3 ms·

> In my view Glenn has integrity. That means something. I don't doubt he would have written a similar story if the facts related to any powerful politician. Tru

> In my view Glenn has integrity. That means something. I don't doubt he would have written a similar story if the facts related to any powerful politician. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, anyone. Do you? I've read Greenwald since his pre-Snowden Salon days. Yes, I absolutely doubt that he would have written such an article against Trump. As can be seen on his Twitter, he will occasionally post something mildly critical of Trump so that he can later point to it repeatedly as cover, with the rest of his US political energies devoted to ignoring and downplaying the administration's actions while attacking Democrats and liberals.

harry8 6y ago
That's a massive call right there. What you're backing it with seems very thin to me. I do doubt he'd bother writing a story everyone else is already reporting and writing. I have approaching zero doubt in the same circumstances concerning a story that suggests corruption that nobody else was writing that he would do it about Don jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared Kushner or anyone in that orbit. I also believe he looks at Trump's Republicans and Biden's Democrats and finds them equally revolting. You and I can disagree with him on that if we choose to. The anti-Trump stories you mention that he points to? Yeah, not many others writing about Trump write those stories as a focus that I saw. Maybe you saw it differently? I don't want to use him as a repub-dem scoreboard or as my sole source of news so I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact even if he were an ardent Trump Republican supporter or ardent Democrat, (which I think is nonsense for what that's worth), I'd still want to read his stuff. And for me that is what makes him interesting. He does not fit the "He's a dem/repub" so... But there do seem to be a lot of people who want to shoe-horn him into that line of thinking. Separate to that the other thing I really like about Glenn is that it is easy to knowledgably disagree with him, (and I frequently, possibly even usually do). He makes that easy by, in my view, having the best mastery of that, (in terms of newspaper traditions) extremely modern writing technique, using the hyperlink. When he draws an inference from facts he links the source. I frequently follow that and look at it and think to myself that his inference is one possibility but I'm not especially sold on it. My own views are made more robust, altered somewhat or even changed by having been exposed to his writing even when I disagree with him. I really like that. In my view his integrity, devotion to principle, willingness to support his argument with evidence and disdain for following the zeitgeist simply because it exists make him someone I want to read. Just take each story on it's own. If it interests you follow the links he has and look at other reporting on it so you can make up your own mind and you might find like I do Glenn's stuff is worth your time.

harry8 6y ago

That's a massive call right there. What you're backing it with seems very thin to me. I do doubt he'd bother writing a story everyone else is already reporting and writing. I have approaching zero doubt in the same circumstances concerning a story that suggests corruption that nobody else was writing that he would do it about Don jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared Kushner or anyone in that orbit. I also believe he looks at Trump's Republicans and Biden's Democrats and finds them equally revolting. You and I can disagree with him on that if we choose to. The anti-Trump stories you mention that he points to? Yeah, not many others writing about Trump write those stories as a focus that I saw. Maybe you saw it differently? I don't want to use him as a repub-dem scoreboard or as my sole source of news so I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact even if he were an ardent Trump Republican supporter or ardent Democrat, (which I think is nonsense for what that's worth), I'd still want to read his stuff. And for me that is what makes him interesting. He does not fit the "He's a dem/repub" so... But there do seem to be a lot of people who want to shoe-horn him into that line of thinking. Separate to that the other thing I really like about Glenn is that it is easy to knowledgably disagree with him, (and I frequently, possibly even usually do). He makes that easy by, in my view, having the best mastery of that, (in terms of newspaper traditions) extremely modern writing technique, using the hyperlink. When he draws an inference from facts he links the source. I frequently follow that and look at it and think to myself that his inference is one possibility but I'm not especially sold on it. My own views are made more robust, altered somewhat or even changed by having been exposed to his writing even when I disagree with him. I really like that. In my view his integrity, devotion to principle, willingness to support his argument with evidence and disdain for following the zeitgeist simply because it exists make him someone I want to read. Just take each story on it's own. If it interests you follow the links he has and look at other reporting on it so you can make up your own mind and you might find like I do Glenn's stuff is worth your time.