View Single Post
Old 08-26-2021, 04:23 PM   #102
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
DISGUSTING & DANGEROUS,” screamed the banner headline at the bottom of the television screen, just under the blonde-sheathed visage of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “GREENWALD BLASTS INTERCEPT FOR SMEARING INGRAHAM GUESTS.”

Oh goodie, a Fox News banner headline. Did Greenwald write it. Doubtful. And shouldn't smearing people be blasted?

And so during a recent episode of The Ingraham Angle, Glenn Greenwald—who is so familiar to the top-rated cable channel’s millions of viewers that he requires only a surname—put on a suit and tie in Rio de Janeiro, where he lives, to continue doing what has occupied his energies for much of the past month.

Sounds like a hard working guy. But appearing on Ingraham's show? How dare he? Are you implying that's a bad thing? Or is it somebody you're quoting? Don't see any citation.

That’s deploying every conceivable platform—from Twitter (where he has 1.6 million followers) to YouTube to Substack to an array of popular conservative websites to the very top of the ziggurat, Rupert Murdoch’s corporate cash cow—to denounce former friends and colleagues at The Intercept, the left-leaning digital news and opinion site he co-founded with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill in 2013.

Oh wow, the only thing that "has occupied his energies for much of the past month" is denouncing former friends and colleagues at The Intercept." That's a strange thing to say because I've checked out several of his videos lately and very few of the ones I've seen have solely focussed on, if at all, his former associates at The Intercept, unless he's asked, and their content is much vaster in scope than just the intercept. I know that when he left he was often questioned about them and he did comment, and even had some nice or good things to say about some of them. They certainly were not supportive of him.

And deploying every conceivable platform!! This is outrageous. And how did he miss the Progressive outlets? Are they not "conceivable"? Would they allow him to deploy them?


“These millennial digital liberal outlets like the Intercept, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, so many of them—they think that if you’re a conservative, you’re not really a journalist,” the 54-year-old Greenwald intoned (a tad weirdly, because most of his targets are in their late forties and fifties),

I think there is much truth to what he said. And he's not a "conservative." But, I guess, there must be some disreputable reason he said such a thing.

while Ingraham could barely contain a gleeful grin.

I commend you (or the person you're quoting) for being able to detect someone on TV barely containing something, and why shouldn't she have a gleeful grin. Rachel Maddow wouldn't gleefully grin at something a "conservative" said that mirrored her opinions? Gee, how can you be sure that a grin is gleeful, not just a grin. And why a grin, not just a smile. Ahh . . . journalism is so honest, isn't it. It just tries to give you facts, not opinions, or conjectures, or insinuations.

“They think that you’re part of this crypto-fascist movement, that you’re the enemy,” he added—referring to two young conservative videographers whose coverage of Black Lives Matter and other protests came under The Intercept’s withering scrutiny.

Uh oh, Greenwald is expressing an opinion or conjecture. How dare he. Only corporate journalists and Pete F. are allowed to do that.

This past month has occasioned spectacular success, of a sort, for the pugnacious contrarian pundit, an erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender who once again is proving his mastery of the right-wing media ecosystem.

"erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender"?--I haven't heard that he is no longer erstwhile or leftist or a journalist. Thought he was still all that (an erstwhile journalist who has leftist political views but doesn't let that cloud his journalism). Nor have I heard him defend Trump per se. He has not defended Trump as a person. Nor has he defended, on the whole, Trump's policies, personal opinions, or character. He has spoken against what he considers lies or inaccuracies about Trump that have been used as political weapons. But he has not said that he is for or in favor of Trump. He has implied or said otherwise.

Indeed, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that runs from Twitter to Fox News and back again, Greenwald has managed, like Trump before him, to orchestrate his very own news cycles.

How dare he do such an anti-social, self perpetuating thing! It's simply indefensible and unscrupulous. No one, except Trump, apparently, has done this. And if Trump did it, it must be immoral and unprincipled.

Gee it seems like corporate media is able to orchestrate its very own news cycles. But, you know, they're the real legitimate thing. So what they do is good for us.


Last year, following his exit from The Intercept, Greenwald admitted to The Daily Beast that Fox News airs its share of “horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted” content.

He "admitted" to The Daily Beast (probly a part of his feedback loop). As if he "confessed" his sin of associating with Fox News. And yet he did not talk nice about it. So if he accepts invitations to go on Fox he is no longer an erstwhile leftist journalist and is therefor a Donald Trump defender. But if he talks to The Daily Beast, then he is again an erstwhile leftist journalist. Maybe he's an erstwhile journalist both ways. I think so.

However, he defended his frequent Fox hits, saying, “I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions.”

Now that sounds like an erstwhile journalist to me. But I guess, for some, like you or who you're quoting, going on Fox is abandoning journalism. And it's especially honorable if you refuse to do so if you're pressured by one-sided leftist supposed journalists.

And now he is effectively operating as something of a Fox News assignment editor, as indicated by The Daily Beast’s spot check of the frequency with which Greenwald’s online musings on social media and elsewhere, especially his Substack page, have served as the basis for dozens of articles on Fox News’ website.
"effectively operating as something of a"--now that's a beautifully effective and weaselly mouthful of nothing. You, or whoever you're quoting has demonstrated his mastery of the glib slant. Fakery of the highest linguistic order. A charlatan trying to imply that Greenwald is a fraud.

Neither you nor who you quote has pointed out what is fraudulent in Greenwald's writing or videos. You have mentioned nothing about the video discussion with him in this thread. You just go to the old trick of trying to defame him by association. Sort of a fake news thing, or calling something not by its proper name.

Last edited by detbuch; 08-26-2021 at 04:28 PM..
detbuch is offline