Behind the News

Salon’s Greenwald is wrong about Klein

Though Klein was misleading

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

If a reporter gets all the facts of a story right, and hands in a piece that accurately captures what’s happening in the world, does he deserve an hysterical 2,300-word rant penned by a prominent blogger denouncing him as a propagandist?

If the reporter is Joe Klein, and the blogger is Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, the answer apparently is yes.

Greenwald, who is usually a pretty astute critic of the media, went on at length yesterday in a puzzling piece about Joe Klein’s latest story, “Is al-Qaida on the Run in Iraq?” Greenwald is so upset about the story that he asks, “Is there a single principle of good journalism which Klein, in his short piece, failed to violate?”

It’s a strange question since, as I said, Klein gets all his facts right. He reports that local tribes in Iraq’s Anbar province have been banding together to fight Al Qaeda, and are helping U.S. forces in their attempt to drive the terror group out of the area. The story has been reported for months now in any number of major news outlets, and although Klein tries to make it sound like he’s got a scoop on his hands, there’s really nothing new or controversial here. If anything, Klein should be faulted with being so late to the story.

Unable to show that Klein got anything wrong, Greenwald instead attacks him for his use of an anonymous government source, which would be fine if he was being led astray by the source, but that’s not the case. Greenwald writes that, “the very idea of granting anonymity to government sources to do nothing other than repeat pro-government claims is both manipulative and moronic on its face”—but what he forgets (or maybe he doesn’t know) is that Klein is right, and that what is happening in Anbar is good news. If the tribes in Anbar turning on Al Qaeda is “pro-government,” then so be it, but Klein simply reporting on what is happening on the ground is just that—reporting. It’s neither pro- nor anti-government, it’s just the truth, and Greenwald should accept that.

He also complains that, “when a journalist does nothing but mindlessly repeat the claims of government sources which are completely consistent with—or designed to bolster—the claims being made by the administration itself out in the open, the journalist is doing nothing more than turning himself into a willing propaganda tool.”

Again, Greenwald is wrong, and the argument he’s making is both simplistic and silly. Sure, Klein needlessly relied on an anonymous government source, as well as other unnamed sources who backed up what his original source told him, but it turns out that what these sources told him happens to be true. I see the point Greenwald’s trying to make, but he’s barking up the wrong tree here.

Contrary to the overblown claims of journalistic malpractice that Greenwald is leveling, what Klein is actually guilty of doing is taking a story that has been reported elsewhere, and sexing it up with some anonymous sources to make it sound like he’s onto something that no one else understands. There’s nothing “mindless” about it, and it’s neither propaganda nor does it toe the government line. It’s just the truth.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

Lame Man

Fri 25 May 2007 03:26 PM

Since pk hasn't shown up here, I would like to step in and say that this post clearly shows that Mr. McLeary hates Bush, and is willing to sacrifice America in his attacks on the president.

Good day, sir!

Plaguepuppy

Sat 26 May 2007 06:47 PM

Why do trolls hate America, Lameguy?

Why do they fail to understand that the reason so many people have come to hate their beloved Führer Bush is that they cannot help but see the immense damage he has inflicted on the country they love?

In fact the only way to save the democratic republic that we were raised to believe in is to "sacrifice" Bush and his entire band of sociopathic thugs as soon as humanly possible, or at least to remove them from the levers of power and bring them to justice for their many crimes.

wwjk

Sun 27 May 2007 11:53 PM

I have to say that I'm embarassed for the writer of this column. He so thoroughly missed the point, I have to wonder what the hell he's doing here. Greenwald isn't disputing the truth of what Klein is writing; he's pointing out that Klein, by solely relying on gratuitously quoted anonymous sources, failed to prove his case to any responsibly skeptical reader. Call me crazy, but that seems like a perfectly fair criticism.

One has to wonder what axe McLeary has to grind when he uses inflammatory words and phrases such as "so upset" "hysterical" and "rants" to describe Greenwald's pretty evenly-toned critique (well, okay, I'll give McLeary "annoyed" if he insists).
On the upside, I guess that kind of levels the playing field for the rest of us. If I don't need extensive resources to, you know, actually go out there and find sources I could quote on record, or take time to corroborate stuff, I could start my own news service. My first post could be on how well the economy's doing. I think I read somewhere that it is doing pretty well. I could even anonymously quote my dog if I so chose-- and as long as I can point to others who said it first, I'd not have to worry about hearing any criticisms from Mr. McLeary. Shoot, who knew that journamalism was such a breeze?

politicoworker

Tue 29 May 2007 11:39 AM

Lame Man said:

"this post clearly shows that Mr. McLeary hates Bush, and is willing to sacrifice America in his attacks on the president."

smacross1 said:
Excuse me Lame Man, but the only reference to either Bush and/or American sacrifice come by way of your inane comments. At least PadiKiller, in his increasingly frightening, semi-psychotic and generally off base rants, takes pains to systematically and specifically address McLeary's assertions. Although it pains me to say it, you sir, are no Padikiller.

zak822

Tue 29 May 2007 04:25 PM

wwjk hit the nail right on the head. I will add that the willingness of folks in his position to accept being "misled" by a journalist of Kleins stature is a large part of why we are mired in Iraq today. Journalists who "mislead" their readers should be requested to find other work, and people in McLeary's position should be leading the charge on that, instead of telling us there is nothing wrong with "misleading" the public.

For the record, I read Kleins piece and Greenwald's. Greenwald was not "hysterical".

McCleary's piece is just another example of bloggers outworking a vaunted "journalist", in this case the overblown Klein.

padikiller

Tue 29 May 2007 07:10 PM

politicoworker wrote

At least PadiKiller, in his increasingly frightening, semi-psychotic and generally off base rants, takes pains to systematically and specifically address McLeary's assertions.

padikiller responds

The only thing that troubles me here...

Is the miscapitalization of my handle...

It is "padikiller"... A word that my kid coined as a baby while attempting to say "caterpillar"...

For the record...

I am, while arguably "frightening", "semi-psychotic" and/or "way off-base"....

A thoroughly non-violent, and physically harmless padikiller...

padikiller

Tue 29 May 2007 07:29 PM

Some Moonbat Wrote

Why do they fail to understand that the reason so many people have come to hate their beloved Führer Bush is that they cannot help but see the immense damage he has inflicted on the country they love?

padikiller wonders

"Immense damage" like....

What?....

Stock market = record high

Real estate values = record high

Minority academic achievement = record high

Crime = Record decline

Doemstice terrorist attacks since 9/11 = ZERO

Iraq = Representative democracy

Fingertips of Iraqi voters = purple

Iraqi women = Enfranchised

Taliban = Talibanned

Saddam Hussein = Pushing daisies

Osama Bin Laden = Subterranean bearded nobody

Al Quaida Leadership = Mostly dead, remainder marginalized

Gaddafi = Immascualted non-nuclear joke boy

Iraq war = Lowest casualty rate in history

Deficit = declining

Tax cuts = working

Democrat cut-and-run war strategy = DOA and vetoed to Hell

padikiller

Tue 29 May 2007 08:14 PM

Paul McLeary Wrote

Contrary to the overblown claims of journalistic malpractice that Greenwald is leveling...

padikiller notes

Mr. McLeary, in adopting my intolerance for "journalistic malpractice", is beginning to speak my language....

Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery....

Perhaps there is hope yet for Mr. McLeary's professional redemption...

Arf

Wed 30 May 2007 04:51 AM

This article is a marvel of economy and it should be studied by all aspiring journalists. It is stripped of any factual bloat and uses quotes only grudgingly, yet it delivers "just the truth".

I am so relieved to know that I can count on Paul McLeary to enlighten me without weighing me down with a lot of burdensome facts and named sources.

zaxtracks

Sun 3 Jun 2007 10:54 AM

"Sure, Klein needlessly relied on an anonymous government source, as well as other unnamed sources who backed up what his original source told him, but it turns out that what these sources told him happens to be true."

Paul, is it really your considered view that the way journalists represent their sources to their readers is irrelevant as long as the claims attributed to those sources "happen to be true"?

I would respectfully suggest that you think about these issues a bit more carefully -- as it stands, your competence is in question.

BJ

Sun 3 Jun 2007 05:30 PM

Anonymity is a powerful tool that can protect anonymous speakers from recrimination, thereby allowing them to present facts and statements that might otherwise remain hidden from the public. This is the most powerful and laudatory use of anonymity in journalism; it's the type of anonymity that whistle-blowers rely upon to expose wrongdoing by powerful interests.

Then there is the form of anonymity granted by Joe Klein in his recent piece about Anbar province. Klein did not grant anonymity to a whistle-blower saying something potentially damaging to his or her career or wellbeing. Rather, he granted it to military and government sources attempting to further the "progress in Iraq" propaganda that the administration is having such a hard time catapulting. Nevermind that the claims were true. Granting them anonymity lends them a more intriguing aura, because anonymity is so often associated in the public mind with its more laudable uses. Klein also benefits from the grant of anonymity, because his otherwise pedestrian story is, as McLeary acknowledges, sexier. So it's a win-win situation for Klein and his sources. The only person who loses is the reader, who gets a warped view of the big picture in Iraq.

allpaths

Sun 3 Jun 2007 09:29 PM

Greenwald responds (brilliantly, as usual)
See Item #2

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/03/various_items/index.html