Anyway, the guy is purely a careerist nowadays. Going onto FOX and being the Alan Colmes of the station proves it. Everything I see from him screams, “What take will draw the most attention?” Doesn’t matter how stupid it is. If anything, the stupider the better since stupid takes get his name out there.
Also the idea that he’s a journalist is fucking laughable. If the Snowden material didn’t fall into his lap, he’d be less than a blip on the MSM radar. Hell, he initially rejected getting involved because he was too lazy to install encryption software. He’s at best an opinion columnist.
Well I’m open to alternative explanations about why he’s on Tucker Carlson screaming that Adam Schiff is the most dishonest guy in the universe when Giuliani is the one pushing a plainly partisan story designed to mislead the public. “He thinks getting facts right, rather than telling the public an accurate story, is the job of a journalist” is the most charitable one I have.
Fair enough. What prompted me to post was to point out that inference and to say that it’s certainly not generally valid. Mostly as I also think that the motive of the source is irrelevant if you take seriously that your own integrity is at stake with what your motive and narrative in publishing is.
I think you might agree that it’s not a general inference, but you do hold it with Greenwald. Hence fair enough. I said later in my post what I take his angle to be, but I don’t want to go too far there as I don’t read most of his stuff and I am not an uncritical fan of his.
Glenn Greenwald is a clown and took a ridiculous victory lap after Bill Barr did that Mueller memo. He is more than happy to uncritically accept whatever known liars and war criminals like Bill Barr have to say when it fits his narrative. He is absolutely a fraud and should be ignored.
The motives of the source can obviously be relevant to 1 but if the information leaked is true then the motives of the source are, indeed, irrelevant.
Saying that the emails are not earth-shattering is different from saying they’re not newsworthy. They’re obviously newsworthy – establishing “standard sleaze and DC corruption” is certainly a story worth exploring, although in this specific case it’s not establishing all that much new, just filling in some specifics to the fairly well-established broad outlines of Hunter’s sleazy associations.
But obviously Greenwald is correct that the far more important story is the media’s reaction to the story.
Name another reporter with two scoops as noteworthy as Snowden and the Intercept’s Brazil reporting. He’s not a journalist because you hate him. A dangerous standard.
The story is that the President’s personal lawyer is a deranged fascist lunatic that at best worked w/ another bad actor to have Hunter’s computer hacked or stolen, and then lied about how they accessed the materials and wildly misrepresented the contents. At worst, the contents were partially or totally fabricated.
That is stories A, B and C. A responsible journalist would hound the President about what he knew about this scheme and when he knew it. Then maybe as a footnote, you’d be interested in the minor newsworthy contents re: the Bidens.
Or you can go on White Power Hour screaming to your delusional nihilistic Joker wannabe fans about the nasty Ds.
I agree that would be a hell of a story. Step one to reporting that story would be asking Hunter if he dropped the laptops off at the repair shop as the Post alleges, right? No question that the media should be investigating this possibility.
They asked for comment, Hunter’s lawyer didn’t address that question but said of Rudy “He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence.”
It doesn’t follow that he does. I think greenwald has said he will go on any program that has a large audience and will let him fairly make his points.