Greenwald Moves On

[Magda Hassan]

First installment paid. Fifty million.

Omidyar invests in Greenwald venture

By DYLAN BYERS |

12/19/13 9:12 PM EST

Pierre Omidyar has dedicated an initial $50 million to the new media venture led by Glenn Greenwald, he announced Thursday.
The new venture will be called "First Look Media" and "will publish robust coverage of politics, government, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, arts and culture, business, technology, and investigative news," according to the announcement. Omidyar will serve as the organization's publisher.
"This initial capital is the first step of many to bring the vision of this news organization to life," Omidyar said in a statement. "I am deeply committed to the long-term effort to build a new and exciting platform for journalism one that not only provides the innovation and infrastructure journalists need to do their best work, but that brings their reporting and storytelling to the widest possible audience."
Omidyar announced his plans to fund a new venture back in October, hiring Greenwald away from The Guardian. Since then, the venture has brought on reporters Jeremy Scahill, Laura Poitras and Dan Froomkin, among others.
In October, Omidyar said he was ready to put at least $250 million behind the venture -- the same price Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid for The Washington Post earlier this year.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013...2I.twitter

[Peter Lemkin]

First installment paid. Fifty million.

Omidyar invests in Greenwald venture

By DYLAN BYERS | 12/19/13 9:12 PM EST


Pierre Omidyar has dedicated an initial $50 million to the new media venture led by Glenn Greenwald, he announced Thursday.
The new venture will be called "First Look Media" and "will publish robust coverage of politics, government, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, arts and culture, business, technology, and investigative news," according to the announcement. Omidyar will serve as the organization's publisher.
"This initial capital is the first step of many to bring the vision of this news organization to life," Omidyar said in a statement. "I am deeply committed to the long-term effort to build a new and exciting platform for journalism one that not only provides the innovation and infrastructure journalists need to do their best work, but that brings their reporting and storytelling to the widest possible audience."
Omidyar announced his plans to fund a new venture back in October, hiring Greenwald away from The Guardian. Since then, the venture has brought on reporters Jeremy Scahill, Laura Poitras and Dan Froomkin, among others.
In October, Omidyar said he was ready to put at least $250 million behind the venture -- the same price Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid for The Washington Post earlier this year.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013...2I.twitter

Now that is what we call 'real money'! 250 million! That would fund a huge operation, unless a handful are going to take home 'banker's salaries'. I don't trust Omidyar at this point. He'll have to prove me wrong. The Washington Post has always been close to the 'seat of government'. There are many examples - all too many - and I can't imagine the real power would allow a freelancer to own and operate it long. Strange daze!

[David Guyatt]

I don't trust him or his venture at all, and if Greenwald's first story/series is not a full and complete exposure of the rest of Snowden's NSA documents, we'll all know it was a sell out.

[Magda Hassan]

WikiLeaks' Sarah Harrison: 'How can you take Pierre Omidyar seriously?'

WikiLeaks staffer who accompanied Edward Snowden to Russia, attacks the eBay founder for not helping the 'PayPal 14'



The WikiLeaks staffer and Snowden collaborator Sarah Harrison has criticised Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder who is setting up a new journalism venture with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, for his involvement in the 2010 financial blockade against WikiLeaks.
In her first interview since leaving Moscow for Berlin last month, Harrison told German news weekly Stern: "How can you take something seriously when the person behind this platform went along with the financial boycott against WikiLeaks?"
Harrison was referring to the decision in December 2010 by PayPal, which is owned by eBay, to suspend WikiLeaks' donation account and freeze its assets after pressure from the US government. The company's boycott, combined with similar action taken by Visa and Mastercard, left WikiLeaks facing a funding crisis.
"His excuse is probably that there is nothing he could have done at the time," Harrison continued. "Well, he is on the board of directors. He can't shake off responsibility that easily. He didn't even comment on it. He could have said something like: 'we were forced to do this, but I am against it'."
Harrison joined WikiLeaks from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and worked with the organisation on the Afghan war logs and leaked cables projects. She now works on the WikiLeaks legal defence team, although she has no legal qualifications, and was catapulted to fame when she accompanied Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, on his flight from Hong Kong to Russia in June 2013.
Referring to Omidyar's plans to set up a new media organisation, in which the former Guardian writer Greenwald who wrote a number of stories from the Snowden revelations will play a central part, Harrison said: "If you set up a new media organisation which claims to do everything for press freedom, but you are part of a blockade against another media organisation, then that's hard for us to take it seriously. But I hope that they stick to their promises".
Harrison also suggests that Omidyar could have carried the legal costs of the 14 Anonymous hacktivists who were sent to prison for attacking PayPal over the boycott. "That would have been a nice gesture".

Jail sentences for hacktivism

On Thursday, 11 of the so-called "PayPal 14" pleaded guilty in a court in California to one felony count of conspiracy and one misdemeanour count of damaging a computer. They stood accused of organising a "distributed denial-of-service" (DDoS) attack, knocking PayPal's servers offline by overloading them with traffic in 2010, causing what the company estimated to be $5.5m of damage.
Two of the remaining defendants did not take the plea bargain offered, and pleaded guilty only to the misdemeanour charge, meaning they will be required to serve a 90-day jail term. The final defendant, Dennis Collins, did not attend the hearing as he was in Virginia facing similar charges over attacks on other websites at the same time.
In January, four British members of Anonymous were sentenced for the same campaign. Chris Weatherhead was given an 18-month sentence, Ashley Rhodes was handed a seven-month jail sentence, Peter Gibson was given a six month suspended sentence, and 18-year-old Jake Burchall was given an 18 month youth rehabilitation order.

"Vastly different"

Omidyar, however, argues that the tools used in a DDoS attack render them "vastly different than other forms of protest".
"The problem in this case," he wrote on the Huffington Post website on 3 December, "is that the tools being distributed by Anonymous are extremely powerful. They turn over control of a protester's computer to a central controller which can order it to make many hundreds of web page requests per second to a target website.
"It's like each protester can bring along 6,000 phantom friends without going to the trouble of convincing each of them to take an afternoon off and join the protest in the street."
But the eBay founder said that the law was too hard on the 14 defendants in the case. "It would be unjust to hold fourteen people accountable for the actions of a thousand… Each person should be accountable for the damage they personally caused.
"Second, the law allows prosecutors to calculate damage in a way that seems overstated. An appropriate damage estimate includes the pay and overtime pay required for employees to respond to the attack.
"But the damage estimate apparently being used by prosecutors in this case includes the cost of upgrading equipment to better defend against similar future attacks. To me, that doesn't make sense."
In the Stern interview, Harrison, who is British, also stated that she had chosen to move to Berlin because her lawyers had advised her that anti-terror laws had made it unsafe for her to travel back to the UK.
"Any activity which endangers the public order or could change the government's course of action can be interpreted as terrorism. The fight for women's right to vote, and the political protests that came with it, would under the current interpretation of the law be seen as terrorism. The rule of law is effectively disabled, and I believe that many people who are politically active feel unsafe in such an environment, not just me."
In Berlin, on the other hand, Harrison said she had a good network of friends and was able to continue working for WikiLeaks. "The German public is very well disposed towards Edward Snowden and what he has done. Personally and legally, I consider the risk I am under here as low."
This article was amended on 6 December 2013 to correct the number of British members of Anonymous who were sentenced in January, and to correct the date of the decision by PayPal to suspend WikiLeaks' donation account.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/20...bay-paypal

[Peter Lemkin]

[Peter Lemkin]

[David Guyatt]

Also from Sibel Edmond's Boiling Frogs website, part II of the ongoing Greenwald story.

To say that BFP distrusts Greenwald's motives is an understatement, I think

Part II- David Miranda's Detainment: The Calico Kitten in Wag-The-Dog?

SIBEL EDMONDS | JANUARY 6, 201423 COMMENTS
Dissecting Contradictions & Sensationalism in the NSA-Snowden ScandalIn August 2013 Glenn Greenwald's husband, David Miranda, was detained and questioned by authorities at London's Heathrow airport. Miranda was coming from Berlin, where he had met with Laura Poitras and was given thousands of top-secret Snowden-NSA documents. He had arrived at London's Heathrow airport while carrying in his laptop a large cache of the highly-publicized NSA documents. He was stopped and interrogated by British authorities for nearly nine hours.
The sensational story of David Miranda's detention became headline news for nearly two weeks. Mainstream outlets, from CNN and NBC, to the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, allocated around the clock coverage of the story. For weeks Glenn Greenwald gave numerous interviews of the story and the victimization of his innocent husband. Outside of a handful of news publications no one delved into the facts, contradictions, serious questions, and even more serious implications contained in this sensational plot. Run a search and read the extensive mainstream media coverage of the plot, and you'll see that every single one of them follows the exact same script and narration to the T.
Researching the history of and combining related facts and statements on Greenwald's Miranda drama results in dozens of contradictions, unanswered questions, and never-examined implications. For the purpose of this analysis I am going to present only the most significant facts, elements and questions.
Why Me?! What's in My Laptop?
Let us begin with why and how Glenn Greenwald's husband, David Miranda, ended up in Berlin, and then in London's Heathrow Airport, while carrying a laptop loaded with the most secretive stolen NSA documents.
When the story first broke in the media there was a cursory explanation for Miranda's trip: Oh, he was in Berlin for a short vacation, and while he was there he met with Laura Poitras and downloaded some of the explosive NSA documents into his laptop to take back with him to Brazil per his husband's request.

Miranda was on his way home to Rio after a week's vacation in Berlin, where he had visited Poitras, who'd given him some of the Snowden documents to bring back to Greenwald… Greenwald, who'd asked Miranda to bring him the materials, was outraged.
…

After that initial report went out as the main story line, and became the official narrative, a second version emerged; albeit, not the one publicized as the main narrative. According to this second version, contradicting the first one, Miranda was hired as Guardian's employee, he was paid by Guardian to go to Berlin and get the mother-load NSA cache from Laura Poitras. Guardian nonchalantly updated its initial version [All Emphasis Mine]:

While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights.
…

Of course, later, that version became a bit more comprehensive :

First, we learned from The New York Times that The Guardian financed Miranda's trip to Germany and back. This means Miranda was conducting some sort of official business for the publication. Around the same time, Amnesty International referred to Miranda as "a Guardian newspaper employee."
…

No matter- the main publicized narrative remained the same: The poor innocent damsel took an innocent vacation in Berlin, made a brief stop to obtain and download a few thousand top secret stolen documents, went to London carrying this loaded laptop, and lo and behold, the poor thing was stopped and harassed by British authority.
Meanwhile, David Miranda's version of his role and knowledge began changing and evolving as well.
During the initial stage Miranda batted his eyes filled with confusion and tears, and told Guardian how he was shocked by this unexpected detention, and that he didn't even know what kind of documents had been downloaded to his laptop. Okay, let's hear it from his own mouth via the culprit: Guardian [All Emphasis Mine]:

"It is clear why those took me. It's because I'm Glenn's partner. Because I went to Berlin. Because Laura lives there. So they think I have a big connection," he said. "But I don't have a role. I don't look at documents. I don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on."
…

So the outrageous story of this abused and innocent and unknowing damsel plays and plays, and plays again. For days. For weeks. On every channel and print publication.
A few months later, David Miranda's version of his knowledge and his role in this detention episode changed dramatically. After all it is a drama. In a very lengthy interview over several days, Miranda confessed. Let's read a few excerpts from the lengthy interview [All Emphasis Mine]:

Miranda knew very well that he was traveling from Rio to Berlin to see Greenwald's reporting partner, documentarian Laura Poitras, and that he would be returning through the U.K., all the time carrying a heavily encrypted flash drive directly related to the trove of documents that former and now notorious CIA employee Edward Snowden had vacuumed from the National Security Agency and had given to Greenwald earlier in the year.
Miranda started making arrangements to fly to Berlin and stay with Poitras. The simplest reason, Miranda explains: "Laura doesn't like to talk on the phone." …
"David was going to Berlin to talk to Laura anyways," Greenwald says, "and so he suggested that he just take the documents. Laura trusts David completely, so that became the new plan." Because Miranda was performing a service to support articles that were to be written for The Guardian, the newspaper paid for his trip and made his travel arrangements …
…

Now that the record establishes the real detention drama beginning as a planned and paid courier service performed knowingly by Greenwald's husband, contrary to how the mainstream media and the couple played it out initially, we must move to the next equally important fact.
Not All Roads Go Through London
Even before the detention drama, right from the beginning, immediately after the initial Snowden-NSA story broke, Glenn Greenwald's publicity rounds and his interviews emphasized that he and his partner had become major targets. He consistently expressed his suspicions that they were being watched and spied upon. Of course, it made sense. But here is what didn't make any sense whatsoever: Sending your lover-husband to Germany to download thousands of top-secret stolen documents sought by all the super powers in the world, under their watchful eyes, and then carry it in a laptop around the world and international airports.
How could one claim that he is a major target, that he and his husband are being watched and spied upon, being threatened, and being robbed, yet, in the midst of all these circumstances, that same person send his lover around the globe to download the most-wanted government data and carry it through antagonistic countries' airports?
In June 2013, Glenn Greenwald was busy giving interviews on him and his husband becoming a target, and having to take major precautions due to being watched:

Not surprisingly, since Greenwald has deepened his relationship with Snowden, he has taken extra digital security precautions, including communicating only by encrypted e-mail.
"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in [Rio de Janeiro] via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents," Greenwald noted. "I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it's connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists."
…

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Miranda on their laptops being stolen and becoming a target as early as June 2013, when Greenwald went to Hong Kong:

"And that's when it all started," Miranda says in a once-upon-a-time tone. It was with this Skype conversation, the couple believe, that Miranda became a target not only of government surveillance but intimidation to suppress Greenwald's journalism.
…

Another important point relevant to this insane drama scenario has to do with Greenwald's husband's transit airport choice: London's Heathrow. Of all the countries in the world the two main countries most affected by Edward Snowden's NSA leaks are: The United States and the United Kingdom.
Glenn Greenwald and his husband did not only ignore the supposed threats and surveillance. David Miranda didn't only go to Germany, download thousands of stolen NSA documents, and bring those top secret documents back to Glenn Greenwald in Brazil. He also chose the UK's, London's, Heathrow airport as his long-haul transit hub.
In case you are not aware, after the United States, Snowden's leaks targeted and affected the United Kingdom the most. How could Greenwald and Miranda not register this fact? After all, their reports from June 2013 until Miranda's drama contained many headlines involving the UK. Let me give you a few examples:
June 17, 2013
Documents uncovered by Edward Snowden show British eavesdropping agency GCHQ repeatedly hacking into diplomats' phones, emails: report
June 22, 2013
"GCHQ is worse than US', says whistleblower Edward Snowden as he claims British spies are collecting huge amounts of data from internet and phone calls"
June 21, 2013
GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications
July 7 2013
GCHQ Surveillance: The Power of Britain's Data Vacuum
July 20, 203
On July 20 GCHQ ordered Guardian to destroy Snowden files because its servers weren't secure
In a very thought-provoking article Bob Cesca also asks the same question:

Miranda was transporting volumes of stolen classified documents between two prime movers associated with one of the biggest stories of the Summer a story that's embarrassed both the United States and the United Kingdom. He was being paid to do it. Anyone who expected a smooth journey through an international airport without any security issues was lying to themselves.
…

So why would Greenwald and Miranda pick one of the most risky and threatening airports in the world for their mission involving transporting some of the world's most classified official documents?
Was London the only available hub to travel from Berlin-Germany to Rio-Brazil? Of course not. Just the opposite. Just run a simple query, and you'll see that Miranda could have chosen among dozens of flights other than London's Heathrow. He could have gotten to Brazil via transit in Madrid-Spain, or, Lisbon-Portugal, or, Paris-France, or … But no. Greenwald and his courier husband picked a British airport: London's Heathrow.
Why Not a New Venture: The World's Best Encryption Services!
Immediately following his husband's Heathrow Detention Drama Greenwald began handing out his in-advance-prepared canned answer to those who questioned the sanity of having his husband travelling around the world with a laptop filled with thousands of stolen NSA documents. He parroted the following answer: No worries, because the documents were so magnificently encrypted that no one could ever decrypt them. Neither NSA nor MI6, nor MI5, nor CIA, nor any terrorists nor anyone in the world could ever access those documents. Yeah, we are that good. Period. Let's check out one version of this canned response:

"We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry not just for the NSA stories," Greenwald said in an email to Forbes. "So everything he had for his personal use and everything else was heavily encrypted, and I'm not worried at all that they can break that."
…

Here is another one, where Greenwald claims to have mastered the world's most amazing encryption technique unbreakable by anyone in this world:

But he told ITV News "even the most advanced intelligence services" would find it "impossible" to access information that he and Mr. Miranda carry across the world because it is too well encrypted.
…

The responses from my former NSA sources were unanimous. They basically said the following:

Wow. This is phenomenal. This dude didn't have to sell out to PayPal billionaire Omidyar. With that kind of ability, the man can set up his own shop and make billions of dollars!
…

Here is a more eloquent and sophisticated response to Greenwald's claim to have come up with the world's safest encryption mastery:

Assessments within the information security industry, however, suggest Greenwald's confidence may be misplaced. In fact, when Conrad Constantine, a research team engineer at AlienVault, was asked what information the authorities may be able to glean from Miranda's devices, "The short answer," he said, "is whatever they want."
…

Let's put this claim of being a genius aside, and let's talk about another lie by omission that was exposed after the initial story became the official story.
Greenwald's courier husband was not only carrying a laptop loaded with top secret stolen NSA documents that were geniusly encrypted. He was also carrying in his pocket a piece of paper that had the codes and passwords to some of these top secret NSA documents. I am not joking. If you had not heard of this before you have the mainstream media to be thankful for, since they made sure that they followed the original scripted-narrative all along.
Here is a follow up exposé on how David Miranda carried the instructions and passwords to some of the so-called encrypted top secret files in his laptop:

The government's statement claims possession of the documents by Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald and the Guardian posed a threat to national security, particularly because Mr. Miranda was carrying a password alongside a range of electronic devices on which classified documents were stored. Keeping passwords separate from the computer files or accounts to which they relate is a basic security step.
Among the unencrypted documents … was a piece of paper that included the password for decrypting one of the encrypted files on the external hard drive recovered from the claimant… "The fact that … the claimant was carrying on his person a handwritten piece of paper containing the password for one of the encrypted files … is a sign of very poor information security practice."
…

As always Greenwald tried to recover from the exposé with his usual fudging. According to him having the instructions, codes and passwords would not help the GCHQ in decryption of the documents. After all, didn't we say he'd come up with the world's greatest one and only genius encryption? However, the UK government says otherwise:

Oliver Robbins, a senior adviser for intelligence security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, said that while the memory sticks Mr. Miranda had were encrypted, the Government had been able to view 58,000 pages of highly classified documents on one of them because Mr. Miranda had passwords and basic instructions written on paper he was carrying.
…

Of course, according to Mr. Greenwald they are all lying, and no one should ever consider his own thick record when it comes to lying and fudging. The example below is a good one to illustrate one more time this consistent trait exhibited by Mr. Greenwald.
Greenwald: They "Denied" My Husband's Request for an Attorney
We already talked about Greenwald making hundreds of publicity rounds, giving mainstream media interviews, and milking this bizarre-ly scripted detention drama. We have already covered the initial omission of his husband's paid trip as a courier (aka mule) on the payroll of the Guardian. But that's not all.
To make the theatrical performance more dramatic and heart-wrenching, Glenn Greenwald went on record dozens of times claiming that his mule husband was denied his right to an attorney while under interrogation. Let us quote him directly from one of his many mainstream interview records [All Emphasis Mine]:

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.
…

Here is Greenwald again, even more specific in his lie:

The official who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.
…

Then, one day later, the Guardian's story changed. So did Greenwald's. Only after the media reported that Miranda "refused" a lawyer because he didn't trust the UK. Here is Guardian changing its original story line again:

He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
…

A Publicity Stunt, or, the Calico Kitten in Wag-the-Dog?
Now that we have documented the contradictions and lies pertaining to David Miranda's paid and in-advance-calculated mission trip, Greenwald and Miranda's never-explained bizarre choice of the London Heathrow Hub, the genius encryption claim accompanied by instructions and password codes for the treasures in Miranda's laptop, the lies on being denied an attorney, let's examine the possible purposes for this sensationalized Heathrow Detention Drama.
I am going to go back to the lengthy interview given by David Miranda to Natasha Vargas-Cooper. According to Miranda, his stay with Laura Poitras in Berlin had other equally important business purposes. What business matters? Well, according to Miranda, during this time period, in August 2013, Greenwald and Poitras were spending time and energy securing the best and most lucrative movie and other life-rights deals [All Emphasis Mine]:

Miranda started making arrangements to fly to Berlin and stay with Poitras. The simplest reason, Miranda explains: "Laura doesn't like to talk on the phone." And there was plenty to talk about primarily movie rights. Studios started courting Miranda, Greenwald, and Poitras for rights to their story since Poitras' first images of an unshaven Snowden began to saturate the news cycle. (All signs point to a Sony-helmed production with Ed Norton perhaps playing Greenwald; Greenwald says he doesn't care much which actor is chosen, but half-jokingly adds that only David Miranda could play David Miranda "Who else could be so smoldering and broody?") He planned to go Berlin to meet with Poitras and her editors to strategize on getting the best and "most serious" version of their story made into a movie, Miranda says.
Miranda flew to Berlin on Aug. 18 and did the typical club and upscale restaurant scene with Poitras and some of her friends in and around Alexanderplatz. Poitras and Miranda hashed out some details about movie rights.
…

Now remember, this is only two months after the Snowden-NSA story became public. Yet we have Greenwald and Poitras already busily involved in securing the best and most lucrative movie and book right deals. Could this be a strategically timed marketing and publicity stunt to drive up the price of their business, movie and book deals? Was this a marketing ploy created by Poitras-Greenwald and Miranda-who is also striving for high-sums and movie deals? Before you write-off such a logical possibility, consider it based on Miranda's talent, goals and objectives [All Emphasis Mine]:

Miranda has the day off from a cramped school week that includes a major group project on branding and marketing for a local café. Miranda is in his final year at university, where he is majoring in communications. He would ideally like to become a marketing and communications specialist for a major media company, particularly one with a thriving video game department.
Glenn and I have talked all the time about what doing these stories would do to our lives. Since we met, I've pushed him and supported him," Miranda says. He starts counting on his fingers: "I've helped him negotiate contracts; I make sure he gets paid what he deserves Glenn just wants to work and sometimes will do it for cheap."
…

How much publicity would a well-plotted and well-acted detention drama at Heathrow Airport create? A lot. Didn't it? How much value would it add to their movie and book rights? Tremendously, of course. Wouldn't it? Thus, considering all the contradictions, omissions, lies, and exaggerations, could this be a publicity stunt? Highly possible.
There is also a logical possibility of even higher-level directorates and producers for this melodramatic detention story that never added up. Let us watch a short clip from another one of my favorite movies, Wag the Dog, in order to understand what I'm referring to:
Had the establishment and their script writers decided to insert a cat in their wag-the-dog script? If so, which character is David Miranda in this scripted drama? Is he the Albanian damsel running across Heathrow Airport? Or is he the Calico Kitten being held, shown-off and commoditized by the damsel (his wife-Glenn Greenwald)? I leave the answer up to you. Your call.
# # # #Sibel Edmonds' Series on NSA-Snowden-Glenn Greenwald
Part I: The Doomsday Insurance Cache That Was, and Then Never Was

- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/...Ju2WX.dpuf

[Peter Lemkin]

Its all very strange indeed!.....the contradictions are building and most worrying are the security and preservation of whatever NSA and related documents once existed...are they still somewhere safe, or....?! [Not to mention who is now in charge of them - wherever they may be]

[Keith Millea]

Arianna sells her soul again...OH LOOKIE HERE:The editorial board includes a roster of billionaires, such as Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google; Pierre Omidyar,

Published on Thursday, January 9, 2014 by Common Dreams

Another Media Platform for the World's Rich and Powerful?

As Arianna Huffington teams up with billionaire Nicolas Berggruen in new venture, critics charge, 'The 1% are about to get their own publication'

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

Arianna Huffington at the Time 100 Gala in New York in 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

Are the world's rich and powerful getting yet another international media platform?


Online media tycoon Arianna Huffington and billionaire Nicolas Berggruen announced Thursday they are combining forces in a 50/50 launch of The World Post an international news website that will replace the World section of The Huffington Post, in addition to a stand-alone online presence and syndication to print publications around the world.


The editorial board includes a roster of billionaires, such as Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google; Pierre Omidyar, the founder and chairman of eBay; and Walter Isaacson, the chief executive of the Aspen Institute. Former British prime minister Tony Blair and Microsoft's Bill Gates, as well as advisers to the billionaire's think tank the Berggruen Institutewill be numbered among the publication's contributors, The Guardian reports.


The site will officially launch at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland later in Januaryan annual gathering of the world's most rich and powerful people.


The announcement immediately kicked up a firestorm of criticism.


"The 1% are about to get their own publication," wrote Dominic Rush in The Guardian.


Berggruen and Huffington claim that they will feature elite voices alongside lesser-known ones. "You can have all those heads of state and major business people, etcetera etcetera, writing right next to an unemployed man from Spain, a student from Brazil," Huffington told The Guardian.


Yet a Wikileaks tweet cast doubt on this claim, taking aim at the new outlet's known roster of billionaire CEOs, architects of war, and powerful politicians:

Huffington, Omidyar join together with famous war criminals, billionaires to launch new media venture at Davos http://t.co/CXuA5eeaqz
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 9, 2014

Renowned historian and journalist Vijay Prashad declared on Twitter:

Not only will World Post be funded by a billionaire, but it will be a platform for billionaires to form the narrative w/o comprador voices.
Vijay Prashad (@vijayprashad) January 9, 2014

Jim Naureckas of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting indicated that, given the current media landscape, there is nothing surprising about the new venture.

"1% about to get their own publication," @Guardian says of World Post. How many publications AREN'T owned by 1%? http://t.co/XZQxfesdUy
Jim Naureckas (@JNaureckas) January 9, 2014

Jeff Cohen, director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College and founder of FAIR, told Common Dreams that, while he is generally supportive of Huffington, he is taken aback by the latest development.

"I believe in general Arianna Huffington has had a genuinely positive media impact," Cohen told Common Dreams. "This move is as confusing as the AOL merger."


He added, "The elite don't need any help. They already have a platform."

[Peter Lemkin]

He added, "The elite don't need any help. They already have a platform."

Amen!