3 ms·

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

by jf22 6y ago

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".
        arminiusreturns 6y ago
        True enough, I should have phrased it better, and just not said anything at all (bad form on hn to talk about downvotes), but on a topic about someone I respect immensely I got frustrated to see downvotes used in leui of discussion. I do think downvotes on the topic are highly probable to be from people who support Biden, which I didn't, (not a Trump supporter either, and I hate that I need to quantify like that), but it doesnt really matter. Hn is about elevating the convo, not devolving it. Sorry, my bad.

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

by 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".
        arminiusreturns 6y ago
        True enough, I should have phrased it better, and just not said anything at all (bad form on hn to talk about downvotes), but on a topic about someone I respect immensely I got frustrated to see downvotes used in leui of discussion. I do think downvotes on the topic are highly probable to be from people who support Biden, which I didn't, (not a Trump supporter either, and I hate that I need to quantify like that), but it doesnt really matter. Hn is about elevating the convo, not devolving it. Sorry, my bad.