8 ms·

I can definitely see that working. The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures. On the libertarian side there is ver

by stfu 13y ago

I can definitely see that working. The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures. On the libertarian side there is very little between full blown conspiracy theory mongers (ala Axel Jones) and those more affiliated with one political who pick up the stories that advances their viewpoints (Drudge, Mother Jones). Greenwald brings the right level of mainstream credibility to carve out a new brand in that space.

dublinben 13y ago
>The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
- stfu 13y ago
  Yes, at least for the way he presets himself. He is able to put a serious argument forward and able to discuss things head to head with conventional journalists. If you compare the video where Greenwald gets some hard questions by some BBC reporter in comparison to how Jones handled the interview with Piers Morgan it feels like two completely different worlds.
- Terretta 13y ago
  I think he's different. Polarizing on given stories, sure, but also non-partisan. I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Greenwald is partisan, it's just that his politics aren't Democrat
    - intslack 13y ago
      What party is he partial to again? It certainly isn't the Republicans. And he supported a prospective Democratic Senator a few months ago.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >non-partisan Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological. http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
  - princess3000 13y ago
    Greenwald is definitely non-partisan, and in fact he goes to great lengths to point out that the people who supported him when he reported on government abuse during the Bush administration have become some of his strongest detractors when he reports on the same things under Obama's administration. He doesn't really hide his own personal ideologies but they're certainly not loyal to any particular political party.
- jimbokun 13y ago
  The way he has so skillfully broken stories from the Snowden documents at just the right pace has been brilliant. It is hard for me to imagine another journalist handling it better. Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way. Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then. Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair. In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
    - stfu 13y ago
      From my perspective "biased" is in American media pretty much defined on how well somebody can put you into the left or right corner. As long as you can somewhat convincingly argue that you are in the middle you are welcome guest outside of the "poisoned" circles.
    - freshhawk 13y ago
      A bias/agenda towards attacking powerful people or the status quo would most reasonably be called "journalism" wouldn't it? That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public. Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
  - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
phaus 13y ago
I think you are on to something. My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual. I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics. The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others. EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?
- dmix 13y ago
  It seems all conservatives are beginning to reference themselves as libertarians (partial or otherwise) these days. Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
  - phaus 13y ago
    That's why I didn't call myself a libertarian, and instead said that I like parts of their ideology. Not sure what the problem is with that. If I do, I do, if I don't then I wouldn't have said it. I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought. Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time. The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.
Steko 13y ago
"(Drudge, Mother Jones)" Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.
- dbrower 13y ago
  MJ "leans in" pretty hard too. The recent story on Elon Musk tries very hard to be a hatchet job, and comes off badly because of the forced angle.
  - chipotle_coyote 13y ago
    Drudge Report is largely a link aggregator, though; their spin is pretty much limited to how they write their headlines and what they choose to link to. Mother Jones, as the parent said, does their own reporting and a lot of it, and they're arguably one of the few organizations that really gets into serious investigative journalism. To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful, but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.
- stfu 13y ago
  Even Wikipedia refers to Mother Jones as a "politically left-wing American magazine,". The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
- kevinpet 13y ago
aclevernickname 13y ago
Drudge and Alex Jones are not libertarian. Drudge is a heavily-conservative pundit that preaches holier-than-thou morals in his biased reporting. Alex Jones spreads "we-are-all-going-to-die" fear porn to his terrorized audience. Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief. This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.

by stfu 13y ago

dublinben 13y ago

>The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.

stfu 13y ago
Yes, at least for the way he presets himself. He is able to put a serious argument forward and able to discuss things head to head with conventional journalists. If you compare the video where Greenwald gets some hard questions by some BBC reporter in comparison to how Jones handled the interview with Piers Morgan it feels like two completely different worlds.
Terretta 13y ago
I think he's different. Polarizing on given stories, sure, but also non-partisan. I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
- pekk 13y ago
  Greenwald is partisan, it's just that his politics aren't Democrat
  - intslack 13y ago
    What party is he partial to again? It certainly isn't the Republicans. And he supported a prospective Democratic Senator a few months ago.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >non-partisan Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological. http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
- princess3000 13y ago
  Greenwald is definitely non-partisan, and in fact he goes to great lengths to point out that the people who supported him when he reported on government abuse during the Bush administration have become some of his strongest detractors when he reports on the same things under Obama's administration. He doesn't really hide his own personal ideologies but they're certainly not loyal to any particular political party.
jimbokun 13y ago
The way he has so skillfully broken stories from the Snowden documents at just the right pace has been brilliant. It is hard for me to imagine another journalist handling it better. Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way. Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then. Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair. In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
- dublinben 13y ago
  >if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
  - stfu 13y ago
    From my perspective "biased" is in American media pretty much defined on how well somebody can put you into the left or right corner. As long as you can somewhat convincingly argue that you are in the middle you are welcome guest outside of the "poisoned" circles.
  - freshhawk 13y ago
    A bias/agenda towards attacking powerful people or the status quo would most reasonably be called "journalism" wouldn't it? That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public. Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
- 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

phaus 13y ago

I think you are on to something. My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual. I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics. The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others. EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?

dmix 13y ago
It seems all conservatives are beginning to reference themselves as libertarians (partial or otherwise) these days. Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
- phaus 13y ago
  That's why I didn't call myself a libertarian, and instead said that I like parts of their ideology. Not sure what the problem is with that. If I do, I do, if I don't then I wouldn't have said it. I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought. Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time. The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.

Steko 13y ago

"(Drudge, Mother Jones)" Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.

dbrower 13y ago
MJ "leans in" pretty hard too. The recent story on Elon Musk tries very hard to be a hatchet job, and comes off badly because of the forced angle.
- chipotle_coyote 13y ago
  Drudge Report is largely a link aggregator, though; their spin is pretty much limited to how they write their headlines and what they choose to link to. Mother Jones, as the parent said, does their own reporting and a lot of it, and they're arguably one of the few organizations that really gets into serious investigative journalism. To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful, but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.
stfu 13y ago
Even Wikipedia refers to Mother Jones as a "politically left-wing American magazine,". The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
kevinpet 13y ago

aclevernickname 13y ago

Drudge and Alex Jones are not libertarian. Drudge is a heavily-conservative pundit that preaches holier-than-thou morals in his biased reporting. Alex Jones spreads "we-are-all-going-to-die" fear porn to his terrorized audience. Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief. This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.