Secrets for Sale?
The Greenwald/Omidyar/NSA Connection
Thanks to my readers' generosity, all my articles are free to access. Independent journalism, however, requires time and investment. If you found value in this article or any others, please consider sharing or even becoming a paid subscriber, who benefits by joining the conversation in the comments. I want you to know that your support is always gratefully received and will never be forgotten. Please buy me a coffee or as many as you wish.
GPT-Summary
Originally Published by James Corbett - December 17, 2013
In this incisive investigation from December 17, 2013, James Corbett explores the troubling connections and questionable motivations behind the selective release of Edward Snowden’s NSA documents. Corbett scrutinizes the actions of journalist Glenn Greenwald and billionaire Pierre Omidyar, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the Snowden leaks and the financial interests that may be influencing their disclosure. The analysis reveals a story of control, commodification, and possible betrayal of the public’s right to know.
The Manufactured Narrative: A Controlled Drip of Snowden’s Leaks
Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed the vast scope of government surveillance, has become a symbol of whistleblowing in the digital age. However, the story of his leaks is not as straightforward as it appears. Corbett contends that the narrative surrounding Snowden’s revelations has been carefully managed, with only a fraction of the documents released to the public. The primary gatekeeper of these documents, Glenn Greenwald, along with a select few media outlets, has effectively controlled the flow of information, turning what should have been an explosive expose into a slow, controlled burn.
From the outset, Snowden’s story was shaped by the journalists who handled his leaks. Snowden initially approached The Washington Post, but when they couldn’t meet his demands for full publication, he turned to Greenwald and The Guardian. Even then, only a handful of the PRISM slides were published, and years later, the full extent of the leaks remains obscured. Corbett argues that this deliberate throttling of information raises serious questions about the motivations behind the controlled release of the documents. Who benefits from such a strategy? Certainly not the public, who remains in the dark about the full scope of the NSA’s activities.
Follow the Money: Greenwald’s Profitable Book Deal and Omidyar’s Billion-Dollar Bet
Corbett is quick to highlight the financial incentives that seem to be driving the narrative. Just weeks after the Snowden story broke, Greenwald secured a lucrative book deal, promising to reveal more about the NSA’s inner workings. This deal, according to Corbett, wasn’t about informing the public but rather about cashing in on the Snowden saga. The subsequent bidding war for movie rights only adds to the suspicion that Greenwald’s actions are motivated more by profit than by a commitment to transparency.
Then there’s Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay, who has injected a staggering $250 million into Greenwald’s new media venture, First Look Media. Corbett questions Omidyar’s sudden interest in journalism, especially given his deep ties to companies like PayPal and Palantir, both of which have collaborated with the NSA. Corbett posits that Omidyar’s involvement is not an altruistic gesture but a strategic move to control the narrative and protect his own corporate interests. The implications of this are profound, suggesting that the very outlet responsible for releasing Snowden’s leaks may be compromised by its billionaire backer.
The Omidyar-NSA Nexus: Conflicts of Interest and Corporate Control
In Corbett's view, Omidyar’s connections to the NSA are a glaring conflict of interest. PayPal, which Omidyar owns, has a history of cooperating with the government, notably in its prosecution of activists who protested against its decision to cut off funding to WikiLeaks. Furthermore, Omidyar’s network includes significant investments in companies like Palantir Technologies, which plays a critical role in domestic surveillance. These connections raise red flags about Omidyar’s true intentions. Is his funding of Greenwald’s venture really about supporting independent journalism, or is it about ensuring that the Snowden story unfolds in a way that serves his interests?
Corbett’s analysis suggests that Omidyar’s involvement is less about transparency and more about controlling the release of information that could be damaging to his corporate empire. The question then arises: Can Greenwald’s journalism truly be independent when funded by a billionaire with such deep ties to the institutions Snowden sought to expose?
The Hypocrisy of Selective Disclosure
Corbett does not shy away from pointing out the hypocrisy in Greenwald’s actions. While Greenwald and his defenders argue that the slow release of documents is necessary to protect lives and ensure responsible journalism, Corbett challenges this narrative. He notes that Greenwald initially promised to release all the documents within a year, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The pace of disclosure has slowed to a crawl, raising suspicions that Greenwald may be holding back key information to maximize the profitability of his book and future media projects.
Corbett argues that this selective disclosure serves the interests of Greenwald and his backers rather than the public. By controlling the flow of information, Greenwald and Omidyar maintain a stranglehold on the narrative, ensuring that the most damaging revelations remain under wraps until they can be exploited for maximum financial gain. This approach betrays the very principles of transparency and accountability that Snowden’s leaks were supposed to uphold.
The Public Left in the Dark: A Slow Drip of Truth
One of the most damning critiques Corbett offers is the observation that the public is being intentionally deprived of the full truth. Despite possessing tens of thousands of NSA documents, Greenwald and his partners have released only a tiny fraction of them. At the current pace, it could take decades for the full scope of the NSA’s activities to be revealed, by which time the information will likely have lost much of its relevance.
Corbett argues that this slow drip of information is not about responsible journalism but about control. By delaying the release of the documents, Greenwald and Omidyar can manage the narrative, ensuring that the most explosive revelations come out on their terms. This strategy keeps the public in the dark and prevents the kind of widespread outrage and action that could have resulted from a more immediate and comprehensive disclosure.
The Controlled Opposition: Greenwald’s Role in the Media Ecosystem
Corbett’s analysis suggests that Greenwald’s role in the Snowden saga is not that of a fearless journalist but of controlled opposition. By partnering with Omidyar, a man whose wealth is tied to companies complicit in the surveillance state, Greenwald has positioned himself not as an adversary of power but as a gatekeeper. This partnership, Corbett argues, allows those in power to control the opposition, ensuring that the Snowden story is told in a way that minimizes damage to their interests.
The implications of this are deeply troubling for the state of journalism in the digital age. When the very outlets responsible for holding power to account are funded by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, the integrity of the information they provide is called into question. Corbett’s investigation reveals a media landscape where truth is commodified and controlled, leaving the public to wonder whether they can trust the stories they are being told.
The Future of the Snowden Leaks: A Legacy of Missed Opportunities
As Corbett concludes, the future of the Snowden leaks looks bleak if the current pace of document release continues. The public’s interest in the story is waning, and by the time all the documents are finally released, they may no longer have the impact they once could have. Greenwald and Omidyar will have moved on, their profits secured, while the public is left to sift through the remnants of a story that could have changed the world.
Corbett’s critical voice echoes throughout the analysis, warning that financial interests and corporate connections have hijacked the Snowden leaks. The promise of transparency and accountability that Snowden’s revelations once held has been eroded by those who see them as a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. In the end, Corbett argues, the true story of the Snowden leaks may never be fully told, leaving us to wonder what could have been if the truth had been allowed to come out in full.
As per Ron Paul on Trump shooting: "We will never know what happened."
The lede on this comment is a cause-effect complex equivalence—or, as I have rebranded it, an "if/then=because."
This is a linguistic fallacy, as evidenced below. I took a few moments to review the linked references, and they appear to differ from Corbett in that he reports on both what people say and what they have done. I'm disinterested in the anonymous quotes and other counter-intelligence nonsense.
Here are 14 reframes to the statement "Corbett lives in Japan, and that limits his understanding of events in the U.S.":
1. Reality Strategy: "Living in Japan might actually give Corbett a unique and less biased perspective on U.S. events, allowing him to see things from a global viewpoint."
2. Redefine: "It's not that living in Japan limits his understanding; it broadens his perspective by exposing him to international viewpoints that are often overlooked in the U.S."
3. Counterexample: "Many experts who live outside the U.S. have a deep understanding of U.S. events. For example, foreign correspondents often provide some of the most insightful analysis."
4. Chunk Down: "What specific aspects of U.S. events do you believe Corbett doesn't understand because he lives in Japan?"
5. Chunk Up: "Isn't it more important to evaluate someone's understanding based on their research and sources rather than their location?"
6. Intent: "Perhaps the intent behind living in Japan is to avoid the echo chamber of U.S. media and gain a clearer, more objective view of what's happening."
7. Apply to Self: "If living outside a country limits one's understanding of its events, does that mean people in the U.S. have a limited understanding of events in other countries?"
8. Another Outcome: "Living in Japan might allow Corbett to focus on the larger global implications of U.S. events rather than getting bogged down in domestic noise."
9. Metaphor/Analogy: "It's like saying someone living in a forest can't understand the ecosystem because they're not in the city—the distance might actually provide better clarity."
10. Reframe: "Rather than seeing his location as a limitation, it could be seen as an advantage that helps him avoid the biases prevalent in U.S.-based reporting."
11. Examine Consequences: "If we dismiss opinions based on someone's location, we might miss out on valuable insights from people with diverse experiences."
12. Model of the World: "In today's interconnected world, physical location doesn't limit one's understanding. With access to global information, Corbett can stay informed about U.S. events."
13. Change Frame Size: "Considering the influence of global events on U.S. affairs, living in Japan might actually help Corbett understand the bigger picture."
14. Hierarchy of Criteria: "What’s more important: the location of the person analyzing events, or the accuracy and depth of their analysis?"