In Michael Kinsley's "review" of Greenwald's new book "No Place to Hide" he writes:
The question is who decides. It seems clear, at least to me, that the private companies that own newspapers, and their employees, should not have the final say over the release of government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no legal consequences. In a democracy (which, pace Greenwald, we still are), that decision must ultimately be made by the government. No doubt the government will usually be overprotective of its secrets, and so the process of decision-making — whatever it turns out to be — should openly tilt in favor of publication with minimal delay. But ultimately you can’t square this circle. Someone gets to decide, and that someone cannot be Glenn Greenwald.
When the Book Review editor was asked why they chose Kinsley she defended it stating that it was "smart" and "well-written." That is only if you think using the term "self-righteous sourpuss" is top-notch writing.
Mr. Kinsley forgets the critical role of the press. It should not be up to the government to decide what gets printed, but the companies themselves. If we left it to the government then the First Amendment means nothing.
Margaret Sullivan of the NYT states,
"Mr. Kinsley’s argument is particularly strange to see advanced in the paper that heroically published the Pentagon Papers, and many of the Snowden revelations as well. What if his views were taken to their logical conclusion? Picture Daniel Ellsberg and perhaps the Times reporter Neil Sheehan in jail; and think of all that Americans would still be in the dark about — from the C.I.A.’s black sites to the abuses of the Vietnam War to the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the widespread spying on ordinary Americans."
I, too, would be interested in Mr. Kinsley's stance on the Pentagon Papers.