No one wakes up every day with a clean slate, having forgotten everyone who lied and cheated to them in the past. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
Journalistic reporting depends on some degree of trust. I can't go verify everything I read – I don't have the time, means, or interest. No one does that. I feel that in the past Greenwald has demonstrated to be unreliable because he views the world too much through an ideological lens.
Everyone does that with certain outlets and people.
Greenwald is currently going through what appears to be some sort of public breakdown that features poorly supported claims of conspiracies and vendettas---including multiple reports that he views any editorial process as 'censorship'. He is not, at least at the moment, a reliable source, especially on this topic. This makes me sad, given the good work he has done in the past. I hope he finds his way back.
Greenwald has credibility because of his reporting on Snowden. That is primary and basically only reason why he is celebrity.
And due to that, for many (including me in past) he is given trust and benefits of doubt other people don't. So I see parent comment quite relevant - the truth telling is matter of past.
But it also means that his allegiance is to the brand, not the truth. People who like his brand are consuming it for the brand, and are not necessarily seeking out alternatives. Errors that would harm the reputation of an ordinary journalist don't do anything to a journalist who can simply reiterate false claims to build their brand.
I'm not speaking specifically of Greenwald here. Just pointing out that independence is no guarantee of trustworthiness, either. People love news that affirms them, regardless of the truth, and sometimes rigid, prominent rejection of the truth can be very good for the brand.
And Greenwald doesn't present himself as impartial.
And impartiality is not required for a journalist to have legitimacy.
And "impartiality" as practiced really means oscillating between voices of Republicans and Democrats and no one else, making the conversation always inherently pro-government.
No one is perfect, so it's about how you handle your mistakes. Was there anything specific that discredits Taibbi and Greenwald as trustworthy reporters?
All right, well if you want to use a reasonable definition of lying by omission then I agree with your premise that most journalists are not lying by omission. I would extend that to say that Greenwald also does not lie by omission. He has his beat, he covers it well, and he has been good about accuracy.
Edit: That's not to say that he's completely unbiased (especially on Twitter), he is human after all. But generally I have been very happy with his reporting, especially since he dares to report on subjects that other parts of the media ignore completely.
There we go. A journalist is supposed to follow the facts wherever they go -- even if it reveals something they're uncomfortable with. They build a reputation by researching and checking their stories, and not running stories unless the facts hold up.
Greenwald made his name with quality investigative journalism. It sounds like he has fallen from this standard by trying to run a story with dubious political talking points and pass it off as factual news. We have a term for people like this: tabloid writers or opinion commentators. This is a sad decline to see.
He's free to do whatever he likes in his own name -- and it sounds like this is the path he has chosen.
It's pretty much down to Glenn Greenwald now. I struggle to name another journalist whose work I would be inclined to take at face value, without immediately trying to figure out what agenda the author is trying to push, or searching for sources to confirm I'm being lied to.
What bothers me are the hundreds or even thousands of journalists that spout corporate lines, propaganda, and outright lies everyday, and not much is said about them, but with principled journalists like Greenwald, you get these nitpicky judgemental critiques that seem aimed at deriding them.
Yes, Greenwald is not perfect, but he is more objective, honest, and brave than the great majority of journalists out there. It has the flavor of an inorganic smear campaign that has been absorbed repeatedly and unconsciously across social media. It's a common pattern for a post about an anti-establishemt figure to have some positive comments about them, but then some critique inevitably bubbles to the top of thread every time.
It's ad hominem, and Greenwald has always been incompetent. Just look at his PRISM reporting, which he still hasn't issued a correction for and just never talks about anymore (not a single mention in his pardon rant on Substack) after apparently finally realizing how embarrassingly wrong his reporting was.
I have seen too many journalists gain a reputation for one story, and then ride that reputation into the ground, and while I still have a lot of respect for Greenwald, I feel like that's what I'm watching happen with him right now.
greenwald had a lot of credibility for sure, and I have given him the benefit of the doubt several times, but he just eroding that credibility. I would say that there isn't much of it left now...
Correct, but it's the collective push of "independent" news sites, including The Intercept
And as much as they push for the "Mainstream media is untrustworthy" agenda, guess what, they are less trustworthy than the mainstream media. But it's more insidious
Glenn Greenwald's has several times stated that his journalistic philosophy is that journalists should not try to be impartial. They should have bias and be activists. He works accordingly. He attacks his enemies (political and personal), has feuds, always takes sides, refuses to consider opposing views and is black and white.
Like or hate Greenwald, but can't say that he is taking a stand against journalistic bias.
Journalistic reporting depends on some degree of trust. I can't go verify everything I read – I don't have the time, means, or interest. No one does that. I feel that in the past Greenwald has demonstrated to be unreliable because he views the world too much through an ideological lens.
Everyone does that with certain outlets and people.
reply