It's contentless and cheap. I'd like to hear some counterarguments to Glen's points instead.
The content I've added is, "This article is hard for me to read because of its tone." Agree or disagree, I found it difficult to get through, and hard to see what Glenn was trying to point out as a result of the tone he chose.
Am I not allowed to comment on an article's tone?
> I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet
In these you attack the author rather his points.
Being hard to read for you doesn't discredit the article's arguments either.
I'd rather hear what you dislike about the points being made rather than how they read, because the former is more important to having an actual conversation.
EDIT: Resignation letter here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
"The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week"
You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden.
Photos of drug fueled sex romps with prostitutes by the president's son are newsworthy. Same goes for his investments and work in foreign countries. The lack of investigative journalism into Hunter Biden is the product of something far worse than what Greenwald is covering. This has zero to do with the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy - this is powerful people that are doing things that the proles cannot, while being shielded by the same people tasked with holding them accountable.
That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).
Finally, Greenwald published his resignation letter. Intercept also published their letter to him. It was never about news worthiness. It was a debate on ‘what’ the content was as I mentioned in my earlier response
So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed?
And then comes the double standards - "allegedly hacked" - Trump's tax returns and his wife's phone conversations were published and not suppressed shortly before the story on HB broke. And to be clear, because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction here will be to default to team politics, Trump's tax returns absolutely deserved to be published.
Whatever your stripe of politics, you're eventually (and painfully) going to realize that you're being systematically fed a wave of lies. WMDs (no one jailed), GFC (no recovery, no one jailed), Guantanamo (still open), drone strikes in 75+ countries (still going), NSA spying (still going), Snowden (still innocent, still a political refugee), Epstein (didn't kill himself). Crickets from the media, zero accountability. Wake up.
You don't have to be rude. I have engaged in a polite conversation with you.
>>And then comes the double standards <<<
Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published.
Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked. They were provided (though without his knowledge) by someone who had legal access to it (like Mary Trump and she did say she provided it) but again you can argue a double standard.
His wife's phone conversations were not hacked. One of the participants in the call recorded it and released it (and the state she was in allows one participant to record a call)
It absolutely is relevant. There is clear coordination between these organizations to suppress information. You can't look at the bannings occurring across multiple media platforms simultaneously (multiple instances) and not draw this conclusion. Further, there's a revolving door between government agencies and media companies - this industry is carrying water for the powers that be.
>Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked
What is social engineering? You're arguing in trivial semantics and missing the forest for the trees.
Hacked was never a legitimate threshold for suppressing information before someone in power was threatened.
I wonder if you share the same disdain for these very same behaviors within modern "journalism" that Glenn discusses in the article, as they are increasingly ubiquitous.
This comment is deeply ironic.
They're right though. One-eyed men in the land of the blind. Being right matters more than a politely crafted message.
Further, you're attacking the messenger and not the point/substance of the message. Weak.
I’m sympathetic to some of his points but this article by itself is not convincing.
Good question. Perhaps the answer is that we're beyond convincing at this point. A product of dispersion. We Americans all drifting apart economically, politically, and in how we perceive reality. As to where that leads us - likely chaos.
He seemed to raise many separate facts and past situations to prove his point, do read the article and come back with logical arguments.
To prove his point the author, a journalist, spends most of his article telling us a tale about a dubious thing a semi-public figure wrote on social media, claims she is "malicious, disgusting and sociopathic", suggests the only possible motivation for journalists like her investigating things which semi public figures say off the record is "to control, to coerce, to dominate, to repress"[1] and says his followers should feel "a particular obligation" to heap scorn on her and other targets of his ire.
My irony meter exploded.
[1]yes, this is the founder of The Intercept and prominent Wikileaks advocate Glenn Greenwald suggesting there's something wrong with "eavesdropping on private conversations" of influential billionaires by getting invited to their chatroom.
I don't understand? The difference between author and NYT reporter is one reported a lie, and the other reported based off of facts (though will a lot of emotion/ tone).
A freelancer tweets a banal point that Substack's level of direct support for its writers means that - unlike Patreon - at some stage they're going to have to consider perceived editorial slant if they end up promoting a lot of high profile contratrians, and receives a whole 17 likes for doing so. Several months later Greenwald accuses him of the thoughtcrime of "shaming Substack" and includes him on his list of people to heap scorn on. And Glenn wants you to believe it's other journalists that have developed an unhealthy obsession with hanging out on social media looking for targets...
Having said that, the NYT and their writers have gone too far too many times for instances like this to go unnoticed. I think it's entirely justified to start fighting fire with fire and calling for the cancelation of the cancelers.
He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak impartially about this topic. This is an attempted hit piece and he's not subtle about it, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality.
I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet, as they saw through Taibbi's.