4 ms·

Yep. Turn on anyone who doesn't support the narrative. So sad to see someone who has been so principled for so long on all the modern topics we should care abou

Yep. Turn on anyone who doesn't support the narrative. So sad to see someone who has been so principled for so long on all the modern topics we should care about get viciously character assasinated so readily by people without a moments hesitancy. I have had my disagreements with GG, particularly in his naive taking on of PO for the money, but this refusal to acknowledge both his dedication to truth (which often makes him look contrarian) and how correct he has been on those topics just speaks volumes about how deeply ingrained the crazy is for those who decide he's persona-non-grata due to not supporting their favorite conspiracy theories. The same kind of people now openly railing against GG are the same kind of people who will do everything they can to not acknowledge Ray McGovern because his professional and personal past make him a harder target on the topic. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me to see plenty of them try the same charater assasination on him, but it's an obvious marker of complete rejection of truth in favor of tribalisms. Disgusting seeing so many turn on GG et al so quickly. Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves.

jf22 6y ago
It's not that he "didn't support the narrative". He believed a story with little evidence and his journalistic integrity became questionable.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Thats a mischaraterization at best, which is sort of my point. What GG said and his real positions don't matter. What matters is he bucked the narrative (mostly when he pushed against the propaganda push that the HB laptop leak was of Russian origin) and that made him bad, and then the justifications for his "bad" label were found afterwards. They don't hold up to scrutiny but the character assassination is done already. In his own words: “I don’t think that the emails — so far — reveal a huge scandal. They so far just establish standard sleaze and DC corruption. The huge scandal to me is the blatant rank-closing and cone of silence — a prohibition — erected by journalists around this story to defend Biden,” “Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren’t saying so?,” “When you report a huge archive, there’s no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don’t deny the authenticity,” “You know the subjects of the reporting will immediately claim they’re fake if the are. Of course they will: that would kill the reporting!” “There’s a reason the Bidens aren’t claiming they’re fake,” https://greenwald.substack.com/ https://greenwald.substack.com/
  - jf22 6y ago
    I followed him on Twitter before he left the intercept and before Substack. I used to respect him. He thought the laptop story was true and barked about it for days. He had no evidence to think it was true, it just was to him. His substack work was after he humiliated himself on Twitter and is largely trying to justify how stupid he was.
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      I have followed GG's writing for over 10 years myself, actually reading his articles as opposed to twitter headlines, and I think its telling after the effort I went trhough to try to have a real conversation, that is your response. Downvote all you want Biden lackies, it doesnt change the uncomfortable facts!
      - jf22 6y ago
        > Downvote all you want Biden lackies, it doesnt change the uncomfortable facts! See now I know this is about political identity to you and not about the truth. Your response here indicates you were never trying to have a conversation at all.
        arminiusreturns 6y ago
        Not true at all. I bet you even think you know what my political identity (what a horrid combination of words!) is just because of the phrase, but in all probability you are wrong. On the contrary, I came with quotes from the man the discussion was about, you are the one who came with comments of no substance. Projection at its most obvious.
        CathedralBorrow 6y ago
        Yet you presumed to know that anyone downvoting you must be a "Biden lackey".

jf22 6y ago

It's not that he "didn't support the narrative". He believed a story with little evidence and his journalistic integrity became questionable.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
Thats a mischaraterization at best, which is sort of my point. What GG said and his real positions don't matter. What matters is he bucked the narrative (mostly when he pushed against the propaganda push that the HB laptop leak was of Russian origin) and that made him bad, and then the justifications for his "bad" label were found afterwards. They don't hold up to scrutiny but the character assassination is done already. In his own words: “I don’t think that the emails — so far — reveal a huge scandal. They so far just establish standard sleaze and DC corruption. The huge scandal to me is the blatant rank-closing and cone of silence — a prohibition — erected by journalists around this story to defend Biden,” “Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren’t saying so?,” “When you report a huge archive, there’s no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don’t deny the authenticity,” “You know the subjects of the reporting will immediately claim they’re fake if the are. Of course they will: that would kill the reporting!” “There’s a reason the Bidens aren’t claiming they’re fake,” https://greenwald.substack.com/ https://greenwald.substack.com/
- jf22 6y ago
  I followed him on Twitter before he left the intercept and before Substack. I used to respect him. He thought the laptop story was true and barked about it for days. He had no evidence to think it was true, it just was to him. His substack work was after he humiliated himself on Twitter and is largely trying to justify how stupid he was.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    I have followed GG's writing for over 10 years myself, actually reading his articles as opposed to twitter headlines, and I think its telling after the effort I went trhough to try to have a real conversation, that is your response. Downvote all you want Biden lackies, it doesnt change the uncomfortable facts!
    - jf22 6y ago
      > Downvote all you want Biden lackies, it doesnt change the uncomfortable facts! See now I know this is about political identity to you and not about the truth. Your response here indicates you were never trying to have a conversation at all.
      - arminiusreturns 6y ago
        Not true at all. I bet you even think you know what my political identity (what a horrid combination of words!) is just because of the phrase, but in all probability you are wrong. On the contrary, I came with quotes from the man the discussion was about, you are the one who came with comments of no substance. Projection at its most obvious.
        CathedralBorrow 6y ago
        Yet you presumed to know that anyone downvoting you must be a "Biden lackey".