3 ms·

Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willi

Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad? The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you.

watwut 5y ago
> CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him. > This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Glenn Greenwald is worthy of being on CNN and MSNBC, and has been on before, but mysteriously was no longer invited once he started criticizing the liberal establishment. Hmm.. And in-fighting is not the same as calling out the corrupt elite that maintain the Overton window of what most blue journalists and politicians speak about.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Overwhelming majority of journalists is "worthy" of that. But, Glenn Greenwald seemed to be mostly emotional bundle last years as I was watching him. And completely unable to handle any pushback or criticism back - responding with pure insults and anger half the time. I used to like him and respect him, which is why I was following him. It was not other peoples criticism of Greenwald that made me loose respect to him. People I normally follow dont comment on Greenwald. It was him.
cycomanic 5y ago
> Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Hold on, I did not say he shouldn't be going on Fox news or TC. However going to Fox news and calling NYT biased left wing media of the "rich elite", without any criticism towards Fox news, their ownership and agenda is not engaging in a good faith debate. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. So do you believe that going to Fox news and essentially repeating their talking points is a good way of "waking up the left"? I mean the audience he is trying to address is not really listening there is it? Also why not take the opportunity to also engage critically with Fox? >To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad? I find the notion that any media in the US is left completely alien. I mean the NYT would maybe considered centre right in most of Europe. > The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you. I find it ironic that in a discussion about bad faith communication, you call my criticising Glenn as smearing? Where did I attack his character? I think what he is doing is not constructive, and I explained why I think that is the case.

watwut 5y ago

> CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him. > This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.

colordrops 5y ago
Glenn Greenwald is worthy of being on CNN and MSNBC, and has been on before, but mysteriously was no longer invited once he started criticizing the liberal establishment. Hmm.. And in-fighting is not the same as calling out the corrupt elite that maintain the Overton window of what most blue journalists and politicians speak about.
- watwut 5y ago
  Overwhelming majority of journalists is "worthy" of that. But, Glenn Greenwald seemed to be mostly emotional bundle last years as I was watching him. And completely unable to handle any pushback or criticism back - responding with pure insults and anger half the time. I used to like him and respect him, which is why I was following him. It was not other peoples criticism of Greenwald that made me loose respect to him. People I normally follow dont comment on Greenwald. It was him.

cycomanic 5y ago

> Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Hold on, I did not say he shouldn't be going on Fox news or TC. However going to Fox news and calling NYT biased left wing media of the "rich elite", without any criticism towards Fox news, their ownership and agenda is not engaging in a good faith debate. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. So do you believe that going to Fox news and essentially repeating their talking points is a good way of "waking up the left"? I mean the audience he is trying to address is not really listening there is it? Also why not take the opportunity to also engage critically with Fox? >To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad? I find the notion that any media in the US is left completely alien. I mean the NYT would maybe considered centre right in most of Europe. > The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you. I find it ironic that in a discussion about bad faith communication, you call my criticising Glenn as smearing? Where did I attack his character? I think what he is doing is not constructive, and I explained why I think that is the case.