Greenwald is one of the last remaining journalists out there who sincerely criticize both the left and the right. While I disagree with a lot of what he writes, I give him a huge amount of credit for it.

Ann Coulter also criticizes both the left and the right. Credit should be given to those who can do so intelligently and egolessly, and neither Coulter nor Greenwald pass that bar.

I used to like him. A few years ago though he said some things about Sam harris that were sensationalist and untrue.

Its a little tedious to compare his assertions to actual positions or rebuttals, but it left me feeling pretty disappointed in Greenwald for the carefulness of his thought (I'm assuming he wasn't being deliberately obtuse to be dramatic)

Greenwald is a political activist.

Not to comment on Greenwald personally, but how can you (outside of very cynical nihilism) analyze political/social activities and relationships in depth and not be, to some degree, an activist yourself?

Everyone is a political activist, even people just going about their day. The only difference is the degree to which you're honest with yourself and others about it.

Good journalists have to be, it seems.

No. This is the sign of our times. And I might follow you, I might join your club if you're an activist, but I will not read your news site and pay for it if I want news. Activist opinions are free today.

Not that I really care about Glenn Greenwald one way or another, but do you think criticism of major media isn't a worthwhile thing?

He focuses entirely on MSNBC talking heads that he feuds with, not on actual news reporting.

Criticism of talking heads is easy and not newsworthy.

Lol "Entirely".

He runs a news organization and puts out constant publications/podcasts/etc on things that are not just criticizing talking heads.

Entirely may be an exaggeration. I should have said mostly. His recent articles list on The Intercept support that.

I just skimmed Greenwald's bylines and here's some recent media crit that isn't about msnbc

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia... (about nbc)

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w... (about multiple outlets, lots of wapo)

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/cnn-submits-to-right-win... (about CNN)

I'd say at a glance there is slightly more crit of MSNBC than other major news outlets, but doesn't that make sense given the intercept's left-libertarian leanings? Of course they don't think brietbart or fox is doing good reporting. So bad in fact that it's not even worth commenting on.

The Intercept is nowhere near left-libertarian. Left-libertarianism is a strand of socialism (you'll find left libertarians spanning from anarchists and communists/libertarian Marxists to more moderate socialists), and the origin of libertarianism.

Here is the first left-libertarian, and anarch-communist criticising Proudhon for being just a moderate anarcist and liberal, rather than libertarian, and segueing into a rant against property rights:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...

I was being imprecise, but I don't think we're ever going to finish arguing about categorizing the different strains of left politics.

I should have described them as "left of center w/ an emphasis on personal rights and privacy".

I don't think people will finish arguing about that either, but in this case "left-libertarian" at least has a clear enough definition to make it clear that the Intercept is not it.

> I should have described them as "left of center w/ an emphasis on personal rights and privacy".

I don't know if I agree with this either, but at least this is close enough to be arguable.

> So bad in fact that it's not even worth commenting on.

The real reason is that Greenwald isn't feuding with Fox News's political commentators. He is a frequent guest on their shows.

This is possibly the laziest critique of Greenwald out there

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aggreenwald%20fox%20news&...

Are you looking at the same link that you posted? Most of those comments are supportive of Fox News.

That is possibly the laziest link posting I've ever seen.

Of the first 8 comments, it appears that 3 are critical, 1 is supportive, and 4 are neutral/factual.

[critical] It took demand of Canada's Government for @FoxNews to finally delete false tweet blaming Muslims for mosque attack

[neutral] Isn't it a little strange to constantly rail about "state TV" when it comes to RT & Fox and then hire CIA Directors & General as your "news analysts"?

[critical] You can announce on MSNBC that Putin may have ordered Trump's attack on Assad & then scoff at Fox & Fake News

[neutral] "One giant Fox News" - how Wagner Moura explains to his American friends what the dominant Brazilian media is like

[supportive] Kudos to Fox News' @KirstenPowers asking Trump about Ailes & getting amazing answers http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/01/ailes-trump... …

[neutral] Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage - major backer of both BREXIT & Trump - joins Fox News as a contributor

[critical] Starting now: coverage of the greatest and most orchestrated governmental threat to free speech in the US: legally imposed Israel Oaths (a story self-professed free speech crusaders at Fox News have thus far refused to cover, because doing so might offend their viewers)

[neutral] When Reagan transmitted the treaty to the Senate in 1988, he said it was necessary to prosecute all torturers, and allow no justifications for its use. Might be worth reading to Fox News guests, and ex-CIA officials defending Gina Haspel http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

You skipped over the very first tweet where he suggests watching his Fox News appearance, which is supportive.

> [neutral] Isn't it a little strange to constantly rail about "state TV" when it comes to RT & Fox and then hire CIA Directors & General as your "news analysts"?

False. This is critical of MSNBC's hires, and supportive of Fox News and RT.

> [critical] You can announce on MSNBC that Putin may have ordered Trump's attack on Assad & then scoff at Fox & Fake News

False. This is critical of MSNBC and supportive of Fox News. He is scoffing at MSNBC's scoffing at Fox.

That flips your numbers around.

Fox & Fake News. He's calling Fox fake news by association though.

Seems likely he's equally critical of MSNBC & Fox?

P.s. the tweets that I listed were the first bunch that showed up for me, didn't see a tweet above them (such as the one you mentioned).

He's saying, "Fox & Fake News" sarcastically to mimic what MSNBC would say.

MSNBC is rapidly devolving to the Infowars of the left. I think criticism is entirely founded and important: some people still think MSNBC is an unbiased and accurate source.

I think his criticism is justified and very well substantiated. What makes you think it's nothing more than a "petty feud"?