The US political divisions and the role of lies in the media - one case

[Lexicus]

Not a lot other than he left the intercept which he founded in disagreement.

Why he left isn't exactly a secret.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html

reporter reporting on things that get censored by editors in the (supposedly...) not-right wing media he had been working for.

The facts are in the link above.

The final straw for Greenwald was an editing dispute, though according to Hodge, it was less about specific edits and more about the fact that he was being edited at all.

“Glenn considers editing censorship,” Hodge said. “That’s his general position. He regards any editorial intervention as censorship.”

Hodge told New York magazine that Greenwald’s opinion columns were not subject to editing, but his reported pieces — including his investigations into animal cruelty — were subject to editing and legal review. Greenwald’s main editor on the nonpolitical pieces was Peter Maass, a veteran journalist who joined The Intercept shortly after its founding in 2014. In light of the high-profile, controversial nature of Greenwald’s planned column on Hunter Biden, Reed told Greenwald that Maass would edit the column.

On Tuesday, Maass sent a lengthy memo to Greenwald, outlining what he said were the draft’s strengths and weaknesses and suggesting that he adopt a sharper focus on media criticism rather than litigate questionable evidence of Joe Biden’s corruption based on purported documents from his son Hunter that had been published by the New York Post.

Greenwald viewed Maass’s memo as an attempt to censor him.

“I want to note clearly, because I think it’s so important for obvious reasons, that this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I’ve been censored — i.e., told by others that I can’t publish what I believe or think — and it’s happening less than a week before a presidential election, and this censorship is being imposed by editors who eagerly want the candidate I’m writing about critically to win the election,” he wrote in an email to Maass on Wednesday morning, which he later published on Substack, where he’ll continue to write on a subscription basis.

Rather than revise the piece in line with Maass’s suggestions, Greenwald said he wanted to exercise an option in his contract to publish the piece outside of The Intercept. After Reed told Greenwald it would be “unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept” if he published the story for another outlet, Greenwald decided to resign.

I don't think it's possible for a disinterested person to look at this and conclude it is an example of politically-motivated censorship. It is certainly to Greenwald's advantage to play it up that way, and make himself out to be the hero of journalistic integrity...

I won't even say resignation from the Intercept was the wrong response to the facts here. There is a legitimate dispute, even if one disagrees with the content of what Greenwald was trying to publish.
I hope for Glenn's sake it's that he simply has realized there's money in being a hack, and it's not that his ego actually has him believing his own crap.

 

[Berzerker]

Man, that's la lot of distorting reality here...

It's truly amazing. You get bombarded with fact after fact of what has actually happened, and you twist and turn yourself into a pretzel to deny reality and claim that the opposite of truth is in fact the truth.

Somehow a violent attempt to overthrow the Republic isn't a violent attempt to overtrow the Republic. Somehow people asking for those with the means to stop a violent uprising against the Republic to do their job are the problem, not the people who are attempting the violent overthrow.
Somehow you convinced yourself that a report that found massive amount of illegal behaviour and which led to multiple convictions was indeed proof that nothing had happened, even though the only reason why lots of guilty people weren't brought to justice were that they were basically in charge of their own trial and/or protected by powerhungry cowards who cared more about upholding their own power instead of acting as per the oath they had sworn.

It was a protest that turned violent, that is the reality. People have the right to protest government, its in the 1st Amendment 4 times. They just dont have the right to assault cops and destroy other people's property. These people who did deserve to be treated like rioters from last summer. The reports exonerated Trump of conspiracy, that was Russiagate - we were told he was a traitor, a Manchurian candidate operating under Putin's control. Those lies came from the Democrats, I regret believing Hillary Clinton and MSNBC.

The people who got punished did other stuff, lied about inconsequential matters or past financial crimes like Manafort. No, the massive amount of illegality was Obama's FBI funneling the Clinton campaign's lies to a fisa court to spy on Trump - for collusion of all things - as if the Democrats dont 'collude' with foreigners to get dirt on their political opponents.

Think about that, the Democrats provided the FBI with material bought from foreigners interfering in our election, and the FBI used it to investigate Trump for allegedly getting material from foreigners interfering in our election.

And then you use Greenwald as a source for anything, it's ridiculous. That guy lost his marbles a long time ago. He got thrown out of a company he founded because he couldn't be bothered to uphold even the most basic standards of journalism. And even worse, he tried to present himself as the victim, accusing those who who do actually uphold the standards of journalism of the very things he failed to adhere by.

He was right about Russiagate

That's the difference between someone like Snowden, and people like Greenwald or Assange. The former did what he felt was his duty to help a good cause. The latter stopped doing that and instead opted for delusions of grandeur, making it all about themselves. They aren't any better than the people they proclaim to be fighting against. It's no surprise that the clowns at Fox News would bring Greenwald in on their shows though, as failing to uphold journalistic integrity is kind of their motto.

The difference between Snowden and Greenwald/Assange is a partisan consideration, Snowden exposed criminality in Bush's war while Greenwald and Assange exposed corrupt Democrats. Fox lets Greenwald on because the Democrats wont, that too is a partisan consideration. At least Fox does let people on to disagree, MSNBC is an echo chamber. I've seen your argument used against people who appear on Russia Today (RT), if Russia is letting someone speak it must be to spread lies because only 'we' tell the truth.

[Citation Needed] I could have sworn I has was having this discussion with you since Trump oozed down the escalator.

Not about Russiagate, I've post a number of times I thought Trump was compromised by Russia. I was a devotee of MSNBC well into 2017, I didn't recognize their scam until I began watching Jimmy Dore on youtube.

He introduced me to work from Greenwald and Mate and thats when I realized Trump was telling the truth. I could try to pin down exactly when that happened but 2018 is my estimate, my first Jimmy Dore links would narrow it down. I remember it was months before Mueller's report came out because I was growing skeptical he'd find something to justify the hype and that was because left leaning investigative journalists were already debunking Russiagate.

Armed groups rushing the Capitol building = armed insurrection to me.

Not if guns weren't used

 

[Ironsided]

Why he left isn't exactly a secret.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html



The facts are in the link above.



I don't think it's possible for a disinterested person to look at this and conclude it is an example of politically-motivated censorship. It is certainly to Greenwald's advantage to play it up that way, and make himself out to be the hero of journalistic integrity...

I won't even say resignation from the Intercept was the wrong response to the facts here. There is a legitimate dispute, even if one disagrees with the content of what Greenwald was trying to publish.
I hope for Glenn's sake it's that he simply has realized there's money in being a hack, and it's not that his ego actually has him believing his own crap.

Well, that is a good amount of backtracking right there and that is fine. I read the article. I frankly cannot find where it supports your or others earlier claims. Nowhere is Glenn Greenwald conspiring, being a hack or acting partisan and certainly not right-wing (which he has never been). If anything, he stood by his journalistic integrity to lift the issue that The Intercept was acting partisan. He wrote a piece critical of Biden and the Intercept would not publish it in original form, not because it was false or poor journalism but because it was sensitive stuff with one week until election. Asking him to remove all sections critical of Biden. GG wanted to act according to his contract and TI asked him not to, so he left. That’s the “hissy fit”?

 

[Lexicus]

I frankly cannot find where it supports your or others earlier claims.

It doesn't. I'm basing my claims about Greenwald on Greenwald's own account of the story. And on the piece Greenwald wrote that forms the basis of this thread's OP.

TI asked him not to, so he left. That’s the “hissy fit”?

The idea that the Intercept did not want Greenwald's piece published because it was critical of Biden is absolutely false.

 

[zxcvbob]

So help me out here.

The mainstream media can't be trusted
The non-mainstream media is just opinion.
"Watchdogs" like Greenwald are guilty of exactly the same fabrications he accuses the mainstream media is guilty of. So why trust him?

What is left? Reuters? Who can I trust to get my unbiased news from?

I don't trust any of them and haven't for months. It is very frustrating. OTOH, it saves me a lot of time that might otherwise have been spent watching/reading the news.

 

[Estebonrober]

So NYT is lies, Tucker Carlson is truth. Got it. consider myself reprogrammed!

 

[Ironsided]

That is a peculiar takeaway from the discussion. Seems to me the “must take sides” election dilemma still lingers. We are beyond that point; Biden won and should be judged on merits. Only by comparison to a greater evil like the Republicans can he shine. He doesn’t even do that. The children cages are now renamed “facilities”. 90% of Americans are still heading into a net negative future. The planet is not saved by a political gesture like entering an agreement you don’t even make efforts to follow, and America will not excuse their ill behaviour internationally but rather expect Iran for example to be thankful to Biden and accept new demand when America was the one to break the agreements to begin with. Saudi Arabia still gets all the weapons they want but they must officially promise to use them defensively since the Obama-Biden supported operations threatening, displacing, or killing of 14 million civilians in Yemen are slowly seeping into MSM after years of almost total radio shadow. That is wrong, morally, ethically, and spiritually and Greenwald et al will call it out as they should while Tucker and Maddow respectively will cheerlead for the special interests. No one in this thread has asked you to listen to Tucker Carlson, you managed that brain-fart all by yourself.

 

[Modder_Mode]

That is a peculiar takeaway from the discussion. Seems to me the “must take sides” election dilemma still lingers. We are beyond that point; Biden won and should be judged on merits. Only by comparison to a greater evil like the Republicans can he shine. He doesn’t even do that. The children cages are now renamed “facilities”. 90% of Americans are still heading into a net negative future. The planet is not saved by a political gesture like entering an agreement you don’t even make efforts to follow, and America will not excuse their ill behaviour internationally but rather expect Iran for example to be thankful to Biden and accept new demand when America was the one to break the agreements to begin with. Saudi Arabia still gets all the weapons they want but they must officially promise to use them defensively since the Obama-Biden supported operations threatening, displacing, or killing of 14 million civilians in Yemen are slowly seeping into MSM after years of almost total radio shadow. That is wrong, morally, ethically, and spiritually and Greenwald et al will call it out as they should while Tucker and Maddow respectively will cheerlead for the special interests. No one in this thread has asked you to listen to Tucker Carlson, you managed that brain-fart all by yourself.

Hence what I posted a few pages back:
"It is good though that the mainstream media are still asking the hard hitting questions at the Whitehouse press meetings, the investigative reporting with all the "anonymous" sources, they're really taking it to the Biden administration, Americans can sleep sound at night knowing the media is acting with integrity."

For anyone that watches the Whitehouse press meetings under the Biden administration one might be mistaken for thinking that they were attending a Joseph Goebbels organized press conference.
Even more amusing are the news anchors that proclaim "its so great that all the division is gone" "the press meetings are like a breath of fresh air" yes it would be a breath of fresh air if the majority of journalists are fawning at the press secretary and asking non judgmental questions about the Biden administration.

The most important thing of all to note is that it was actually great that the press DID ask the hard hitting questions to the Donald Trump administration, that's their job, it's just sad that it's now evident that it was all agenda driven journalism as we can now see how different the two respective administrations are/were treated.

 

[Gorbles]

That is a peculiar takeaway from the discussion. Seems to me the “must take sides” election dilemma still lingers. We are beyond that point; Biden won and should be judged on merits. Only by comparison to a greater evil like the Republicans can he shine. He doesn’t even do that. The children cages are now renamed “facilities”. 90% of Americans are still heading into a net negative future. The planet is not saved by a political gesture like entering an agreement you don’t even make efforts to follow, and America will not excuse their ill behaviour internationally but rather expect Iran for example to be thankful to Biden and accept new demand when America was the one to break the agreements to begin with. Saudi Arabia still gets all the weapons they want but they must officially promise to use them defensively since the Obama-Biden supported operations threatening, displacing, or killing of 14 million civilians in Yemen are slowly seeping into MSM after years of almost total radio shadow. That is wrong, morally, ethically, and spiritually and Greenwald et al will call it out as they should while Tucker and Maddow respectively will cheerlead for the special interests. No one in this thread has asked you to listen to Tucker Carlson, you managed that brain-fart all by yourself.

I hate to break it to you, but Greenwald recommends people listen to Tucker Carlson. That's the whole point of reference for the kind of "watchdog" you think Greenwald is. There are situations where you can't listen to Greenwald or read his work without also doing the same for Carlson.

Biden should be judged on merits. Heaven knows you're not going to get pushback from me there. But "must take sides" is exactly the kind of rhetoric Greenwald espouses, and you're only limiting yourself if you pretend that isn't the case.

 

[Samson]

Hence what I posted a few pages back:
"It is good though that the mainstream media are still asking the hard hitting questions at the Whitehouse press meetings, the investigative reporting with all the "anonymous" sources, they're really taking it to the Biden administration, Americans can sleep sound at night knowing the media is acting with integrity."

For anyone that watches the Whitehouse press meetings under the Biden administration one might be mistaken for thinking that they were attending a Joseph Goebbels organized press conference.

Perhaps you can give some examples. This I found, and is not quite how you describe it:

"When president Trump was imposing travel restrictions in March, specifically on China then candidate Biden called it 'xenophobic' and 'fear-mongering,’” the Fox White House correspondent [Peter Doocy] asked. “Now, President Biden is putting travel restrictions on people coming in from other countries. What word do we use to describe that?"

After a question about whether the president could live up to his campaign promises that he would tackle the pandemic in short order, Mr Biden said, “I know he always asks me tough questions, and he always has an edge to them, but I like him anyway," before saying he wasn’t overselling his ability to tackle Covid.

As Mr Biden was walking away, after signing executive orders aimed at addressing racial inequity, Doocy shouted out, "Mr President, what did you talk to Vladimir Putin about?" following news that the leaders had a recent phone call. Mr Biden responded, “You. He sent his best.”​

 

[Ironsided]

I hate to break it to you, but Greenwald recommends people listen to Tucker Carlson. That's the whole point of reference for the kind of "watchdog" you think Greenwald is. There are situations where you can't listen to Greenwald or read his work without also doing the same for Carlson.

Biden should be judged on merits. Heaven knows you're not going to get pushback from me there. But "must take sides" is exactly the kind of rhetoric Greenwald espouses, and you're only limiting yourself if you pretend that isn't the case.

Then kindly point us to something tangible that reinforce that statement. Where does Greenwald say anything even close. He most likely doesn’t because he clearly disagrees with Tucker on most issues. They have overlap on libertarian ideas but so does Noam Chomsky – is he also a Tucker fan? Appearing on a show is not necessarily endorsing it. Bernie held a celebrated town hall on Fox just to reach that audience. There is no straight line where people must cross or spend time in the moderate American neoliberal Biden centre before making a left turn - in how people vote or self-identifies.

 

[Gorbles]

Then kindly point us to something tangible that reinforce that statement. Where does Greenwald say anything even close. He most likely doesn’t because he clearly disagrees with Tucker on most issues. They have overlap on libertarian ideas but so does Noam Chomsky – is he also a Tucker fan? Appearing on a show is not necessarily endorsing it. Bernie held a celebrated town hall on Fox just to reach that audience. There is no straight line where people must cross or spend time in the moderate American neoliberal Biden centre before making a left turn - in how people vote or self-identifies.

Well this took about five seconds (FOX News, sorry folks). January 2021, literally opens with Carlson plugging Greenwald's Substack. If you believe this isn't concrete enough evidence that their overlap is more than strictly business (if business is ever that clean-cut, which it generally isn't), then I doubt anything I can provide will convince you. You know my opinions in general. I'm not here to just pick on Greenwald for some magical made-up reason. He's a grifter, and his reductionist takes are now in full-on comfortable FOX News viewership territory.

EDIT

And please don't attempt to raise Bernie's town hall as a comparison. There's a difference from how that went down vs. willingly attending a Tucker Carlson piece as well as being talked up by said host in said piece.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wonder if there's any responsibility of the sour press relations between Trump and the non-sycophant media laid at Trump's feet?

One example out of many:

“I answered everything,” Trump replied. “It’s a whole hoax, and you know who is playing into the hoax, people like you, and the fake news media that we have in this country, and I say in many cases, the corrupt news media. Because you are corrupt. Much of the media in this country is not just fake, it’s corrupt. And you have some very fine people too. Great journalists. Great reporters. But to a large extent, it is corrupt and it is fake.”

Would you not have to conclude that the sour relation is at least partly due to Trump's indecent conduct? Or were people too busy giggling at Trump sticking it to the Lamestream media?

This is what was in Trump's eyes great journalism:

“Mr. President, your approval ratings have been the highest they’ve ever been, as well as the ratings on your handling of the virus,” Jenn Pellegrino, the OAN correspondent seated among the press, said Sunday. “Yet there are some networks that are saying they’re debating whether or not to carry these briefings live. Do you think there’s a link between the two?”

“We’re watching Joe Biden slip very gently into senility while you’re at the top of your game. What’s your secret?”

 

[Estebonrober]

That is a peculiar takeaway from the discussion. Seems to me the “must take sides” election dilemma still lingers. We are beyond that point; Biden won and should be judged on merits. Only by comparison to a greater evil like the Republicans can he shine. He doesn’t even do that. The children cages are now renamed “facilities”. 90% of Americans are still heading into a net negative future. The planet is not saved by a political gesture like entering an agreement you don’t even make efforts to follow, and America will not excuse their ill behaviour internationally but rather expect Iran for example to be thankful to Biden and accept new demand when America was the one to break the agreements to begin with. Saudi Arabia still gets all the weapons they want but they must officially promise to use them defensively since the Obama-Biden supported operations threatening, displacing, or killing of 14 million civilians in Yemen are slowly seeping into MSM after years of almost total radio shadow. That is wrong, morally, ethically, and spiritually and Greenwald et al will call it out as they should while Tucker and Maddow respectively will cheerlead for the special interests. No one in this thread has asked you to listen to Tucker Carlson, you managed that brain-fart all by yourself.

wow that sarcasm went right over your head eh? It took until the end for me to even realize you were replying to me.

 

[Ironsided]

I only listened to the clip with GG in it. Nowhere does GG say people should follow Tucker or listen to him. He agrees with Tucker, and me, that the Democratic party is bad and exerting overbearing control on media that “if you do not agree with their [Democratic Party] orthodoxies and their consensus you are a threat and a danger”. Bernie was hit by this as much as anyone for example. GGs rather froth at the mouth lack of decorum makes him look worse than he is. I disagree with GG and Tuckers position that there should be less regulation on social media etc but that is the libertarian overlap they share, and I do not. This is not very relatable to your and others claims here.

Edit. Sorry if I did, Estebon

 

[Gorbles]

I only listened to the clip with GG in it. Nowhere does GG say people should follow Tucker or listen to him. He agrees with Tucker, and me, that the Democratic party is bad and exerting overbearing control on media that “if you do not agree with their [Democratic Party] orthodoxies and their consensus you are a threat and a danger”. Bernie was hit by this as much as anyone for example. GGs rather froth at the mouth lack of decorum makes him look worse than he is. I disagree with GG and Tuckers position that there should be less regulation on social media etc but that is the libertarian overlap they share, and I do not. This is not very relatable to your and others claims here.

Appearing on Tucker's show and doing Republican-stance anti-Democrat messaging is endorsing Tucker's show. He's not being critical of Tucker. He's not pushing back on extreme nonsense theories - he's engaging in them. If you want a signed affidavit from Greenwald you're not going to get it, but otherwise this is just a disappointing use of "tangible", redefined to mean "evidence that will convince you personally". That's not what tangible means. I cannot convince you of something you have decided that you don't want to be convinced on. And you're actively looking for ways in which this reflects well on Greenwald, so, what can I do?

The Democrats are bad, sure. So are the Republicans, and Carlson is a key personality in disseminating the dual-party system in that regard to his viewers. When you hyperfocus on the "Democrats are bad" to the extent that you ignore the existence of the other party and how state media supports them, you are not doing a fair analysis. I don't know why you're so stuck on defending Greenwald, perhaps you're frustrated now that Biden is in charge and the usual Democrat backtracking is in full effect. But it isn't going to help you in the long run.

It is also intensely ironic that you're echoing criticism of the Democratic Party's control of the media after I linked a Tucker Carlson piece on FOX News. That's about as "overbearing control of the media" (with a massive following and impact on the general Overton window) as you can get. I'm sincerely asking you to take a step back and look at how far you're going to justify partisan news, just because it happens to be targeting an aspect of US politics you yourself (and likely many others!) disagree with.

 

[Ironsided]

Greenwald appears on many leftist sites and media agreeing with them as well. He is not the one being partisan left - right. Neither am I on this issue, except for with Bernie whom I am partisan to with pride.

 

[Gorbles]

Greenwald appears on many leftist sites and media agreeing with them as well. He is not the one being partisan left - right. Neither am I on this issue, except for with Bernie whom I am partisan to with pride.

Does he? Can you cite them?

And I'm not saying you're being partisan, I'm saying your preference for Greenwald is blinding you to the nature of his rhetoric. He's not even being partisan (not truly), he's simply being mercenary (which accurately describes a lot of the nominally-partisan reactionary political commentators of modern times).

 

[Ironsided]

Last I saw him was recently on “Useful Idiots” with Taibbi and Halper. Discussing how media these days do little to expose corruption and power centres.


Edit: And I know he also recently had an interview with Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski but I haven’t watched it in full.

 

[Gorbles]

That's him cultivating the same political commentator contacts he's had ever since making his big, bold move to independence and freedom (sorry, that wasn't really at you, that was more from the bit I had with inno). Interestingly enough, social media reactions to Kulinski hosting Greenwald was split down between "omg yes" and "omg no", which should show you that this is an understandably polarising thing.

That said, I wouldn't say that that's many sites, nor do I see much agreement with leftist ideals (at the moment). He mainly seems to be invited on in his role as political journalist, to speak on how it's covered at the moment (from his perspective). The problem with this is attending FOX News and doing bits with Tucker Carlson. It's hypocritical to try and expose "liberal" media if you're willing to platform literal FOX News on the topic of "this is why the Democrats are bloodthirsty". Greenwald isn't an idiot, so it's hard for me to rationalise away the impact that has on the political and ideological spectrums. He knows the base he's talking to. He knows what he's saying, and whose show he's saying it on.

You can call it purity politics if you like (I'm not saying you do), but it's important to have a baseline in terms of behaviour to expect.