One theory I’ve heard with Greenwald is that he’s always had a bit of a contrarian streak, which in-and-of itself isn’t a problem, but becomes one when it is contrarianism for contrarianism’s sake...
One theory I’ve heard with Greenwald is that he’s always had a bit of a contrarian streak, which in-and-of itself isn’t a problem, but becomes one when it is contrarianism for contrarianism’s sake (which is where he is at right now).
This is been my personal theory, having caught glimpses of his career from time to time. I haven't paid close attention, but his writing has always struck me as heavily "fight the man" slanted....
This is been my personal theory, having caught glimpses of his career from time to time. I haven't paid close attention, but his writing has always struck me as heavily "fight the man" slanted. I'm all for questioning authority and speaking truth to power however as you say, being contrarian for contrarian sake isn't productive and doesn't make him a great journalist in it's own right.
I'm no fan of modern Gleen Greenwald, especially after his high-profile low-rationale departure of The Intercept, but this article's excessive use of in-text quotations and lack of sources and...
I'm no fan of modern Gleen Greenwald, especially after his high-profile low-rationale departure of The Intercept, but this article's excessive use of in-text quotations and lack of sources and context makes me think it's more of a hatchet job than anything else.
I also really don't like the middle of the article's attempt to undermine Greenwald's past journalistic contributions.
Yes, the article is not ideal, but I wouldn't dismiss it either. I couldn't find a better one that tried to address the change as a whole. There probably is, I just didn't find it. A quick visit...
Yes, the article is not ideal, but I wouldn't dismiss it either. I couldn't find a better one that tried to address the change as a whole. There probably is, I just didn't find it. A quick visit to Greenwald's Substack and also his participations on Fox News does support the main premise, I think.
Yeah. The change is super interesting. The quote from Betsy Reed is somewhat reflective: I think also when the modern Greenwald has had that kernel of truth, he's been selectively ignoring other,...
Yeah. The change is super interesting. The quote from Betsy Reed is somewhat reflective:
“There’s no kernel of truth to Glenn’s crusade. That is what I think is fundamentally different from the old Glenn, who would often kind of overstate the case, and fall into hyperbole, but there was usually a kernel of truth. And I would say this time, he lost the kernel—or he doesn’t care about having that kernel. He’s become a practitioner of manufactured controversy in the service of the hard right in this country.”
I think also when the modern Greenwald has had that kernel of truth, he's been selectively ignoring other, more worrying kernels while doing so.
I really don't know what to say, to be honest. I personally doubt very much that his ethics have changed. And he's by all accounts a very smart guy. Greenwald lives in my country and his husband...
I really don't know what to say, to be honest. I personally doubt very much that his ethics have changed. And he's by all accounts a very smart guy. Greenwald lives in my country and his husband is a congressist from a very leftist party, subbing for a well known and respected social and gay rights activist that left the country due to death threats. I don't even think his targets do not warrant criticism, because they absolutely do. But he should at least be mindful of his rhetoric, the flames he is fueling, the company he keeps, and who his discourse ends up legitimating.
I hate to play that card, but maybe mental health is a factor?
I read some of his posts during and after the events leading up to him leaving the intercept. I respected his role in the Snowden revelations too. One thing that stood out was that the level of...
I read some of his posts during and after the events leading up to him leaving the intercept. I respected his role in the Snowden revelations too. One thing that stood out was that the level of bitterness, repetition and hyperbole increased with each post.
He didn't sound like the same guy. But maybe that's just how he writes without editors to smooth the edges, idk.
I think he was disillusioned, defensive and along the way he started to lose emotional touch with reality as it exists outside his (somewhat one sided) fight with his former peers and the establishment at large.
He did have some valid points, but the level of rage informing his writing was well past constructive. It's not a tone that will maintain a platform from which to speak.
He must be savvy enough to know that right? Well, there is one place where rage gives you a reliable platform...
Reading about him showing up on Fox news, that he would lend any credibility to an organization that represents everything bad about what journalism has become, says quite a lot.
I have two theories... either he's desperately in need of allies, which plays, his posts sounded more and more isolated (up until I stopped reading them anyway).
Or, like so many before him, he can see the money and attention that goes with stoking extreme right wing rage and has decided it's a reasonable price for his soul.
I lean towards the first option, in which mental health would definitely play a part. At the same time, cynicism is always appropriate where people who are professionally in the public eye are concerned.
From his POV I imagine he thinks he's been very consistent in what he believes and what he talks about, and if Fox "suddenly" decides to start letting him talk, who is he to argue?
I just don't like to believe people will instantly sell their soul like that but I'm not naive enough to pretend it doesn't happen.
From his POV I imagine he thinks he's been very consistent in what he believes and what he talks about, and if Fox "suddenly" decides to start letting him talk, who is he to argue?
I was surprised by the things Glenn Greenwald wrote after leaving The Intercept. I was kind of a fan of his. He's the guy that broke Snowden's story. This article seems to provide some...
I was surprised by the things Glenn Greenwald wrote after leaving The Intercept. I was kind of a fan of his. He's the guy that broke Snowden's story. This article seems to provide some explanations.
One theory I’ve heard with Greenwald is that he’s always had a bit of a contrarian streak, which in-and-of itself isn’t a problem, but becomes one when it is contrarianism for contrarianism’s sake (which is where he is at right now).
This is been my personal theory, having caught glimpses of his career from time to time. I haven't paid close attention, but his writing has always struck me as heavily "fight the man" slanted. I'm all for questioning authority and speaking truth to power however as you say, being contrarian for contrarian sake isn't productive and doesn't make him a great journalist in it's own right.
Maybe he's a victim of his own success?
I'm no fan of modern Gleen Greenwald, especially after his high-profile low-rationale departure of The Intercept, but this article's excessive use of in-text quotations and lack of sources and context makes me think it's more of a hatchet job than anything else.
I also really don't like the middle of the article's attempt to undermine Greenwald's past journalistic contributions.
Yes, the article is not ideal, but I wouldn't dismiss it either. I couldn't find a better one that tried to address the change as a whole. There probably is, I just didn't find it. A quick visit to Greenwald's Substack and also his participations on Fox News does support the main premise, I think.
Yeah. The change is super interesting. The quote from Betsy Reed is somewhat reflective:
I think also when the modern Greenwald has had that kernel of truth, he's been selectively ignoring other, more worrying kernels while doing so.
I really don't know what to say, to be honest. I personally doubt very much that his ethics have changed. And he's by all accounts a very smart guy. Greenwald lives in my country and his husband is a congressist from a very leftist party, subbing for a well known and respected social and gay rights activist that left the country due to death threats. I don't even think his targets do not warrant criticism, because they absolutely do. But he should at least be mindful of his rhetoric, the flames he is fueling, the company he keeps, and who his discourse ends up legitimating.
I hate to play that card, but maybe mental health is a factor?
I really, really don't know what's going on.
I read some of his posts during and after the events leading up to him leaving the intercept. I respected his role in the Snowden revelations too. One thing that stood out was that the level of bitterness, repetition and hyperbole increased with each post.
He didn't sound like the same guy. But maybe that's just how he writes without editors to smooth the edges, idk.
I think he was disillusioned, defensive and along the way he started to lose emotional touch with reality as it exists outside his (somewhat one sided) fight with his former peers and the establishment at large.
He did have some valid points, but the level of rage informing his writing was well past constructive. It's not a tone that will maintain a platform from which to speak.
He must be savvy enough to know that right? Well, there is one place where rage gives you a reliable platform...
Reading about him showing up on Fox news, that he would lend any credibility to an organization that represents everything bad about what journalism has become, says quite a lot.
I have two theories... either he's desperately in need of allies, which plays, his posts sounded more and more isolated (up until I stopped reading them anyway).
Or, like so many before him, he can see the money and attention that goes with stoking extreme right wing rage and has decided it's a reasonable price for his soul.
I lean towards the first option, in which mental health would definitely play a part. At the same time, cynicism is always appropriate where people who are professionally in the public eye are concerned.
From his POV I imagine he thinks he's been very consistent in what he believes and what he talks about, and if Fox "suddenly" decides to start letting him talk, who is he to argue?
It's possible for sure, but he was pretty rich already.
I was surprised by the things Glenn Greenwald wrote after leaving The Intercept. I was kind of a fan of his. He's the guy that broke Snowden's story. This article seems to provide some explanations.
Edit: Greenwald on Tucker Carlson: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6221442588001#sp=show-clips