3 ms·
Yeah, Greenwald has gone off the deep end over the last 2-3 years. He's pretty much paralleled the fall of Wikileaks, where they made some important points at
by paulmd 8y ago
Yeah, Greenwald has gone off the deep end over the last 2-3 years. He's pretty much paralleled the fall of Wikileaks, where they made some important points at the start but have fallen into the orbit of Russia specifically and anti-americanism generally.
Whatever you think of the Democrats or American foreign policy, there really is no call for actually defending Russia and their foreign policy, or downplaying their attempts to subvert our election system, and that's where Greenwald has been for the last couple years. He generally views Russia as a countervailing force to American/Democratic power and thus a necessary evil. Which, yuck.
There is still important work being done on exposing American mass surveillance and other such topics, but it's not being done by Greenwald, who mostly seems concerned with sniping on Twitter at this point.
- int_19h 8y agoI feel like it's only true if you just assign positive and negative points to stories, and then count the balance. But that model lacks too much nuance to be useful. You can be very much appalled at Russia, while also acknowledging that a lot of criticism that comes form the left is borderline conspiracy theory stuff with zero evidence to it. And if you're preaching to a specific audience, it might look imbalanced overall, because you don't waste time addressing the points on which your audience agrees with you anyway. For example - and I'm saying this as a liberal - it is becoming standard fare to dismiss any criticism of any left-wing policy as "Russian bots". Does someone calling it out means that they reject the general notion that Russia employs paid shill accounts and bots for propaganda purposes? Of course not.