Discussion
  • Read More
    destor23Cord Jefferson
    12/26/13 7:59pm

    If you're a journalist doing investigative work in service of the public, then you absolutely have to defend your sources. If your source is anonymous, that means defending anonymity even if it means going to jail. If your source is a public whistle blower, then you should defend your source's character against attack.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hellephantdestor23
      12/26/13 8:07pm

      What if your source murders grannies?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      blue-haired_lawyerHellephant
      12/26/13 8:12pm

      They had it coming, with their incessant goddamn cheek-pinching.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AndrewGattoCord Jefferson
    12/26/13 8:07pm

    Brilliant use of logical fallacy, Mr. Greenwald. #DouchebagFacts

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cam/ronAndrewGatto
      12/26/13 8:15pm

      Greenwald is a lawyer first and foremost, and so he often tosses straw men, red herrings, and other dirty fallacies into the pot. I still won't forget his Salon piece on the Norway summer camp killings that went, "The murders were indeed tragic BUT Norway is not innocent! Look at what evil regime their government is supporting!"

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Syphilitic Scalia SaysCam/ron
      12/26/13 8:33pm

      Thank you. Almost everyone seems to have forgotten that.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PoopiesAFCord Jefferson
    12/27/13 12:42am

    Ya, about that:

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      YourMotherWasAHamsterPoopiesAF
      12/27/13 2:10am

      Huffington Post:

      MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msn…

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      jaroPoopiesAF
      12/27/13 3:50am

      That's such a hugely flawed study. It assumes that there is the same amount of positive and negative stuff about both candidates. What if Romney just has more negative baggage than Obama?

      A more valid study would compare the proportion of positive and negative stories of the same candidate across networks.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    wizemanknowsCord Jefferson
    12/26/13 7:56pm

    Valid point. Fox defends their side and MSNBC defends their peeps.

    Very hard to find unbiased political coverage in this age of cheerleader journalism.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bloopitybloopwizemanknows
      12/26/13 8:01pm

      No way! Comparing MSNBC to Fox is ridiculous and to say that MSNBC is a 24-hour propaganda machine is even more ridiculous.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JohnMcClanesSmirkwizemanknows
      12/26/13 8:04pm

      It's the ideas that don't fall neatly on "both sides" that get lost though. That's the problem.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    HellephantCord Jefferson
    12/26/13 7:57pm

    I see. He's not Snowden's spokesman because MSNBC. Case closed!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      yd5b96Hellephant
      12/26/13 11:12pm

      Greenwald is helping Snowden publish government documents which are, for the most part, unfiltered. A spokesman frames issues and creates context. Publishing documents that the government does not deny or prove false is simply Greenwald serving as a conduit for factual information.

      Greenwald's opinionated articles on the NSA leaks are another story.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PoopiesAFyd5b96
      12/27/13 12:37am

      Greenwald is helping Snowden publish government documents which are, for the most part, unfiltered.

      Pretty interesting definition of unfiltered? He said he has tens of thousands of documents. He's published about 100.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JohnMcClanesSmirkCord Jefferson
    12/26/13 8:10pm

    Good to see "some say..." is bipartisan.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Britain's ArmpitJohnMcClanesSmirk
      12/26/13 8:46pm

      Can you put up a clip that accurately compares these two networks usage of such a device? One instance does not an argument make. Thanks in advance.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JohnMcClanesSmirkBritain's Armpit
      12/26/13 9:57pm

      It's a common product of lazy journalism (of all ideological stripes) and its usage is always evidence of intellectual dishonesty. I don't really care about your strange impulse to show false symmetry. The clip in question perfectly sums up why it's a shitty rhetorical device, the fact that it happens to be about Fox News is because that was the context of this explanation. This fact does not, in anyway, imply the "two networks" are same.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    bloopitybloopCord Jefferson
    12/26/13 8:03pm

    Hey, kids — a right-wing douche acted like a right-wing douche! Let's all act surprised and find reasons to defend him.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      jjjschmidtbloopitybloop
      12/26/13 8:24pm

      How exactly is he rightwing? I don't think you actually know anything about the man, his politics, or his journalism, or else you wouldn't be making such a baseless assertion.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PCjjjschmidt
      12/26/13 8:30pm

      Because he is of the mindset that if you disagree with Barbara Walter's messiah, you are right wing. Rational people of the middle or the left must bow at the alter of Obama. He knows this because he is an avid reader of daily kos.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Nik JamesCord Jefferson
    12/27/13 10:47am

    I'm always boggled that people listen to Greenwald given how baldly terrible his rhetorical skills are. On the one hand, he'd seem to be denouncing how MSNBC operates. On the other hand, he's comparing himself to them in a seemingly affirmative way. Which is it? Furthermore, MSNBC's treatment of Obama lo these many years has been quite a bit more varied than Glenn's shrill monotone take on Snowden. So, besides being a really psychopathic argument in the first place, it just isn't accurate.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      sui_generisNik James
      12/27/13 1:13pm

      Yeah, rarely does a week go by when Rachel Maddow or some other MSNBC figurehead isn't criticizing Obama for not doing this or that forcefully enough, or at all. In fact, pretty much anytime they aren't making fun of the GOP for some made-up scandal, they're saying Obama is insufficiently liberal. They're not exactly Alternet or Democracy Now, but they seem to only be cheerleaders for Obama insofar as they are against the GOP.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SonikMagiksui_generis
      12/27/13 2:14pm

      Agreed completely. The belief that MSNBC is the left-wing equivalent of Fox News is ridiculous.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    sui_generisCord Jefferson
    12/27/13 1:59am

    "Sure, I do defend him, just like people on MSNBC defend President Obama"

    So wait, I'm confused.

    Based on Glenn's quote, is he saying that he is an irrational, knee-jerk defender of Snowden, no matter what the facts may be? Or that MSNBC's defense of Obama is thoughtful and well-considered?

    Because one or the other obviously has to be true, to take him at his word.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      jarosui_generis
      12/27/13 3:47am

      Yeah, I noticed that, too. Basically, he accidentally admitted that he's a Snowden cheerleader.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    HitemwiththeheeCord Jefferson
    12/27/13 10:32am

    Greenwald isn't even close to a journalist, nor did he break anything. He and his outlet selectively published, at a pace conducive to making it look like an evolving journalistic effort, what Snowden gave them.What he literally handed to them.

    They didn't unearth shit.

    Oh, and spies spy. Fucking shocker.

    Reply
    <