The Intercept Takes a Dive
On October 31, 2014, I raised a simple question: Does Glenn Greenwald Believe in Santa Claus? The question arose out of Greenwald’s dual role a editor of The Intercept and recipient of major funding for that publication from his patron, E-Bay billionaire Pierre Omidyar. His patron has a clear position in support of the United States, neoconservative inspired Ukraine coup of 2014 and resulting in a government that waged war on its own people in the eastern part of the country. How could Greenwald serve two masters – honest journalism and financial dependence?
Ronald Thomas West provides part of that answer in his article re-posted below. This is one of the few articles on Ukraine in The Intercept. The credibility of that publications commitment to honest coverage of this most important event is indicated in the quality of the article West critiques. Michael Collins
The Intercept Takes a Dive Feb 20, 2015
Ronald Thomas West – authors blog
Re-posted with permission
I sent this in a mail to Glenn Greenwald, as well submitted it as a comment (that did not post) at the article:
Reads like a BBC propaganda piece
And with that short mail concerning the (above linked) article at The Intercept, you will discover a short, shallow piece that parrots a Ukrainian (Kiev) narrative claiming Ukrainian forces have downed a Russian surveillance drone. What’s wrong with this picture? As a former qualified operator of an American surface to air missile system (Improved HAWK) I can tell you right off this is a surface to air missile systems test drone and not a surveillance model. It is as simple as the color. A surveillance drone will be painted to blend with the sky. The Russians are not going to beg Kiev’s forces to shoot down one of their surveillance drones by sending it overhead painted bright orange.
Now, to the article’s author; Askold Krushelnycky. Firstly, in his own words, he was clearly in the camp of the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ (a CIA instigated ‘color revolution‘ or part of the ‘democracy’ investment Victoria Nuland had reported the USA spent $5 billion on) putting him squarely in political opposition to the Russian ethnic majority of the Donbass region of Ukraine. So much for impartiality.
Secondly, Krushelnycky is first generation British of Ukrainian “refugee” descent, opening the question of whether Krushelnycky is of Stephen Bandera aligned stock. Most of the Ukrainian nationals who were allowed into the USA, Canada and Britain after WW II were radical right wing who’d supported Hitler in Ukraine, including an ethnic Ukrainian division of Waffen SS rescued in the thousands. Did The Intercept do a background check on Krushelnycky? I doubt it.
Thirdly, Krushelnycky is reporting from Mariupol, the Kiev held area where Right Sector (Ukrainian Nazis) has its own independent ‘Azov’ battalion. If he were inclined to report factually (particularly in relation to Azov battalion provocations), he’d have immediate problems with these people. Not to mention Kiev has pushed so many outrageous lies, Kiev propaganda compares well to Roger Rabbit; insofar as reality.
Fourthly, and here it gets very sticky for The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept’s bankroller, has funded elements in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, a de facto support contributing to the present civil war. Clearly Omidyar has been supporting the side of those now constituting the regime in Kiev, which also so happens align with the politics of Intercept reporter Krushelnycky. Glenn Greenwald has claimed Omidyar’s support for the parties ruling in Kiev will make no difference in the reporting coming out of The Intercept; but actions here speak louder than words … I had actually been wondering why reporting on Ukraine had been conspicuously absent at The Intercept and now we have a shallow, rank propaganda piece worthy of those very whores of journalism Greenwald & friends have so eloquently bashed elsewhere.
C’est la vie.