5 ms·

>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

>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

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