re: #99 Dark_Falcon

I’m not so sure you would, given the consequences if you did. If your interviewer just tore into Greenwald, even fully honestly, then his publicity firm would blacklist your publication. You’d likely never get an interview from one of their clients again. And other publicity firms would likely not want to deal with you as well for a significant period after you ambushed Greenwald.

I don’t think you know me well enough to make that call. I would make sure my reporter had researched enough to ask tough, honest questions, not “What was it like being the center of international intrigue?” Greenwald slags on Tim Russert, for example, for being a toady to the powerful. He complains about the complicity of the media in the agenda of the national security state. If he wants an adversarial press, then that’s a two-way street.

Also, fuck the publicity firms. Greenwald, as a “journalist” should be willing and able to handle tough questions.

And, fwiw, I wouldn’t be ambushing anyone. I’m not particularly a fan of the “60 Minutes” style of doing that. I would, however, make clear to GG that the interview would not be softball questions.

If he wanted to back out at that point, I’d write about that too.

The problem with what you’re saying is that such PR hackery is exactly what neuters the press we have now. It’s why senior government officials can give juicy quotes to reporters and be recorded as “a source close to the president.” It’s bullshit, and I think people would support an outlet that didn’t play those games. I.F. Stone seemed to make a decent career out of it.