

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Michael Grunwald, Time magazine's senior national correspondent, has come under enormous fire this weekend for declaring his support for the extrajudicial murder of Wikileaks' publisher and embattled journalist Julian Assange.
In what is perhaps the most singular and noxious example yet of how establishment media figures express their contempt for those journalists who have chosen to challenge government and corporate power as oppose to coddling that authority, Grunwald tweeted:

Though Grunwald deleted the original tweet--after someone pointed out, according to the Huffington Post, how it would "only encourage Assange supporters"--it was too late to stem the fallout.
An archived version of the original tweet and the responses and retweets it generated are available here.
Shortly after it was deleted, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald--himself the target of similar vitriol from establishment "journalists"--tweeted:
Wikileaks also jumped into the debate, calling for Grunwald's dismissal and using social media to call out Time for the behavior of their correspondent*:
And Greenwald, referring to his being called "an activist" and "not a journalist" by numerous mainstream news outlets and pundits due to his hard-hitting role as commentator on issues like civil liberties, Bush era crimes, and government/media complicity over the years, tweeted this about Grunwald's comments:
In the aftermath of early reporting by Greenwald based on NSA documents released to him by Edward Snowden this past June, NBC host of Meet the Press David Gregory famously asked the Guardian journalist if he himself should be prosecuted for "aiding and abetting" Snowden because he met with him in Hong Kong to interview the whistleblower and discuss the NSA documents and the revelations they contained.
Greenwald was sharp in his response to Gregory, saying, "I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."
And continued, "If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States."
Now, in Grunwald's case, it goes beyond musing on whether or not a journalist should be investigated or arrested for investigative work, but whether they should simply be assassinated by a foreign government.
Later on Saturday, Grunwald retracted his statement:
Prior to this Grunwald had retweeted a series of nasty tweets posted to and about him, to which Greenwald responded:
The Huffington Post adds:
Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the substance of his tweet. "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views," a TIME spokesperson said. "He regrets having tweeted it, and he removed it from his feed."
The reporter had previously criticized the opposition to drone strikes. In March, Grunwald tweeted that he doesn't understand why people were concerned about the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, by drone strike in Yemen.
"While I'm on the uncaring kick," the tweet said, "I don't even get why I'm SUPPOSED to care about the American we iced in Yemen. He was Al Qaeda!"
Despite the deletion of the "offensive comment," however, there was no apology directed toward Mr. Assange.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the conversation continued:
Tweets about "mikegrunwald assange wikileaks"
*Correction: This news post erroneously identified Time magazine's editor-in-chief as Tina Brown. However, Brown works for Newsweek/Daily Beast, not Time.
_________________________________________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

Michael Grunwald, Time magazine's senior national correspondent, has come under enormous fire this weekend for declaring his support for the extrajudicial murder of Wikileaks' publisher and embattled journalist Julian Assange.
In what is perhaps the most singular and noxious example yet of how establishment media figures express their contempt for those journalists who have chosen to challenge government and corporate power as oppose to coddling that authority, Grunwald tweeted:

Though Grunwald deleted the original tweet--after someone pointed out, according to the Huffington Post, how it would "only encourage Assange supporters"--it was too late to stem the fallout.
An archived version of the original tweet and the responses and retweets it generated are available here.
Shortly after it was deleted, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald--himself the target of similar vitriol from establishment "journalists"--tweeted:
Wikileaks also jumped into the debate, calling for Grunwald's dismissal and using social media to call out Time for the behavior of their correspondent*:
And Greenwald, referring to his being called "an activist" and "not a journalist" by numerous mainstream news outlets and pundits due to his hard-hitting role as commentator on issues like civil liberties, Bush era crimes, and government/media complicity over the years, tweeted this about Grunwald's comments:
In the aftermath of early reporting by Greenwald based on NSA documents released to him by Edward Snowden this past June, NBC host of Meet the Press David Gregory famously asked the Guardian journalist if he himself should be prosecuted for "aiding and abetting" Snowden because he met with him in Hong Kong to interview the whistleblower and discuss the NSA documents and the revelations they contained.
Greenwald was sharp in his response to Gregory, saying, "I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."
And continued, "If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States."
Now, in Grunwald's case, it goes beyond musing on whether or not a journalist should be investigated or arrested for investigative work, but whether they should simply be assassinated by a foreign government.
Later on Saturday, Grunwald retracted his statement:
Prior to this Grunwald had retweeted a series of nasty tweets posted to and about him, to which Greenwald responded:
The Huffington Post adds:
Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the substance of his tweet. "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views," a TIME spokesperson said. "He regrets having tweeted it, and he removed it from his feed."
The reporter had previously criticized the opposition to drone strikes. In March, Grunwald tweeted that he doesn't understand why people were concerned about the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, by drone strike in Yemen.
"While I'm on the uncaring kick," the tweet said, "I don't even get why I'm SUPPOSED to care about the American we iced in Yemen. He was Al Qaeda!"
Despite the deletion of the "offensive comment," however, there was no apology directed toward Mr. Assange.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the conversation continued:
Tweets about "mikegrunwald assange wikileaks"
*Correction: This news post erroneously identified Time magazine's editor-in-chief as Tina Brown. However, Brown works for Newsweek/Daily Beast, not Time.
_________________________________________________

Michael Grunwald, Time magazine's senior national correspondent, has come under enormous fire this weekend for declaring his support for the extrajudicial murder of Wikileaks' publisher and embattled journalist Julian Assange.
In what is perhaps the most singular and noxious example yet of how establishment media figures express their contempt for those journalists who have chosen to challenge government and corporate power as oppose to coddling that authority, Grunwald tweeted:

Though Grunwald deleted the original tweet--after someone pointed out, according to the Huffington Post, how it would "only encourage Assange supporters"--it was too late to stem the fallout.
An archived version of the original tweet and the responses and retweets it generated are available here.
Shortly after it was deleted, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald--himself the target of similar vitriol from establishment "journalists"--tweeted:
Wikileaks also jumped into the debate, calling for Grunwald's dismissal and using social media to call out Time for the behavior of their correspondent*:
And Greenwald, referring to his being called "an activist" and "not a journalist" by numerous mainstream news outlets and pundits due to his hard-hitting role as commentator on issues like civil liberties, Bush era crimes, and government/media complicity over the years, tweeted this about Grunwald's comments:
In the aftermath of early reporting by Greenwald based on NSA documents released to him by Edward Snowden this past June, NBC host of Meet the Press David Gregory famously asked the Guardian journalist if he himself should be prosecuted for "aiding and abetting" Snowden because he met with him in Hong Kong to interview the whistleblower and discuss the NSA documents and the revelations they contained.
Greenwald was sharp in his response to Gregory, saying, "I think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies."
And continued, "If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it's precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States."
Now, in Grunwald's case, it goes beyond musing on whether or not a journalist should be investigated or arrested for investigative work, but whether they should simply be assassinated by a foreign government.
Later on Saturday, Grunwald retracted his statement:
Prior to this Grunwald had retweeted a series of nasty tweets posted to and about him, to which Greenwald responded:
The Huffington Post adds:
Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the substance of his tweet. "Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views," a TIME spokesperson said. "He regrets having tweeted it, and he removed it from his feed."
The reporter had previously criticized the opposition to drone strikes. In March, Grunwald tweeted that he doesn't understand why people were concerned about the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, by drone strike in Yemen.
"While I'm on the uncaring kick," the tweet said, "I don't even get why I'm SUPPOSED to care about the American we iced in Yemen. He was Al Qaeda!"
Despite the deletion of the "offensive comment," however, there was no apology directed toward Mr. Assange.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the conversation continued:
Tweets about "mikegrunwald assange wikileaks"
*Correction: This news post erroneously identified Time magazine's editor-in-chief as Tina Brown. However, Brown works for Newsweek/Daily Beast, not Time.
_________________________________________________