I am not Glenn Greenwald and other Captain Obvious Items
One foot in the gravy
I am not Glenn Greenwald and Other Captain Obvious items
A few days ago, I watched an interview on television between a reporter and a green energy enthusiast. The reporter was trying his hardest to find common ground for a discussion. He asked the woman if she could agree on energy independence as a goal. She replied, “Through green energy.” The problem was obvious. She could not separate any part of her detailed model of how the world worked without all of it coming unglued. There was no way she would consider discussing an issue until the reporter first accepted her assumptions. Which meant that no discussion could occur.
I recently received a comment by a reader that caught my attention:
No need for you to respond if someone posts on your site, Greenwald doesn't, nor do you have to respond when there is an exchange between two people. I don't think the responses on Greenwald's posts are monitored, and if they are, no one responds with a reply. I get a lot of likes from them and they identify themselves by name, sometimes, but most of the time it just says Someone likes your post. I've been on his site from the beginning.
Now on to Glenn Greenwald.
“Bill, what does it matter if we argued about this issue, or how long it went on. Why the need for so much control. On Glen Greenwald's site people go on, and on and back and forth, so what?”
“So what?”
I am not Glenn Greenwald. He has a team of editors, researchers, producers and collaborators that work with him, He publishes on Substack because . . . You know what? I had made some assumptions, but I don’t really know. Each of us has reasons we publish and/or comment here. In the case of the poster in the above discussion, it appears her/his reason for posting is to collect Likes. I can speculate about his/her need that is met by doing so, but I won’t.
I write because I’m addicted to mentoring. I have spent the last 20 years of my life mentoring entrepreneurs so that smart people can create their own jobs and, hopefully, jobs for others as well. The first mentee was a young black woman in Mississippi who wanted a business plan so she could get a loan. Something in her post caught my attention.
Her friend owned a clothing and accessories store and Jessica wanted to buy it. The friend’s father was a lawyer and had prepared the paperwork. Jessica was intelligent but ignorant of business. I reviewed the tax returns and the P&L for the last three years, and taught her how to read them. She finally realized she was being sold a pile of crap asked her about her education and experiences, and eventually she set herself up as a one-woman content creator. She became the advertising writer for four other businesses and did well.
I am not Glenn Greenwald and Other Captain Obvious items
A few days ago, I watched an interview on television between a reporter and a green energy enthusiast. The reporter was trying his hardest to find common ground for a discussion. He asked the woman if she could agree on energy independence as a goal. She replied, “Through green energy.” The problem was obvious. She could not separate any part of her detailed model of how the world worked without all of it coming unglued. There was no way she would consider discussing an issue until the reporter first accepted her assumptions. Which meant that no discussion could occur.
I recently received a comment by a reader that caught my attention:
No need for you to respond if someone posts on your site, Greenwald doesn't, nor do you have to respond when there is an exchange between two people. I don't think the responses on Greenwald's posts are monitored, and if they are, no one responds with a reply. I get a lot of likes from them and they identify themselves by name, sometimes, but most of the time it just says Someone likes your post. I've been on his site from the beginning.
Now on to Glenn Greenwald.
“Bill, what does it matter if we argued about this issue, or how long it went on. Why the need for so much control. On Glen Greenwald's site people go on, and on and back and forth, so what?”
“So what?”
I am not Glenn Greenwald.
He has a team of editors, researchers, producers and collaborators that work with him, He publishes on Substack because . . . You know what? I had made some assumptions, but I don’t really know. Each of us has reasons we publish and/or comment here. In the case of the poster in the above discussion, it appears her/his reason for posting is to collect Likes. I can speculate about his/her need that is met by doing so, but I won’t.
I’m just an old man in his pajamas in Tennessee. I write because I’m addicted to mentoring. I have spent the last 20 years of my life mentoring entrepreneurs so that smart people can create their own jobs and, hopefully, jobs for others as well. The first mentee was a young black woman in Mississippi who wanted a business plan so she could get a loan. Something in her post caught my attention.
Her friend owned a clothing and accessories store and Jessica wanted to buy it. The friend’s father was a lawyer and had prepared the paperwork. Jessica was intelligent but ignorant of business. I reviewed the tax returns and the P&L for the last three years, and taught her how to read them. She finally realized she was being sold a pile of crap. I asked her about her education and experiences, and eventually she set herself up as a one-woman content creator. She became the advertising writer for four other businesses and did well.
I have assumed that Greenwald posts on Substack to make a living and to practice his craft, free from authoritarian control. Beneath that, I suspect he wants to take revenge on Democrats for leaving him as the party deserted liberalism and him for far-out left field. Beyond that, he enjoys using snark. I mean, he’s quite good at it. Really good.
As a reader of multiple substacks (online columns), I follow both Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. That is quite common, and both are first-rate investigative journalists. While they don’t work together, investigative journalism (as opposed to advocacy journalism) is conducted the same way almost everywhere.
If you believe Woodward and Bernstein are the gold standard, think again. Their famous “investigative journalism” that took down Richard Nixon was nothing of the sort. They were expertly played by W. Mark Feldt, senior executive in the FBI. Feldt expected to be named FBI Director following Hoover’s death. When Nixon passed him over for the position, Feldt believed he was cheated out of what he was owed. He got his revenge through stealth.
All The President’s Men
The authors were minor reporters for the Washington Post at the time. Bernstein was 29, and Woodward was 30. In the field of investigative journalism, that made them infants. Feldt used a family connection to inveigle Woodward, then Bernstein, to go on the adventure of a lifetime. He used codewords, safety signals and hid meetings in garages, and the young reporters ate up what was minimally basic tradecraft, believing they were in the big time. They were hooked on adrenaline, a powerful motivator. Most importantly, they weren’t in charge; Feldt was.
Investigative reporting is done slowly and carefully. The key asset is reliable and cooperative sources. You must know who has access to information you want, and then cause the person to trust you. The best way to do that is by being trustworthy – honest about everything possible. You can buy the person a beer or do her or him favors occasionally, but that doesn’t create trust. Offering to pay the individual is usually counterproductive; you can’t know who might outbid you.
Recruiting a source is done by aligning your values with his or hers. Display genuine concern for the source’s family and future. Be careful about protecting the source. If you’re doing investigative journalism, you’re going to be exposing someone else’s secrets. Not everybody will want you to succeed. You need to protect your sources from exposure. Be loyal to your source, and your source will be loyal to you.
Confirmation
The final point on investigative journalism is the need to get confirmation of the information, especially information that aligns with your existing biases. For example, if you see a video of a high school kid wearing a MAGA hat smiling at a native American, you might want to wait on additional information before declaring him a monster.
That is too much work for advocacy journalists, who typically are certain that their opinions constitute fact because they are on the right side of an issue. And nobody around them ever tells them they’re wrong.
Sources are the most difficult resource to obtain. Greenwald has many. I have few. I have expert sources in almost all parts of the supply chain and manufacturing. Otherwise, my Rolodex is pretty empty.
Formatting or Writing
I spend more time formatting than I do writing. Glenn Greenwald has people who do that for him. I’m aware that Matt Taibbi has assistants who review recent posts seeking information and people that might be exploited for future use. I was called by one of his assistants, who, over a series of phone calls, eventually set up an interview of me by Matt Taibbi. I had an experience set he had never before encountered and he wanted to explore what I might do for his research going forward. We spent a pleasant hour on the phone. Both men also have staffs that make phone calls, produce videos, reach out to collaborators. I have an old low-end HP and a basic i-phone.
But, then again, I am not Glenn Greenwald.
Why do you write or post? I’m sure that “to pick up chicks” or some equivalent has to be high on the list. But, you must have a reason for writing. Share it with the rest of us, please.
I have assumed that Greenwald posts on Substack to make a living and to practice his craft, free from authoritarian control. Beneath that, I suspect he wants to take revenge on Democrats for leaving him as the party deserted liberalism and him for far-out left field. Beyond that, he enjoys using snark. I mean, he’s quite good at it. Really good.
As a reader of multiple substacks (online columns), I follow both Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. That is quite common, and both are first-rate investigative journalists. While they don’t work together, investigative journalism (as opposed to advocacy journalism) is conducted the same way almost everywhere.
All The President’s Men
The authors were minor reporters for the Washington Post at the time. Bernstein was 29, and Woodward was 30. In the field of investigative journalism, that made them infants. Feldt used a family connection to inveigle Woodward, then Bernstein, to go on the adventure of a lifetime. He used codewords, safety signals and hid meetings in garages, and the young reporters ate up what was minimally basic tradecraft, believing they were in the big time. They were hooked on adrenaline, a powerful motivator. Most importantly, they weren’t in charge; Feldt was.
Investigative reporting is done slowly and carefully. The key asset is reliable and cooperative sources. You must know who has access to information you want, and then cause the person to trust you. The best way to do that is by being trustworthy – honest about everything possible. You can buy the person a beer or do her or him favors occasionally, but that doesn’t create trust. Offering to pay the individual is usually counterproductive; you can’t know who might outbid you.
Recruiting a source is done by aligning your values with his or hers. Display genuine concern for the source’s family and future. Be careful about protecting the source. If you’re doing investigative journalism, you’re going to be exposing someone else’s secrets. Not everybody will want you to succeed. You need to protect your sources from exposure. Be loyal to your source, and your source will be loyal to you.
Confirmation
The final point on investigative journalism is the need to get confirmation of the information, especially information that aligns with your existing biases. For example, if you see a video of a high school kid wearing a MAGA hat smiling at a native American, you might want to wait on additional information before declaring him a monster.
That is too much work for advocacy journalists, who typically are certain that their opinions constitute fact because they are on the right side of an issue. And nobody around them ever tells them they’re wrong.
Sources are the most difficult resource to obtain. Greenwald has many. I have few. I have expert sources in almost all parts of the supply chain and manufacturing. Otherwise, my Rolodex is pretty empty.
Writing or Formatting?
I spend more time formatting than I do writing. Glenn Greenwald has people who do that for him. I’m aware that Matt Taibbi has assistants who review recent posts seeking information and people that might be exploited for future use. I was called by one of his assistants, who, over a series of phone calls, eventually set up an interview of me by Matt Taibbi. I had an experience set he had never before encountered and he wanted to explore what I might do for his research going forward. We spent a pleasant hour on the phone. Both men also have staffs that make phone calls, produce videos, reach out to collaborators. I have an old low-end HP and a basic i-phone.
But, then again, I am not Glenn Greenwald.
Why Do You Write or Post?
Why do you write or post? I’m sure that “to pick up chicks” or some equivalent has to be high on the list. But, you must have a reason for writing. Share it with the rest of us, please.
I enjoyed this tremendously, partly for ignoble reasons but never mind.
When I was quite young I was "going to be a writer someday." Everyone praised my command of written English. I did wonderfully in any classes requiring its use, and could pass essay-question exams by writing paragraphs that were beautifully expressed even if they had almost no actual information in them.
I skated on that "gonna be a writer" pond for years. I attended a poetry workshop weekend where a well-known poet praised my work, and I kept skating, warm in the glow of affirmation. All I really did was keep reading.
But worms were starting to eat that apple which had always nourished me well. There were the books I considered perfect, because every word felt right. But more and more I couldn't get through two pages without painfully noticing how often I felt the author had chosen words badly. I couldn't get past that to just enjoy the story. This was happening with some highly-renowned authors I'd grown up on and had revered all my reading life.
I'd always lived with the fear that I was an excellent critic but had nothing original to create myself. I was convinced I could never write dialogue. If I didn't have much to say, how could my characters?
Finally I got to the point where it was put up or shut up. If I thought I knew better than, say, Asimov on how to write a good story, I'd better stop somedaying about it and try.
Fortunately a very painful life event gave me the fuel of fury and the exquisite revenge of being able to do on virtual paper what really ought not to be done for real. Within not too long, in the scheme of things, my stories began to be accepted by webzines and some strangers, who had no obligation or need by courtesy to say nice things about my stuff, really liked them. I had become, in the early flowering of my not-entirely mature years, an author. Heady drug.
Encouraging others is rare. Thank you.