VOX: Why Glenn Greenwald relentlessly attacks Hillary Clinton — even if it helps Donald Trump

[ehrnst]

Greenwald is not a fan of Donald Trump. But he is a dogged critic of Hillary Clinton, a more than occasional defender of Trump from charges that he’s a Russian cat’s paw, and deeply skeptical of the liberal conventional wisdom that the mainstream press has done too little to put Trump under a microscope. He and his colleagues at the Intercept are sufficiently relentless in these stances that to many liberals who used to cheer his excoriations of the Bush administration, he may even look like he’s rooting for Trump. At the end of the day, after all, if you’re hurting Clinton, aren’t you helping Trump?

Greenwald rejects the whole framework of the question. In an interview on Friday, Greenwald and I talked about the Clinton Foundation, the Intercept’s place in 2016 campaign coverage, and why Greenwald thinks the media shouldn’t let its fear of Trump temper the firepower it trains on Clinton.

"When you’re a journalist, I think your role ought to be to be adversarial to people who wield the greatest power and to say the things you think are true — even if it hurts the candidate you like or helps the one you dislike. Because that’s how society stays balanced."

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12853236/glenn-greenwald-trump-clinton

This only makes sense if a journalist is also going after Trump. Which he is not.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Because Glen Greenwald just w ants to burn it all done, and Trump is the quickest way to do that.

[Mz Pip]

2. F**k Glen Greenwald

That is all.

[Gothmog]

3. Greenwald is a trump supporter and relies on material from Putin

[randome]

4. The Clinton Foundation?

He really can't stop from being biased, can he?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Hortensis]

5. "The far right hates everyone else, the far left hates itself."

As one expert explaining the similarities and differences between extremists on both sides put it.

I was just mentioning something about the radical left's attitudes toward Democrats. Michael Moore was just irritating me on Twitter about Hillary and how the Democratic Party's screwing up. Of course. And of course Greenwald doesn't like Hillary either. It'd be strange if he did.

As for why, if you're me, if someone mentions Libya (or Hillary) at a party, and someone else suddenly starts ranting angrily about evil American imperialism (or Wall Street corruption), I don't think zebra, I think...hmmm, that's sounding like one of those irritating "self-hating" far-lefters. Time to suddenly spot a friend on the other side of the room.

And if I can't make up my mind if this person's far left or far right, like Greenwald sometimes, no surprise -- those personalities have a whole, whole lot in common. And virtually all of it I really don't like and really don't respect.

[stevenleser]

6. Greenwald is irrelevant. nt

[MohRokTah]

7. Greenwald is a white nationalist loving piece of shit! eom

[Bradical79]

8. I think he has it backwards

"When you’re a journalist, I think your role ought to be to be adversarial to people who wield the greatest power and to say the things you think are true — even if it hurts the candidate you like or helps the one you dislike. Because that’s how society stays balanced."

Yeah, this pretty much what I figured, but in Greenwald's case, his idea of what needs balancing leads to false equivelancies. To really bring balance journalistically, I think you need to look at both candidates with a critical eye since either one will potentially become the most powerful person in the world. Then someone is going to naturally receive more criticism or generate more negativity based on the facts and their own actions. Instead he's doing it backwards (like Fox news), thinking it's his job to keep the scales even and balance out some percieved bias that exists in his mind.