3 ms·

He spent a couple of years blasting Hillary for being a warhawk, for how her campaign was run and questioning the obsession with Russia. https://www.newyorker.

He spent a couple of years blasting Hillary for being a warhawk, for how her campaign was run and questioning the obsession with Russia. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwal... Apparently questioning the party status quo is the worst thing that you can do. "Greenwald’s political writing, which focusses on dramas of strength and weakness, and on the corruptions of empires. Greenwald writes aggressively about perceived aggression. His instinct is to identify, in any conflict, the side that is claiming authority or incumbency, and then to throw his weight against that claim, in favor of the unauthorized or the unlicensed—the intruder. Invariably, the body with authority is malign and corrupt; any criticisms of the intruder are vilifications or “smears.” He rarely weighs counter-arguments in public, and his policy goals are more often implied than spoken."

repolfx 8y ago
I've been reading Greenwald for years and don't recognise that description at all. But it comes from the New Yorker so this is perhaps not a surprise. It's worth being extremely careful paying any attention to American media on the topic of Glenn Greenwald. He is essentially the only journalist in the world who routinely and strongly criticises other journalists and points out their lying and manipulations. In recent times he's written a series of articles showing how frequently US media's stories related to Russia collapse, are retracted or turn out to be fraudulent. He also got the scoop of the decade when Snowden went directly to him and Poitras, news non-entities, because he simply didn't trust other journalists at all. I suspect by now most Washington/New York based journalists hate his guts.
- paulmd 8y ago
  > I suspect by now most Washington/New York based journalists hate his guts. Not so - he is a regular guest on Fox News. He's become very partisan over the years, and you can guess the slant based on the media where he chooses to appear. I wouldn't say he is so much pro-Republican as anti-Democrat but it's getting really hard to say. Pro-Russian and pro-Republican politics have gotten all mixed up together since 2016. I wouldn't say he is outwardly pro-trump, but he certainly doesn't seem to criticize him to anywhere near the extent he lavishes on the Democrats. Nor does he seem to be particularly concerned with criticizing American foreign policy now that Republicans are in the drivers' seat, which was his fig-leaf back in the early teens. And in fact, he spends most of his time justifying the exact same types of behavior from the Russians. So much for "questioning the politics of the status quo and the corruption of empires". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
  - busterarm 8y ago
    > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... So the anti-war, anti-domestic spying, gay progressive duck is a conservative Trump-lover? What ducks are you looking at?
    - paulmd 8y ago
      Oh, well, if he's gay then it's cool. /s Poltics makes for strange bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy can easily become my friend. There is a certain segment of the left that seamlessly transitioned from criticizing Democrats and American foreign policy into cheering Russian propagandizing and backing Russian foreign policy goals ("as a counterweight to American power" or similar). Greenwald is one of them. If his critical of the power of empire, now would be a good time to start criticizing the other side too. Democrats haven't held power for almost 2 years now and spending all his breath criticizing them isn't really helpful. It is, however, revealing about his agenda. Again, I don't think he was always like this. He used to be doing legitimate journalism, deep dives into American abuses of power that nobody else was doing. It was good work, regardless of whether the expose happened under a Democratic administration. That journalism is still happening, while Greenwald is off doing Fox News segments on how bad Democrats are. He's just not involved in it. His decline from investigative journalist into partisan shill is very, very blatant. And I do feel from him, there is no question the media gave him a very rough go after Showden. But it doesn't excuse his "activism" since 2016. One good expose doesn't beatify everything you do for the rest of your life. I think it's probably mostly him burying his head in the sand about the consequences of his activism. I don't think he consciously wants to trade American empire for Russian empire, he just can't get past the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, or viewing Russia as a counterbalance to American power, however you want to put it. I hope he gets back on the horse, but right now he's definitely kinda broke-brained. C'mon, the guy spends his time on his farm caring for the 40 dogs he's rescued, nobody does that who's not at least a little broke-brained. I wish him a speedy recovery (dogs help with that!), but right now you really shouldn't be taking him overly seriously.
      - int_19h 8y ago
- busterarm 8y ago
  I actually am mostly in agreement with you, I'm just explaining the perspective of the people who _hate_ him. The New Yorker article is actually very interesting and pretty generous towards Glenn.

repolfx 8y ago

I've been reading Greenwald for years and don't recognise that description at all. But it comes from the New Yorker so this is perhaps not a surprise. It's worth being extremely careful paying any attention to American media on the topic of Glenn Greenwald. He is essentially the only journalist in the world who routinely and strongly criticises other journalists and points out their lying and manipulations. In recent times he's written a series of articles showing how frequently US media's stories related to Russia collapse, are retracted or turn out to be fraudulent. He also got the scoop of the decade when Snowden went directly to him and Poitras, news non-entities, because he simply didn't trust other journalists at all. I suspect by now most Washington/New York based journalists hate his guts.

paulmd 8y ago
> I suspect by now most Washington/New York based journalists hate his guts. Not so - he is a regular guest on Fox News. He's become very partisan over the years, and you can guess the slant based on the media where he chooses to appear. I wouldn't say he is so much pro-Republican as anti-Democrat but it's getting really hard to say. Pro-Russian and pro-Republican politics have gotten all mixed up together since 2016. I wouldn't say he is outwardly pro-trump, but he certainly doesn't seem to criticize him to anywhere near the extent he lavishes on the Democrats. Nor does he seem to be particularly concerned with criticizing American foreign policy now that Republicans are in the drivers' seat, which was his fig-leaf back in the early teens. And in fact, he spends most of his time justifying the exact same types of behavior from the Russians. So much for "questioning the politics of the status quo and the corruption of empires". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
- busterarm 8y ago
  > If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... So the anti-war, anti-domestic spying, gay progressive duck is a conservative Trump-lover? What ducks are you looking at?
  - paulmd 8y ago
    Oh, well, if he's gay then it's cool. /s Poltics makes for strange bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy can easily become my friend. There is a certain segment of the left that seamlessly transitioned from criticizing Democrats and American foreign policy into cheering Russian propagandizing and backing Russian foreign policy goals ("as a counterweight to American power" or similar). Greenwald is one of them. If his critical of the power of empire, now would be a good time to start criticizing the other side too. Democrats haven't held power for almost 2 years now and spending all his breath criticizing them isn't really helpful. It is, however, revealing about his agenda. Again, I don't think he was always like this. He used to be doing legitimate journalism, deep dives into American abuses of power that nobody else was doing. It was good work, regardless of whether the expose happened under a Democratic administration. That journalism is still happening, while Greenwald is off doing Fox News segments on how bad Democrats are. He's just not involved in it. His decline from investigative journalist into partisan shill is very, very blatant. And I do feel from him, there is no question the media gave him a very rough go after Showden. But it doesn't excuse his "activism" since 2016. One good expose doesn't beatify everything you do for the rest of your life. I think it's probably mostly him burying his head in the sand about the consequences of his activism. I don't think he consciously wants to trade American empire for Russian empire, he just can't get past the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing, or viewing Russia as a counterbalance to American power, however you want to put it. I hope he gets back on the horse, but right now he's definitely kinda broke-brained. C'mon, the guy spends his time on his farm caring for the 40 dogs he's rescued, nobody does that who's not at least a little broke-brained. I wish him a speedy recovery (dogs help with that!), but right now you really shouldn't be taking him overly seriously.
    - int_19h 8y ago
busterarm 8y ago
I actually am mostly in agreement with you, I'm just explaining the perspective of the people who _hate_ him. The New Yorker article is actually very interesting and pretty generous towards Glenn.