Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Assistant Quote of the Day


"Is this Occupy Wall Street thing a big deal? We’re trying to figure out how much we should be worried about all of this. Is this going to turn into a personal safety problem?”

-- Anonymous bank CEO to New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin

This revealing line comes from a piece published in yesterday's Times, the first Sorkin has written on the Occupy Wall Street movement. I know this because Glenn Greenwald, predictably, is complaining about the tone of the piece, why it took Sorkin this long to get around to writing it, and the fact that his decision to take on the assignment seems to have come at the request of the very bank CEO referenced above.

I'd suggest taking a look at Sorkin's column and judging for yourself what you think of it, then check out Greenwald's pedantic dissection of it -- if for no other reason than to see Glenn Greenwald actually refer to someone as displaying "characteristically snotty, petty, pseudo-intellectual condescension" with what I assume is a straight face.

5 comments:

cousinavi said...

to see Glenn Greenwald actually refer to someone as displaying "characteristically snotty, petty, pseudo-intellectual condescension" with what I assume is a straight face.

Ouch.
Hypocrisy, I stab at thee.
For hate's sake.
Last breath and what have you.

Anonymous said...

Both are guilty of the modern arm chair, broad stroke, have to make my 6 o’clock dinner reservation hackery that makes modern journalism. Sorkin’s piece seems to be trying to say the Occupy the Street movement is hypocritical, irrelevant, and potentially dangerous all at the same time. I can see why it could be interpreted as doing the bidding of a “banker friend.” In the end, my guess is Sorkin’s just too lazy/apathetic to do any real reporting about it. Greenwald, of all people, seems to making the argument that just because something is not “pure” doesn’t mean it is not valid. I am sure he will be the first to take credit if the movement catches on and actually leads to national policy change. But he has hedged his bets enough that if the protests fall out of the new cycle next week, he can criticize it for its “failings.”
Overall, my half-assed opinion is that both are a good example of just how detached much of the media is from the day to day lives of US, and world, citizens. Both win ($$) no matter what “Occupy the Street” ever becomes.

Marc McKenzie said...

"...if for no other reason than to see Glenn Greenwald actually refer to someone as displaying "characteristically snotty, petty, pseudo-intellectual condescension" with what I assume is a straight face."

Wow. I wonder if Glenn has looked into the mirror lately...

Mart said...

Generally a "Glennbot"; I was disturbed by his rhetoric that Democratic institutions joining the dirty young hippies was a bad thing. Like it or not, we have a two party system; a system I feel has moved dramatically to the right. What the hell would be wrong with a large consensus anti-Wall Street movement moving conventional wisdom to the left? (Is the Chez is getting into my brain?)

dls said...

Sorkin was on an episode of Bill Maher's show a while back and, from what I saw, Greenwald's description seems completely apt.

He also got into a pissing match with Paul Krugman regarding economics earlier this year.

I don't like either of them but if I had to choose sides I would definitely choose Greenwald's.