Glenn - our politics are diametrically opposed, but there is absolutely no other person I trust more than you to provide an honest assessment of the deep undercurrents shaping our world through the media, government and other cultural institutions. I first started reading your Salon articles as a young man, and you have easily been one of the most influential figures in my formative years. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to see you drop the yoke that the Intercept has become. As a lawyer now at a large New York law firm mirroring your earlier path in life, I can only hope to one day contribute one iota of the good you have provided to this world. Stay true, you have many people that look to you for strength.
Idk what GG's politics are. He critiques public and private corruption, media bs, lies and propaganda, excessive government power, cruelty to animals. But criticism doesn't say much about positive politics. I've no idea what he thinks about, for example, how, through politics, we curtail corporate and financial power. I've no idea.
Back in 2013, Glenn wrote a response to the most common falsehoods propagated against him. That original post has been lost as the blog it was hosted on no longer exists, but I found an article referencing it here:
The entire thing is enlightening, but if you scroll down to the section labeled: "I'm a right-wing libertarian" I think you'll find information that will be helpful.
A shorter answer can be found in the video above where he is interviewed by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, he states at around the 8:10 mark that he - along with many other writers at TI - was a Sanders supporter in the 2020 dem presidential primary.
That list you found on Daily Kos really is useful. Thanks. From that list we can summarize: pro civil liberty, pro liberal democracy, contra excessive corporate and financial power, contra empire.
But supporting Sanders, as I did until he rolled over for party and donors, doesn't say all that much. For example, I'll vote for a tax-the-rich-spend-on-jobs-and-services platform if its the best thing on offer but I actually disagree with it for a number of reasons, not least that it boosts the productive/consumer economy when we urgently need to shrink it to save the planet, and it doesn't challenge the power of the ruling class, it just begs them to give us a bit more. A lot of good progressives, liberals and populists are actually pro capitalism, even if they might try to deny it. Sanders is an example among many.
That sounds like a good summary. Can't disagree with any of it, including your comments on Sanders. I think it would be fair to say that many of us are forced to support the politicians who most closely align with our most important issues, BUT trying to extrapolate what our issues are - for any of us, least of whom Glenn - is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls as a result of the extremely compromised structure of our political system. The only alternative to that is complete withdrawal from the system, which some do and which I understand.
It just struck me when I read "Glenn - our politics are diametrically opposed, but..." that I don't know what means. If you invert or somehow find the complementary politics to GG's, what would that be? That depends on characterizing GG's politics.
Using one rant from 2013 is like shaving the corners off so you can peg him in a round hole. And who are these "good" progressives and liberals you speak of?! Liberals, Republicans, LGBTQ, BLM, Tea Partyers, Feminists, etc., all group-thinkers are tools for controlling the population. Inmates travel prison grounds in tightly formed lines, better to keep an eye on them. They don't hunt sheep, they herd them. Had they been separated from the rest, the Jews would have clawed eyeballs to take with them on their way out rather than being subdued by concern for the good of the others. I'm a woman but you won't find me out there hollering for more feminist handouts, I want more than my share of the tip jar. Perhaps Mr. Greenwald's a Square, not fitting in a circle.
To your question: I mean good people, as in decent people, not cruel, unkind, excessively selfish people, who identify as progressives, liberals and populists.
I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your note except that I don't think that people who identify as progressive or liberal are necessarily as you describe.
What? Sorry to interrupt, but did The Great And Powerful Kos finally shutter that cesspool of a blog? I left them behind during the first O administration, because things got seriously vile over there--and I vowed to myself that I'd never again type their address into my browser (or I'd go look for myself, lol!). I know he became part of VOX, or bankrolled it, or something, but lost the thread after that. Good riddance...
No idea what's happened to Kos. Never really read them as I found the signal to dreck ratio unhelpful. But what I linked to was an article that supplied Glenn's own words, literally, along with a wealth of links to the writing he did on very specific topics whih I thought others might find useful.
One of the persistent questions that arises - especially each time Glenn makes a migration to a new platform (UT --> Salon --> Guardian --> TI --> here) where new readers "find" him - revolves around what his specific "politics" are. Greenwald has, over the years, explicitly rejected labels as unproductive/reductive, and detailed why, yet people persist in trying to fit him into one box or another. Rather than look at it from that perspective, I found this article to be much more helpful and thought others might too (no matter where I found it).
Yes, he does which is one of his blind spots. He's clear minded about corruption in politics and MSM yet supports charlatans and grifters like Sanders and AOC.
There is no good reason to call them grifters. If they wanted to cash in, they'd become corporate puppets like every other politician. Instead, they serve we the people.
Sanders raised $46.5M in Feb 2020 alone. His fundraising largely involved asking ordinary people to donate as much as they could afford. Not much later he capitulated and pledged his support to the corporatist wing of the party having won nothing in terms of concrete policy proposals for the party platform. He traded away the power his legions of donors and supporters had given him in exchange for what?
It's one thing to take money from the donor class, I don't care if they get nothing in return. But to take money from people who have little to spare with no intention to fight for them, in a political fight for power ultimately backed by the threat to take his supporters elsewhere in the general, that's not ok.
I don't know for sure what his intent was but I doubt he was ever truly ready to play for power against the big guys. Jessie Ventura says that in the 2016 campaign he asked Sanders if he would run for president in a third party if he lost the primary. Sanders flatly said no and that he would support the Democratic Party candidate if that happens. I believe Ventura on this. So I don't believe Sanders was ever really serious about using his power.
To take all that money from small donors without the intent to fight for their interests might be described as a grift.
Who is "we"? So far as I can tell AOC called most of us Nazis and plans to not only disenfranchise us entirely for racial reasons but also has promised to completely destroy the economy within which we support ourselves. Her whole way of governing is menace and threaten Americans who live outside of NYC and San Fran for the amusement and profit of coastal elites.
Well, corporate power exists only because government allows it (no corporation exists without charter). Therefore government CAN regulate (and in fact does regulate). There are hard limits built in, but a great deal of freedom within those limits, especially in absence of oversight.
Therefore, through politics we can create pressure and policies to assert greater oversight and enforcement of existing regulation. But for that to happen, we must ensure government is faithful to the public. Partisan corruption has always been the major blocking point, so personally, I'm for eliminating parties and special-interest money, instead providing limited tax-supported campaign grants to candidates which meet a universal set of basic qualifications.
I was merely wondering what Scott J thinks GG's politics look like. I've read GG for years but I don't think I can piece together his vision from his writings.
What some of your "peers" fail to realize is that you built your entire career taking principled stances that put you on the outside of popular opinion and acceptable dialogue among the "mainstream" corporate journalists. You were in this position during the Bush years, the Obama years, and now it's no different. Those of us who have always appreciated your willingness to speak for the voiceless, no matter how unpopular it may be, will always be behind you even if it takes everyone else time to eventually catch up.
I'm a conservative so we're not likely to agree on many things, but I so respect the fact that it matters to you to get to the bottom of the story in an objective, and fair way that I felt I had to support your efforts and become a subscriber.
Hey, you and Matt are my heroes! Seriously, I'm 64 and I have never been more afraid for our country. If something doesn't happen to restore journalism in this country, we're doomed.
I'm 43 and have NEVER been afraid for the country itself.
But I've been paying attention for a long time, and I do not like what I see on the horizon. We're seeing all the warning signs but living in a society either not taught to watch out for the warnings or oppressing them outright.
I am a 23 year old who is very confused ideologically, but trying to get to the bottom of our political situation. I feel hopeful reading this comment board! Anyways, what do you think the immediate vs. long term consequences are of our current journalistic situation? I am trying to start digging and want to figure out where to start... Thank you!!
Welcome! The intellectually curious are a blessing for us all.
I think we just saw the formation of the Ministry of Truth this election. If Biden/Harris take office I don't see them biting the hand of the media empire that carried them across the finish line.
Do we believe enough in free speech to stop this? As a nation, it's clear we do not. "Speech for me but not for thee" seems to have replaced "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it". I'm afraid that we'll have a few solid voices out there like GG, but big media will dominate until the people simply walk away.
When that happens, we'll be there and there will be hope. Until they mandate you subscribe to the new state media......
Assange maybe, but I don't think the President can afford to alienate the entire national security apparatus, however just it would be to pardon Snowden.
Trump hasn't shown a reluctance to go against the national security apparatus in the past, and think he would jump at the opportunity to stick a thumb in their eye and expose how long they've been undermining our national security if given the chance.
An old dinosaur conservative here. We don't always agree, but I love your honesty and independence so I was willing and happy to subscribe. Keep up the good work and hopefully more real journalists will join you.
I am a conservative Republican - I studied journalism at the University of Missouri ... it is so disappointing the lack of objective journalism these days and the impact that has had on the truth. God bless you for trying your best to expose and report the truth. We need more like you. I am happy to support you even though I may not always agree. I loved your honesty in your interview with Tucker. God bless you and the USA.
Don't you know that objectivity is part of whiteness? Along with the values of hard work, respect for authority, delayed gratification, the nuclear family. This claim was part of an exhibit by a Smithsonian museum! And the push by the Left is to eliminate whiteness. This won't end well.
The clear problem here is that a large segment of the electorate - mainly, the activist elements of the electorate - have already not only convinced *themselves* "there is no debate to be had", but have also decided that because "there is no debate to be had" that "no one else must be allowed to have a debate either". This is strictly because they have convinced themselves that their opposition is an inherent threat to their existence - up to and including their very lives.
It is a moral panic like America has never seen before.
Whereas once upon a time you might have had enough worried parents getting together to scream about Dungeons & Dragons being a form of Satanic cult - because their pastors said so - they at least didn't widely believe their children were going to murder them in their sleep after rolling a few twenty-sided dice. Parents and community leaders who knew better were at least able to talk such people down, and the panic eventually fizzled.
Compare that to current-day mainstream Progressivism. Cooler heads are few and far between, and when they arise, they are screamed down from the podium by the panicked mass. They are further deplatformed so they can't do it again. The more they persist in calling for calm considerate conversation, the more they are called out by those who have HARNESSED the panic for their own elevation. Social-media followers counts, influence networks, Patreon cash money - these are all far more important to the instigators, and they can be gotten far more easily from panicked masses. The same was true of virtually every past moral panic in history; the grifters arise to sell fear and snake oil. Rational discussion removes the need to buy the snake oil, so mobs are sent to remove the better nature from our souls through credit-card cancellation, job elimination/denial, and even attacks in the street (or at one's home!).
While the Extreme Right is by no means innocent of this sort of thing, on the Left it's not limited to the extremes. The extremes are mainstreaming, and if not pushed back, will become the Left's norm. "No debate allowed, as there is none to be had".
great conversation and add to the thread, but I can't scroll past, without suggesting that you may be seeing this through a filter of whatever conservative position you hold. to characterize it as a leftist problem, with softball acknowledgement for the extremist on the right, does a disservice to your point. Radicalization happens, especially in an opaque, cloudy ecosystem, where an unrepresentative and an unaccountable "elite", be they government or generational wealth rentier class (which I believe the evidence supports, actually controls and operates the the government) hide almost everything, behind BS curtains of national security, or whatever. the Snowden affirmations (I call them that, because they did after all, affirm what many critical thinkers already knew was happening) clearly proved, the majority of what we as people are fed, is theater, scripted with intent.
so to blame the left, is a weakness. they are mirror images of the right. for after all, the right and the left, are simply people. brothers and sisters. neighbors.
You're talking about mainstream Democrats, neoliberals, identitarians, etc. They would mostly be seen as center-right in civilized societies around the world. Only in the US, where we have what is effectively one party -- the Corporate Party -- with two right wings, near and far, could referring to these people as leftists provoke anything other than derisive laughter.
You're correct, though, that each side in this election battle -- that is, the popular base of each side, the flock -- sees the other as an existential threat to its worldview. And that's not an unreasonable assessment. There will likely be hell to pay for the rank and file losers of this one.
The Owners and their minions who run the show aren't worried, of course. They expect to be unscathed by the fallout that lands on the gullible masses and that expectation tends to be borne out in reality.
wait, what? the Enlightenment was a exclusively Humanist, people minded effort, the exact opposite of conservatism. Conservatives of the revolutionary era, were crown loyalists, were snitches of colonial revolutionaries. Conservatives fought the end of slavery. Conservatives fought women's suffrage. conservatism, exclusively opposes change to status quo. your comment, is in direct conflict, to the record.
It would be more accurate to say the values of the Enlightenment are the values of the few remaining small-government Liberty-loving elements of the modern right. They are in opposition to the values of both the left and the corporate big-government right.
Hi Glenn. Congratulations on your declaration of independence! Hopefully someday you'll look back on this as the best career decision you ever made.
You've surely noticed a lot of your subscribers are conservative/right-leaning by today's standards--including me. Please, whatever else you do, continue to lay out brutally honest criticisms of Trump, Republicans, and right-wing ideology whenever it is due. We are here not to have our biases validated, but because we respect your work.
I don't blame The Intercept. They saw a market niche was available for MSNBClite and they grabbed it. The Intercept will be an excellent training ground for potential future MSNBC contributors. Mr. Mehdi Hasan has already made the transition and I am confident that he will be the first of many Intercept alumni who make it to the big leagues. MSNBC does an excellent job of anaesthetizing the minds of its viewers with comforting content tailored to their preconceived biases so that they never have to do the unpleasant task of thinking. It's a surefire formula that guarantees commercial success.
However, there is also a place for journalism. There are masochists who want to understand the world as it actually exists. And there are a few misfits who like to investigate and truthfully report what they find. If these people connect, there is a possibility for commercial success on a smaller scale. So best of luck to Mr. Greenwald.
Long-time fan from early Unclaimed Territory days just subscribed. As important and brave as your journalism has been over all these years, your unflinching consistency in your core beliefs and standing up for them no matter the circumstances is what I admire as much as anything. Which is why it was absolutely laughable when TI overlords tried to say it was you that had changed.
I have complete confidence you will figure this one out and I look forward to supporting you on your next adventure.
It was nice getting to know you on the Joe Rogan Show the other day. I have been an admirer of your work for years. Your reporting keeps my eyes open and adds truth to many conversations.
Near the beginning there was an AH-HAH moment for me when GG explained that before he was writing full time he was a litigator and he brought those skills to his first interview with Snowden, giving him the Guantanamo treatment: 8-hours of intense questioning without offering a glass of water.
Now how he comes across on camera in interviews makes complete sense ;)
Sadly, integrity doesn't appear to be thought of as a corporate breadwinner these days.
But if the outpouring of support for people like Glenn who actually try - from all political tribes! - is any indication, there is DEFINITELY a substantial niche market being severely overlooked.
As a progressive who doesn’t agree with many views that Tucker Carlson holds or held, the one view he seems to have consistently voice that I vehemently agree with is the importance of freedom of speech, which in my mind trumps the specifics of the speech itself (which one may or may not agree with). This makes Tucker nowadays a must watch for any progressive who believes in the idea of free speech. (He is also far more intelligent than many talking heads who mindless repeat views - even some I agree with - just because it makes them “popular” and not with any depth)
Today’s media landscape is dominated by institutional journalists who not only have given up any pretense of investigating the deeper power centers, but actively collude with them to coverup their misdeeds and attack those who would try and expose them and have *become* part of that corrupt power.
So this media which has cheered the continuing inquisition and torture of Assange - who was a light in a sea of blackness - has now turned on its enemies closer home - those that not only resist being corrupted but show them up.
The Biden tapes - or rather the reaction to them - have done more damage to the institutional media than Joe Biden. They have revealed a media that cheers the censorship of revelations from these tapes, revels in spreading disinfo about them (“Russian operation”) and even sowing deliberate confusion in the minds of the public as an NBC “investigation” finding that a completely different, unrelated set of documents were mysteriously sourced did. (Thus NBC spent more time tracking down the provenance of some obscure documents that few if any were talking about, rather than the ones that were being highlighted: authenticated Hunter Biden emails/docs and a named corroborating witness who went on TV - rather than remaining in the shadows as an “anonymous source” - to allege Joe Biden was lying when he said he didn’t know about his family’s businesses.)
Hope that more principled journalists will have the financial opportunity to cast off their chains and go back to doing real journalism.
Agreed re Tucker Carlson. He is also anti-illegal regime change wars. He offered pres. candidate Tulsi Gabbard a platform when few others would. Tucker Carlson is credited for influencing Trump to avoid a hot war with Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unltD5gzd9I
As a leftist who can't stand Tucker Carlson, I'm still glad Glenn goes on his show because he reaches millions who otherwise wouldn't hear his important perspective. These comments are a testament to how successful he's been at reaching people on the right
Unlike decades past, when the media had more diversity in thought and socioeconomic class, the media now selects upper middle class ideological clones from far left academic silos.
Glenn - our politics are diametrically opposed, but there is absolutely no other person I trust more than you to provide an honest assessment of the deep undercurrents shaping our world through the media, government and other cultural institutions. I first started reading your Salon articles as a young man, and you have easily been one of the most influential figures in my formative years. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to see you drop the yoke that the Intercept has become. As a lawyer now at a large New York law firm mirroring your earlier path in life, I can only hope to one day contribute one iota of the good you have provided to this world. Stay true, you have many people that look to you for strength.
Idk what GG's politics are. He critiques public and private corruption, media bs, lies and propaganda, excessive government power, cruelty to animals. But criticism doesn't say much about positive politics. I've no idea what he thinks about, for example, how, through politics, we curtail corporate and financial power. I've no idea.
Back in 2013, Glenn wrote a response to the most common falsehoods propagated against him. That original post has been lost as the blog it was hosted on no longer exists, but I found an article referencing it here:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more
The entire thing is enlightening, but if you scroll down to the section labeled: "I'm a right-wing libertarian" I think you'll find information that will be helpful.
A shorter answer can be found in the video above where he is interviewed by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, he states at around the 8:10 mark that he - along with many other writers at TI - was a Sanders supporter in the 2020 dem presidential primary.
That list you found on Daily Kos really is useful. Thanks. From that list we can summarize: pro civil liberty, pro liberal democracy, contra excessive corporate and financial power, contra empire.
But supporting Sanders, as I did until he rolled over for party and donors, doesn't say all that much. For example, I'll vote for a tax-the-rich-spend-on-jobs-and-services platform if its the best thing on offer but I actually disagree with it for a number of reasons, not least that it boosts the productive/consumer economy when we urgently need to shrink it to save the planet, and it doesn't challenge the power of the ruling class, it just begs them to give us a bit more. A lot of good progressives, liberals and populists are actually pro capitalism, even if they might try to deny it. Sanders is an example among many.
That sounds like a good summary. Can't disagree with any of it, including your comments on Sanders. I think it would be fair to say that many of us are forced to support the politicians who most closely align with our most important issues, BUT trying to extrapolate what our issues are - for any of us, least of whom Glenn - is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls as a result of the extremely compromised structure of our political system. The only alternative to that is complete withdrawal from the system, which some do and which I understand.
It just struck me when I read "Glenn - our politics are diametrically opposed, but..." that I don't know what means. If you invert or somehow find the complementary politics to GG's, what would that be? That depends on characterizing GG's politics.
Using one rant from 2013 is like shaving the corners off so you can peg him in a round hole. And who are these "good" progressives and liberals you speak of?! Liberals, Republicans, LGBTQ, BLM, Tea Partyers, Feminists, etc., all group-thinkers are tools for controlling the population. Inmates travel prison grounds in tightly formed lines, better to keep an eye on them. They don't hunt sheep, they herd them. Had they been separated from the rest, the Jews would have clawed eyeballs to take with them on their way out rather than being subdued by concern for the good of the others. I'm a woman but you won't find me out there hollering for more feminist handouts, I want more than my share of the tip jar. Perhaps Mr. Greenwald's a Square, not fitting in a circle.
To your question: I mean good people, as in decent people, not cruel, unkind, excessively selfish people, who identify as progressives, liberals and populists.
I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your note except that I don't think that people who identify as progressive or liberal are necessarily as you describe.
Thanks Ped, glad to see you commenting here. ;-)
What? Sorry to interrupt, but did The Great And Powerful Kos finally shutter that cesspool of a blog? I left them behind during the first O administration, because things got seriously vile over there--and I vowed to myself that I'd never again type their address into my browser (or I'd go look for myself, lol!). I know he became part of VOX, or bankrolled it, or something, but lost the thread after that. Good riddance...
No idea what's happened to Kos. Never really read them as I found the signal to dreck ratio unhelpful. But what I linked to was an article that supplied Glenn's own words, literally, along with a wealth of links to the writing he did on very specific topics whih I thought others might find useful.
One of the persistent questions that arises - especially each time Glenn makes a migration to a new platform (UT --> Salon --> Guardian --> TI --> here) where new readers "find" him - revolves around what his specific "politics" are. Greenwald has, over the years, explicitly rejected labels as unproductive/reductive, and detailed why, yet people persist in trying to fit him into one box or another. Rather than look at it from that perspective, I found this article to be much more helpful and thought others might too (no matter where I found it).
It seems to me that Glenn leans towards the politics of Bernie Sanders and AOC. He certainly did help AOC elected.
Yes, he does which is one of his blind spots. He's clear minded about corruption in politics and MSM yet supports charlatans and grifters like Sanders and AOC.
There is no good reason to call them grifters. If they wanted to cash in, they'd become corporate puppets like every other politician. Instead, they serve we the people.
Sanders raised $46.5M in Feb 2020 alone. His fundraising largely involved asking ordinary people to donate as much as they could afford. Not much later he capitulated and pledged his support to the corporatist wing of the party having won nothing in terms of concrete policy proposals for the party platform. He traded away the power his legions of donors and supporters had given him in exchange for what?
It's one thing to take money from the donor class, I don't care if they get nothing in return. But to take money from people who have little to spare with no intention to fight for them, in a political fight for power ultimately backed by the threat to take his supporters elsewhere in the general, that's not ok.
I don't know for sure what his intent was but I doubt he was ever truly ready to play for power against the big guys. Jessie Ventura says that in the 2016 campaign he asked Sanders if he would run for president in a third party if he lost the primary. Sanders flatly said no and that he would support the Democratic Party candidate if that happens. I believe Ventura on this. So I don't believe Sanders was ever really serious about using his power.
To take all that money from small donors without the intent to fight for their interests might be described as a grift.
Who is "we"? So far as I can tell AOC called most of us Nazis and plans to not only disenfranchise us entirely for racial reasons but also has promised to completely destroy the economy within which we support ourselves. Her whole way of governing is menace and threaten Americans who live outside of NYC and San Fran for the amusement and profit of coastal elites.
Can you support ANY of those slanderous assertions? I bet not.
Well, corporate power exists only because government allows it (no corporation exists without charter). Therefore government CAN regulate (and in fact does regulate). There are hard limits built in, but a great deal of freedom within those limits, especially in absence of oversight.
Therefore, through politics we can create pressure and policies to assert greater oversight and enforcement of existing regulation. But for that to happen, we must ensure government is faithful to the public. Partisan corruption has always been the major blocking point, so personally, I'm for eliminating parties and special-interest money, instead providing limited tax-supported campaign grants to candidates which meet a universal set of basic qualifications.
I was merely wondering what Scott J thinks GG's politics look like. I've read GG for years but I don't think I can piece together his vision from his writings.
You should read what pedinska linked to above. I think it lays out pretty clearly the sorts of things Glenn does believe in and support
Done. Thanks.
There's this document called the US Constitution that places limits on government power. Perhaps you've heard of it.
What some of your "peers" fail to realize is that you built your entire career taking principled stances that put you on the outside of popular opinion and acceptable dialogue among the "mainstream" corporate journalists. You were in this position during the Bush years, the Obama years, and now it's no different. Those of us who have always appreciated your willingness to speak for the voiceless, no matter how unpopular it may be, will always be behind you even if it takes everyone else time to eventually catch up.
And thank you for having courage to stand up to oppressive forces. And for rescuing so many homeless doggies.
Ditto that! Welcome back Glenn!
Yes thanks for the dogs!!
I'm a conservative so we're not likely to agree on many things, but I so respect the fact that it matters to you to get to the bottom of the story in an objective, and fair way that I felt I had to support your efforts and become a subscriber.
Hey, you and Matt are my heroes! Seriously, I'm 64 and I have never been more afraid for our country. If something doesn't happen to restore journalism in this country, we're doomed.
I'm 43 and have NEVER been afraid for the country itself.
But I've been paying attention for a long time, and I do not like what I see on the horizon. We're seeing all the warning signs but living in a society either not taught to watch out for the warnings or oppressing them outright.
I am a 23 year old who is very confused ideologically, but trying to get to the bottom of our political situation. I feel hopeful reading this comment board! Anyways, what do you think the immediate vs. long term consequences are of our current journalistic situation? I am trying to start digging and want to figure out where to start... Thank you!!
Welcome! The intellectually curious are a blessing for us all.
I think we just saw the formation of the Ministry of Truth this election. If Biden/Harris take office I don't see them biting the hand of the media empire that carried them across the finish line.
Do we believe enough in free speech to stop this? As a nation, it's clear we do not. "Speech for me but not for thee" seems to have replaced "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it". I'm afraid that we'll have a few solid voices out there like GG, but big media will dominate until the people simply walk away.
When that happens, we'll be there and there will be hope. Until they mandate you subscribe to the new state media......
Also, I am hoping that Trump watched the Tucker Carlson interview. I hope he pardons Snowden and Julian Assange.
What a great question?
Who will Trump pardon if he loses?
Inquiring minds...etc.
Snowden and Assange have become memes about many things when you think of it.
Assange maybe, but I don't think the President can afford to alienate the entire national security apparatus, however just it would be to pardon Snowden.
Trump hasn't shown a reluctance to go against the national security apparatus in the past, and think he would jump at the opportunity to stick a thumb in their eye and expose how long they've been undermining our national security if given the chance.
An old dinosaur conservative here. We don't always agree, but I love your honesty and independence so I was willing and happy to subscribe. Keep up the good work and hopefully more real journalists will join you.
I am a conservative Republican - I studied journalism at the University of Missouri ... it is so disappointing the lack of objective journalism these days and the impact that has had on the truth. God bless you for trying your best to expose and report the truth. We need more like you. I am happy to support you even though I may not always agree. I loved your honesty in your interview with Tucker. God bless you and the USA.
Don't you know that objectivity is part of whiteness? Along with the values of hard work, respect for authority, delayed gratification, the nuclear family. This claim was part of an exhibit by a Smithsonian museum! And the push by the Left is to eliminate whiteness. This won't end well.
The clear problem here is that a large segment of the electorate - mainly, the activist elements of the electorate - have already not only convinced *themselves* "there is no debate to be had", but have also decided that because "there is no debate to be had" that "no one else must be allowed to have a debate either". This is strictly because they have convinced themselves that their opposition is an inherent threat to their existence - up to and including their very lives.
It is a moral panic like America has never seen before.
Whereas once upon a time you might have had enough worried parents getting together to scream about Dungeons & Dragons being a form of Satanic cult - because their pastors said so - they at least didn't widely believe their children were going to murder them in their sleep after rolling a few twenty-sided dice. Parents and community leaders who knew better were at least able to talk such people down, and the panic eventually fizzled.
Compare that to current-day mainstream Progressivism. Cooler heads are few and far between, and when they arise, they are screamed down from the podium by the panicked mass. They are further deplatformed so they can't do it again. The more they persist in calling for calm considerate conversation, the more they are called out by those who have HARNESSED the panic for their own elevation. Social-media followers counts, influence networks, Patreon cash money - these are all far more important to the instigators, and they can be gotten far more easily from panicked masses. The same was true of virtually every past moral panic in history; the grifters arise to sell fear and snake oil. Rational discussion removes the need to buy the snake oil, so mobs are sent to remove the better nature from our souls through credit-card cancellation, job elimination/denial, and even attacks in the street (or at one's home!).
While the Extreme Right is by no means innocent of this sort of thing, on the Left it's not limited to the extremes. The extremes are mainstreaming, and if not pushed back, will become the Left's norm. "No debate allowed, as there is none to be had".
great conversation and add to the thread, but I can't scroll past, without suggesting that you may be seeing this through a filter of whatever conservative position you hold. to characterize it as a leftist problem, with softball acknowledgement for the extremist on the right, does a disservice to your point. Radicalization happens, especially in an opaque, cloudy ecosystem, where an unrepresentative and an unaccountable "elite", be they government or generational wealth rentier class (which I believe the evidence supports, actually controls and operates the the government) hide almost everything, behind BS curtains of national security, or whatever. the Snowden affirmations (I call them that, because they did after all, affirm what many critical thinkers already knew was happening) clearly proved, the majority of what we as people are fed, is theater, scripted with intent.
so to blame the left, is a weakness. they are mirror images of the right. for after all, the right and the left, are simply people. brothers and sisters. neighbors.
You're talking about mainstream Democrats, neoliberals, identitarians, etc. They would mostly be seen as center-right in civilized societies around the world. Only in the US, where we have what is effectively one party -- the Corporate Party -- with two right wings, near and far, could referring to these people as leftists provoke anything other than derisive laughter.
You're correct, though, that each side in this election battle -- that is, the popular base of each side, the flock -- sees the other as an existential threat to its worldview. And that's not an unreasonable assessment. There will likely be hell to pay for the rank and file losers of this one.
The Owners and their minions who run the show aren't worried, of course. They expect to be unscathed by the fallout that lands on the gullible masses and that expectation tends to be borne out in reality.
Doug is right. The values of the Enlightenment, freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms are all right-wing.
wait, what? the Enlightenment was a exclusively Humanist, people minded effort, the exact opposite of conservatism. Conservatives of the revolutionary era, were crown loyalists, were snitches of colonial revolutionaries. Conservatives fought the end of slavery. Conservatives fought women's suffrage. conservatism, exclusively opposes change to status quo. your comment, is in direct conflict, to the record.
It would be more accurate to say the values of the Enlightenment are the values of the few remaining small-government Liberty-loving elements of the modern right. They are in opposition to the values of both the left and the corporate big-government right.
Beautiful :) Thank you!
Absolutely perfect post. I think you win this comments page.
Agree.
Hi Glenn. Congratulations on your declaration of independence! Hopefully someday you'll look back on this as the best career decision you ever made.
You've surely noticed a lot of your subscribers are conservative/right-leaning by today's standards--including me. Please, whatever else you do, continue to lay out brutally honest criticisms of Trump, Republicans, and right-wing ideology whenever it is due. We are here not to have our biases validated, but because we respect your work.
I don't blame The Intercept. They saw a market niche was available for MSNBClite and they grabbed it. The Intercept will be an excellent training ground for potential future MSNBC contributors. Mr. Mehdi Hasan has already made the transition and I am confident that he will be the first of many Intercept alumni who make it to the big leagues. MSNBC does an excellent job of anaesthetizing the minds of its viewers with comforting content tailored to their preconceived biases so that they never have to do the unpleasant task of thinking. It's a surefire formula that guarantees commercial success.
However, there is also a place for journalism. There are masochists who want to understand the world as it actually exists. And there are a few misfits who like to investigate and truthfully report what they find. If these people connect, there is a possibility for commercial success on a smaller scale. So best of luck to Mr. Greenwald.
! ;^)
Never thought I'd decide to spend $5 a month on Glenn Greenwald once I went back to voting Republican, but here we are.
Same. Agree or disagree, we should all be allowed to speak our minds.
Long-time fan from early Unclaimed Territory days just subscribed. As important and brave as your journalism has been over all these years, your unflinching consistency in your core beliefs and standing up for them no matter the circumstances is what I admire as much as anything. Which is why it was absolutely laughable when TI overlords tried to say it was you that had changed.
I have complete confidence you will figure this one out and I look forward to supporting you on your next adventure.
Good to see some of the old gang getting together again. Deleted previous for misspelled word.
What do they say, "Time is a flat circle?" Yes, good to see you all.
rollotomasi! Nice to see you! I also saw scuzzaman somewhere here.
Good to see you and so many others I recognize from across time and distance.
*waves at rollo*
It was nice getting to know you on the Joe Rogan Show the other day. I have been an admirer of your work for years. Your reporting keeps my eyes open and adds truth to many conversations.
Thank you.
25 dogs? That in and of itself gains my support.
I listened to the podcast while I did my volunteer shift at the Animal Rescue League.
That episode turned an otherwise dreary laundry night into a very enlightening good time. One of the greatest discussions I've ever heard, period.
Near the beginning there was an AH-HAH moment for me when GG explained that before he was writing full time he was a litigator and he brought those skills to his first interview with Snowden, giving him the Guantanamo treatment: 8-hours of intense questioning without offering a glass of water.
Now how he comes across on camera in interviews makes complete sense ;)
Greenwald and Taibbi are the only principled journalists left. Happy to subscribe.
Well, that assessment omits some great journalists: Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate and Rania Khalek, to name only a few!
Very true! I should say rather that Greenwald and Taibbi are my favorites of the handful left who really have integrity.
Sadly, integrity doesn't appear to be thought of as a corporate breadwinner these days.
But if the outpouring of support for people like Glenn who actually try - from all political tribes! - is any indication, there is DEFINITELY a substantial niche market being severely overlooked.
As a progressive who doesn’t agree with many views that Tucker Carlson holds or held, the one view he seems to have consistently voice that I vehemently agree with is the importance of freedom of speech, which in my mind trumps the specifics of the speech itself (which one may or may not agree with). This makes Tucker nowadays a must watch for any progressive who believes in the idea of free speech. (He is also far more intelligent than many talking heads who mindless repeat views - even some I agree with - just because it makes them “popular” and not with any depth)
Today’s media landscape is dominated by institutional journalists who not only have given up any pretense of investigating the deeper power centers, but actively collude with them to coverup their misdeeds and attack those who would try and expose them and have *become* part of that corrupt power.
So this media which has cheered the continuing inquisition and torture of Assange - who was a light in a sea of blackness - has now turned on its enemies closer home - those that not only resist being corrupted but show them up.
The Biden tapes - or rather the reaction to them - have done more damage to the institutional media than Joe Biden. They have revealed a media that cheers the censorship of revelations from these tapes, revels in spreading disinfo about them (“Russian operation”) and even sowing deliberate confusion in the minds of the public as an NBC “investigation” finding that a completely different, unrelated set of documents were mysteriously sourced did. (Thus NBC spent more time tracking down the provenance of some obscure documents that few if any were talking about, rather than the ones that were being highlighted: authenticated Hunter Biden emails/docs and a named corroborating witness who went on TV - rather than remaining in the shadows as an “anonymous source” - to allege Joe Biden was lying when he said he didn’t know about his family’s businesses.)
Hope that more principled journalists will have the financial opportunity to cast off their chains and go back to doing real journalism.
Agreed re Tucker Carlson. He is also anti-illegal regime change wars. He offered pres. candidate Tulsi Gabbard a platform when few others would. Tucker Carlson is credited for influencing Trump to avoid a hot war with Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unltD5gzd9I
As a leftist who can't stand Tucker Carlson, I'm still glad Glenn goes on his show because he reaches millions who otherwise wouldn't hear his important perspective. These comments are a testament to how successful he's been at reaching people on the right
Unlike decades past, when the media had more diversity in thought and socioeconomic class, the media now selects upper middle class ideological clones from far left academic silos.