morning interview. He -correctly- called out the lack of integrity of the activists who masquerade as journalists. The rebuttal by Greenwald was predictable.</p>
<p>I wonder why Omidyar is agreeing to bankroll this guy?</p>
<p>Keller would have published Greenwald’s material in a heartbeat. He was just scooped, which seems to happen to the Times regularly. You can think of Greenwald as you will; but the overwhelming majority of what he has written remains uncontroverted.</p>
<p>^^^^
Or maybe the Times didn’t want to publish it because it would embarrass an Administration it supported.</p>
<p>I think it’s good to distinguish between leaking source materials and advocacy journalism. Greenwald tends to put these together. But if documents are real, they have value for what they are. Advocacy can be as flawed as Josef Goebbels. To me, the question of document leaking is more a matter of the judicial system, of allegations and charges for treason or espionage and how those actually work out over time. If you want to leak documents, you should be prepared for that. </p>
<p>Imagine for example that a journalist leaked the A-bomb secrets in WWII and couldn’t get them published here - the media actively suppressed this stuff - so he took them to another country and got them published. This journalist might be a true pacifist but he should be prepared to be put on trial for treason because your personal motives, however impure or pure, do not always determine your guilt.</p>