4 ms·

That sounds pretty worrying, as I often respect his commentary and journalism. Can you link to or quote where he claimed what you're saying he did about Russian

That sounds pretty worrying, as I often respect his commentary and journalism. Can you link to or quote where he claimed what you're saying he did about Russian interference?

padseeker 7y ago
"Journalist Glenn Greenwald told Hill.TV's "Rising" on Monday that the news media's response to the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is "genuinely stunning," accusing the press of continuing to promote the "conspiracy" that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia in 2016." ... “The reality is that for three years there has been a conspiracy theory that has dominated our political and media discourse, which is that Donald Trump conspired with Russia over the 2016 election and that he’s an agent of the Russian government along with many of his associates," he continued. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-media-reaction-to-mueller-report-is-genuinely-stunning https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-medi... He's been very outspoken that he thinks the Russian interference is bs. His angle seems to be the Democrats aren't liberal enough. 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...
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  "Russia did not try to influence the US election" and "Trump did not actively conspire with Russia" are two very different claims.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- michaeltoth 7y ago
  There's a big difference between saying Trump didn't conspire with the Russians (what Greenwald said" and saying the Russians didn't attempt to interfere. It's astonishing how people conflate these two things
  - DaniloDias 7y ago
    I find this topic to be one of the single most interesting of the last 10 years. It’s the only story I’ve ever experienced first hand that seems to represent an actual instance of mass hysteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases Persuasive discussion with people on the “other side” on this topic appears to be absolutely impossible. Ive just given up on Americans who believe this Russian collusion narrative. It’s like talking to people in a cult or who are insane. I know liberals exist who don’t fall prey to this thinking- but they’re not well represented in mainstream and social media universe. It is such a sad development.
    - detcader 7y ago
      I mean, Greenwald has a lot of followers online and tons of liberal leaders supported him against this charge when they could have ignored it. I think some of the most vocal people are the most deluded... and the upper class Dem establishment incentivizes focus away from them and punishes focus on them. So you get a magnified effect
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  He's referencing this direct quote from the Mueller report: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities" Seems pretty cut and dry.
  - aaronbrethorst 7y ago
    It's not. Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined. However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Am I the only one that believes that such narrative and speculative writing style by officials is actively harmful to democracy? Phrases like: - in sweeping and systematic fashion - was welcomed by the Trump campaign - links between - ties to - connected to Granted, communicating the complexities of reality is very difficult, but I sincerely do not believe that a serious effort has been made in this case (or is in other cases, in general) to as accurately and clearly as possible communicate(!) that which is "known" (including the degree of certainty), versus that which is suspected, etc. Psychologists and neurologists have very little understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which people form beliefs, but they do know that it is extremely complex, and can easily be demonstrated to be highly prone to error or manipulation. Considering this, in a serious political system (as seems to be the common claim of what we have in Western democratic nations), I would expect more bi-partisan (among politicians and citizens) acknowledgement of these shortcomings, and support for a process of continuous improvement in the manner in which the public is informed of affairs. But instead, I rarely see this idea discussed, and it seems to me the aggregate manner in which reality is being described to us is becoming more chaotic/uncertain/indecipherable, not less. My intuition tells me this is not accidental, but of course there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. But, I think it would be beneficial for the public to become more aware of this phenomenon, and start drawing attention to this attribute of public discussions on a regular basis - in doing so, perhaps the quality of discourse could be improved.

That sounds pretty worrying, as I often respect his commentary and journalism. Can you link to or quote where he claimed what you're saying he did about Russian interference?

padseeker 7y ago

"Journalist Glenn Greenwald told Hill.TV's "Rising" on Monday that the news media's response to the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report is "genuinely stunning," accusing the press of continuing to promote the "conspiracy" that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia in 2016." ... “The reality is that for three years there has been a conspiracy theory that has dominated our political and media discourse, which is that Donald Trump conspired with Russia over the 2016 election and that he’s an agent of the Russian government along with many of his associates," he continued. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-media-reaction-to-mueller-report-is-genuinely-stunning https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/439989-greenwald-says-medi... He's been very outspoken that he thinks the Russian interference is bs. His angle seems to be the Democrats aren't liberal enough. 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...

AndrewBissell 7y ago
"Russia did not try to influence the US election" and "Trump did not actively conspire with Russia" are two very different claims.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
michaeltoth 7y ago
There's a big difference between saying Trump didn't conspire with the Russians (what Greenwald said" and saying the Russians didn't attempt to interfere. It's astonishing how people conflate these two things
- DaniloDias 7y ago
  I find this topic to be one of the single most interesting of the last 10 years. It’s the only story I’ve ever experienced first hand that seems to represent an actual instance of mass hysteria. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases Persuasive discussion with people on the “other side” on this topic appears to be absolutely impossible. Ive just given up on Americans who believe this Russian collusion narrative. It’s like talking to people in a cult or who are insane. I know liberals exist who don’t fall prey to this thinking- but they’re not well represented in mainstream and social media universe. It is such a sad development.
  - detcader 7y ago
    I mean, Greenwald has a lot of followers online and tons of liberal leaders supported him against this charge when they could have ignored it. I think some of the most vocal people are the most deluded... and the upper class Dem establishment incentivizes focus away from them and punishes focus on them. So you get a magnified effect
creaghpatr 7y ago
He's referencing this direct quote from the Mueller report: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities" Seems pretty cut and dry.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  It's not. Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined. However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Am I the only one that believes that such narrative and speculative writing style by officials is actively harmful to democracy? Phrases like: - in sweeping and systematic fashion - was welcomed by the Trump campaign - links between - ties to - connected to Granted, communicating the complexities of reality is very difficult, but I sincerely do not believe that a serious effort has been made in this case (or is in other cases, in general) to as accurately and clearly as possible communicate(!) that which is "known" (including the degree of certainty), versus that which is suspected, etc. Psychologists and neurologists have very little understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which people form beliefs, but they do know that it is extremely complex, and can easily be demonstrated to be highly prone to error or manipulation. Considering this, in a serious political system (as seems to be the common claim of what we have in Western democratic nations), I would expect more bi-partisan (among politicians and citizens) acknowledgement of these shortcomings, and support for a process of continuous improvement in the manner in which the public is informed of affairs. But instead, I rarely see this idea discussed, and it seems to me the aggregate manner in which reality is being described to us is becoming more chaotic/uncertain/indecipherable, not less. My intuition tells me this is not accidental, but of course there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. But, I think it would be beneficial for the public to become more aware of this phenomenon, and start drawing attention to this attribute of public discussions on a regular basis - in doing so, perhaps the quality of discourse could be improved.