Roosh V Forum
Greenwald on Sucker Journalists—and Why There’s No Silver Bullet Coming for Trump - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://www.rooshvforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (/forum-4.html)
+---- Forum: Politics (/forum-46.html)
+---- Thread: Greenwald on Sucker Journalists—and Why There’s No Silver Bullet Coming for Trump (/thread-71723.html)



Greenwald on Sucker Journalists—and Why There’s No Silver Bullet Coming for Trump - moneyshot - 12-21-2018 07:58 AM

https://observer.com/2018/12/glenn-greenwald-on-sucker-journalists-and-why-theres-no-silver-bullet-coming-for-trump/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3rF2GOZBe7NrmnESq6qx-woN5nrYfUvNPGg0PL4dLaDcbimy9tbWvAskM

Quote:After The Guardian published an uncorroborated report by Luke Harding and Dan Collyns alleging Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange at London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, Greenwald called out the reporters for failing to vet the information—accusing the publication on Twitter of behavior that “erodes trust in journalism and undermines the work of journalists everywhere.” From Greenwald’s perspective, it was indicative of a much more frightening trend in media: the reliance on government sources for scoops and information

“I think journalists ought to be aware that when you’re using intelligence [sources], there’s always a high risk you’re being deceived, lied to, propagandized or manipulated since that is what those agencies are designed to do,” explained Greenwald. “That’s clearly what happened here.”

“If you look at Luke Harding’s traffic metrics, they went through the roof,” Greenwald told Observer. “That’s an incentive scheme to continue to do shitty journalism.”

The Trump part is secondary, but still enlightening:

Quote:Have the past several weeks changed your opinion on how much evidence there may be towards the question of Russian collusion, with regards to how many Trump advisers have lied to federal investigators and the Mueller filing?
I would say no. This collusion sits poorly with me, maybe because I was a lawyer before I was a journalist. It’s not really a word that has precise meaning and therefore has been used in an elastic way to mean whatever the wielder of it wants it to mean. To me, as a lawyer, if you think about why Robert Mueller was appointed, it’s because there were potential crimes committed during the 2016 elections. Thus far, he has indicted no American for any crimes in connection with the election. He’s indicted Russians for crimes in connection with the election, and he has indicted Americans for lying during the investigation, or over unrelated crimes like Manafort and his tax evasion and money laundering schemes, unrelated to the election. So, nothing in the past two weeks, or even in the past year, has changed my mind on whether there was criminality as part of the Trump campaign, and the 2016 election, and the Russians.

On the question of whether the Russians are behind the hacks, I think the officials provided a lot of detail about who did it and how they know. Even though there are no underlying documents, you have to essentially believe that Mueller invented it or fabricated it, which I do not think is likely. I do regard the Mueller indictment as some evidence, not conclusive, but at least some evidence finally that the Russians are involved, but that doesn’t say the extent to which Putin was involved, let alone the extent to which Trump officials are criminally implicated.