I realize that talking about Glenn Greenwald has the effect of taking the heat off of the Intelligence Community and can serve as a distraction from a much-needed public debate about surveillance. But people need to understand why Greenwald’s reporting cannot be trusted. First, I am going to quote something from today’s Guardian and then I am going to select some quotes from Greenwald’s initial essay in which he announced his husband’s detention.
From today (emphasis mine):
Miranda’s lawyers told the court in a written submission that police threatened him with imprisonment if he did not answer their questions and, finding the experience “frightening, stressful and intimidating”.
He was compelled to provide passwords for the devices. His lawyers said he only had a lawyer for the last hour of his detention and was not allowed a pen to write down the officers questions or a translator even though English was not his first language.
This may seem like a minor point if you are focused on the eight hours that Mr. Miranda was held before he was afforded a lawyer, but we’re not focusing on that here. We’re focusing on how Greenwald initially portrayed his husband’s detention. Here’s is what he said about lawyers and timing in that initial piece.
At the time the “security official” called me, David had been detained for 3 hours.
I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know.
Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian’s lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David.
Okay. Greenwald was informed of Mr. Miranda’s detention after three hours had elapsed and he says that five more hours elapsed before he was able to “obtain any information about David.” That means that he did get information during that last hour of detention. Let’s continue (emphasis mine):
David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don’t yet know what they told him. But the Guardian’s lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me.
Of course, the lawyers spoke with him after eights hours, not after he was released. In fact, Greenwald acknowledged that he obtained information about David during the ninth hour. But he didn’t portray this information as having resulted from talking to the lawyers who were then representing Mr. Miranda at the airport.
Greenwald might portray this as an error caused by confusion in the heat of the moment, and that might be credible if this was a one-time event. But this is not a one-time event. This is of a part with Greenwald’s polemical and adversarial style of journalism where he persistently portrays only the facts that suit him and dances around the literal truth. He can deny that he lied to make his article more sensational, but he has no credibility anymore when it comes to how he presents his facts.
In the end, lying about these small, seemingly insignificant things allows his detractors to dismiss his legitimate grievances, and he does himself and his cause no favors by habitually overstating his case.