Authoritarianism

Glenn Greenwald: 'Journalists Are Authoritarians'

What went wrong at the outlet he co-founded, what's wrong with the ACLU, and what might go wrong in the Biden administration

|

Few journalists are more relentlessly iconoclastic than Glenn Greenwald, who shared a 2014 Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Edward Snowden revelations.

Though unapologetically progressive, the 53-year-old former lawyer never shrinks from fighting with the left. A week before the 2020 election, he quit The Intercept, the online news organization he co-founded in 2014, because, by his account, it refused to run a story unless he "remove[d] all sections critical of" Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Denouncing what he called "the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality" that led him to be what he characterized as  "censored" by his own media outlet, Greenwald railed that "these are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom."

Like a growing number of refugees from more-traditional news organizations, Greenwald took his talents to Substack, a platform that lets independent content creators earn revenue directly from their audiences. He wasted no time lobbing grenades, posting stories and videos with titles like "No Matter the Liberal Metric Chosen, the Bush/Cheney Administration Was Far Worse Than Trump" and "The Three Greatest Dangers of Biden/Harris: Militarism, Corporatism and Censorship, All Fueled by Indifference."

Reason's Nick Gillespie spoke with Greenwald via Zoom in November. The reporter appeared from his home in Brazil, where he lives with his husband, two children, and numerous dogs. Among other topics, they discussed what Greenwald sees as a generational fight playing out in newsrooms and what he fears from Biden's presidency.

Let's start with you leaving The Intercept, this amazing publication that you helped start only a few years ago. What happened?

Well, some of you may recall that when I created The Intercept with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, it was at the height of the Snowden story back in 2013. I was at The Guardian at the time. And I had received a lot of support institutionally and editorially from The Guardian. But I began noticing, as I worked with other media outlets to report that story, a lot of internal obstacles that they thought were quite difficult to overcome in terms of doing the reporting not just with that story but that, in general, I thought needed to be done.

Because Laura and I had a lot of visibility with that story, and Jeremy had done a lot of high visibility reporting of his own, including having produced a film about [then–President Barack] Obama's war on terror called Dirty Wars that had received an Oscar nomination, we had a lot of leverage to create a new media outlet. We obviously didn't do that, given that we all had very good platforms at the time to replicate what was already being done.

We only left the places we were at, which were very secure, because we thought we could do something different in journalism. One of the principal visions we had was that the model for how journalism is often conducted inside corporate media outlets—which is this hierarchical top-down structure, where editors impose not necessarily an ideology as much as a tone. So they flatten out the vibrancy and personality and voice in journalism….It was making it not just ineffective but actually quite boring.

The idea was, it's going to be a journalism-led media outlet, where editors are there to help you when you need it, to kick the tires on stories, to make sure that things are factually sound. But they're not the bosses. They're not the people you have to overcome who decide whether you can be heard or not. And I had written into my contract, just like I did at The Guardian and Salon, that except in very rare cases where there is very complex original reporting, like in the Snowden story and the Brazil reporting we did last year, that I would just publish directly to the internet with no editorial intervention.

That was the model we were building, that I thought I was building. I never thought it had anything to do with ideological dogma, and certainly never fealty to any political party. I was a vehement Obama critic at the time, and before that was a vehement critic of George Bush and Dick Cheney. We called ourselves adversarial, because we were going to be adversarial to political power, not subservient to it.

I felt as though we had gotten off course for a few years now by becoming more and more linked with the Democratic Party. Particularly in the age of Trump, where we had become not so much a journalistic outlet but more an activist outlet, designed not to report the truth no matter who it aggrandizes or angers but serving the interests of the Democratic Party. And more so, undermining the interest of Donald Trump, which ultimately became the same thing.

It all culminated in them essentially telling me that I couldn't publish my own story…at a news outlet that was built on my name….It was a huge irony. And being stifled in saying what I wanted to say, obviously, was something I could never accept, and my readers wouldn't want me to. So I left.

You've written that the Bush-Cheney administration was far worse than the Trump administration. You've also argued that in various ways the Obama administration was worse.

I started writing about politics because I thought the media was so dormant and complacent about these radical assaults on civil liberties under Bush and Cheney taking place during the war on terror. And then under Obama, they went to sleep even further. They got hypnotized into thinking that he was a noble and benevolent leader.

I'll give you just one example, which is press freedom. Under Obama, as I'm sure you know, the Espionage Act of 1917—one of the most pernicious laws we have on our books; it was enacted under Woodrow Wilson, and it was designed to criminalize dissent from U.S. participation in World War I—was invoked against whistleblowers and sources, like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and a dozen others, more under Obama than every other prior president combined. It ended up being three times more prosecutions under the Espionage Act for our sources as journalists than all previous presidents, including Nixon or Eisenhower or whoever you want to pick. And the press said almost nothing.

Trump gets in, and The Washington Post changes its motto to "Democracy Dies in Darkness," essentially saying press freedom is under assault. [White House reporter] Jim Acosta writes a bestseller with some pompous, self-glorifying title, like Danger: Reporting in the Era of Trump. What the fuck ever happened to Jim Acosta that constitutes an assault on press freedom? The worst thing Trump ever did to any of them was to say mean things about them in tweets. Those aren't assaults on press freedom. I was threatened by the Obama administration with prison when I was doing the Snowden reporting. I was criminally indicted by the [Jair] Bolsonaro government at the beginning of [2020] for the reporting I did in Brazil. Those are attacks on press freedom. Saying Jim Acosta is an idiot, and tweeting something insulting about Wolf Blitzer, isn't.

So you go through those metrics. George Bush and Dick Cheney started new wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama started new wars in Libya and Yemen. What new wars did Donald Trump start? He escalated bombing campaigns, which he inherited, in a pretty grotesque way. But he didn't start any new wars.

When you look at things like the destruction of Iraq or the implementation of a torture regime—what has Donald Trump done that even remotely compares in terms of moral evil to any of that? Nothing. And yet we're supposed to treat George Bush and Barack Obama like morally upstanding statesmen and Donald Trump like the literal reincarnation of Hitler.

Did you vote for Donald Trump in the last election?

I didn't vote. It's ironic: That's the one old journalism trope that I agree with, which is that if you vote, you psychologically become too connected to a politician. I prefer to just keep my distance.

After leaving The Intercept you migrated to Substack, a service that allows creators to put up whatever content they want and then to charge money for it. You charge $50 a year or $5 a month for what you produce there. A lot of other people are doing the same thing: Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi, Matt Yglesias. Is this the future? Is it scalable?

I think it's grounds for being optimistic, in the sense that it isn't just people like me….It's letting new voices be discovered too. Substack says, "We're not approving or disapproving the content that goes out on our platform. We're just providing a service that allows people to come and monetize their journalism or their writing." In that sense, it is good.

But…whatever independent entity arises that gives journalists freedom and begins to compete with corporate media outlets, they turn their guns on it. People don't realize this. The main reason Facebook and Google and Twitter so actively censor now isn't because they wanted to. They don't want to. They never wanted to. They wanted to tell that story that Substack is telling—that AT&T tells, right?—which is, "Look, we're just a neutral platform. We don't pick and choose who gets to speak."

Nobody expects if Milo Yiannopoulos calls Alex Jones on AT&T and does a conference call that AT&T intervenes and cuts off their service, because people accept that AT&T is a content-neutral service. That's what Facebook and Twitter wanted to be. They had to stop doing that. They had to start censoring…because journalists at CNN and NBC and The New York Times demanded they do so. Turning on their huge megaphones and saying, "Look at the extremists and the hatefulness these platforms are giving voice to." And they're going to do the same thing to Substack and Patreon. It's just a question of time.

You sketch out an economically driven reason for the homogenization of journalism. It's partly that people at CNN and The New York Times want to get rid of anything that's going to get more eyeballs than they do. But some of the work that you've done recently has been in starkly ideological terms. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and how that reflects or refracts larger ideological questions, particularly on the left?

In one sense, what's happening at the ACLU is the same thing happening on every college campus, practically; in corporate workplaces; and also in newsrooms. It largely breaks down on generational lines. Not completely, of course, but largely.

This younger millennial set—who are now not that young anymore; they're in their mid-30s or older and starting to assume managerial authority within these institutions—grew up believing that free speech is not an absolute value, and that it needs to give way in all kinds of instances where more important political agenda items and more important political values are in conflict with it, as they understand it. By which they mean: Ideas and arguments that may endanger marginalized people by making them uncomfortable, or that might lead to the implementation of harmful policies by convincing people to support them, are not ideas that should be heard. They're ideas that should be suppressed in the name of these greater political values.

So this conflict that is in the ACLU, in one sense, is a common one. The problem is the ACLU is a singular organization….They really were the only game in town when it came to defending an absolutist framework of free speech. They didn't give a shit what other values were at play.

These Jewish lawyers in the 1970s represented the actual Nazis who were wearing swastika armbands and their right to march down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, where a large population of Holocaust survivors were. That's how radical they were. And not just free speech but also due process. The idea that you cannot, no matter how odious a person's crime is that they're accused of, assume their guilt without giving them full due process.

I know a lot of people at the ACLU. I've worked with the ACLU for years. I have a lot of friends there who are lawyers. And they are now being riven by the same conflicts. Part of it is financial—after Trump, a huge number of liberals who thought the ACLU was just a liberal organization gave millions and millions of dollars, not in the name of civil liberties but in the name of stopping Trump, which sometimes converged and sometimes didn't. So they started becoming an overtly political organization.

What do you think drives that generational shift? Part of it probably is just that every generation rebels or pushes away from the older generation. But it does seem that younger people do not see the idea of free speech as an absolute right. How did that happen?

I have to say, when some pundits, like [New York magazine's] Jonathan Chait, were obsessed with these college campus controversies, I really didn't pay much attention. Because I just thought: I had a lot of views in college, and I grew out of them. I wasn't interested in chiding 21-year-old sophomores at Oberlin. I didn't think that was a very important power center to go and denounce and confront the way Jonathan and others were doing obsessively.

They turned out to be right in the sense that [the students] didn't grow out of it. They brought it with them to their workplaces. And as I said, these millennials aren't 20 anymore. They're 35 and 40, and they still haven't grown out of it.

When you learn in childhood that if you have something unpleasant, you run to mommy and daddy, who protect you from it….And then you go off to college, and you have deans in your dorms and administrators who, if you hear something in class that upsets you, they don't tell you to argue against it. They coddle you and tell you that you have a right to be safe from those things. And then you get to your workplace, and you hear a colleague saying things that upset you because you think they're terrible or destructive or harmful or wrong. Instead of engaging them, writing about them, the way journalists used to do…they run to human resources. They turn it into an H.R. complaint.

And I think the best book that I've read is one that I'm sure is known to a lot of your audience, which is The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt [and Greg Lukianoff]. In fact, it explained it so well that it actually changed not just how I viewed these issues as a journalist who writes about free speech but also even as a parent. If [your kids] have something that's upsetting them, your instinct is to go protect them. I realized, no, sometimes you have to just let them experience the unpleasant thing and learn those skills about how to navigate it.

In preparing for this, I came across an old CNN appearance of you arguing with Jeffrey Toobin about the release of the documents that Chelsea Manning gave to WikiLeaks. You were arguing that this was a good thing. It was beneficial for citizens to know what was going on. Toobin was saying, as a journalist, that we should not have access to these sorts of documents, because the government said they were secret. Do you expect to see that dynamic with the news media going forward?

One of the things that really bothers and disturbs me the most is that, as we were talking about earlier, the intention of Facebook and Google and Twitter, and Silicon Valley in general, from the beginning was not to censor. They began to censor because journalists demanded they do so, in part because journalists are authoritarians who believe that the modes of information [should be] regulated by them and by others. That's just unfortunately the modern-day mentality of the journalist. It used to be an anti-authoritarian mentality. Now they work for big corporations and become authoritarians.

But also, they don't believe in the right of citizens to confront power centers. They think that reporting means somebody in power, like in the CIA or the FBI, gives you information and tells you to go repeat it to the public. And then you go and do that. And they think that's reporting. But if somebody's outside of the scope of power—like some low-level Army private, like Chelsea Manning, who doesn't occupy an important position in Washington, or Edward Snowden—does the same thing, not with the intention of propagandizing but with the intention of illuminating, they view that as criminal.

Journalists view the dissemination of information about what powerful people are doing in the dark not as their principal function and purpose—which is what it ought to be if we had a healthy media—but as something to be denounced and condemned.

What do you think the future holds for whistleblowers under Biden and [Vice President–elect Kamala] Harris?

The irony is, we were talking earlier about how media figures have petulantly whined about trivial acts on the part of Trump, like tweeting mean things about Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd. And the reality is that the only thing the Trump administration really has done that's genuinely menacing to press freedom is the prosecution and attempted extradition of Julian Assange, for publishing not information in connection with the 2016 election but the 2010 Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and diplomatic cables that exposed war crimes and other acts of barbarism and savagery on the part of the U.S. and allied governments. The theory that's being used to prosecute Assange is one that would criminalize almost any journalist. In fact, the theory used by the Bolsonaro government [in Brazil] to try and indict me earlier this year was very similar to that theory. I think they thought, "Well, if the U.S. government is doing this to Assange, we can do this to him." And it will be used against other journalists as well.

I think that Trump remembers several things. He remembers that Julian Assange published information about Hillary Clinton that helped him win. He realizes that Edward Snowden risked his liberty and has been in exile for seven years now, because he exposed the abusive nature of spying powers of the [National Security Agency] and the CIA and the FBI that were used against the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration. And [he knows] that the people who want Julian Assange and Edward Snowden punished, John Brennan and James Clapper and Susan Rice and Mike Hayden, are the same people who have worked clandestinely, and I think corruptly, to undermine the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration, using and abusing the powers of the state to do so.

The reason they want Julian Assange to die in prison, and the reason they want Edward Snowden to have to live out the rest of his life in Russia, or be in prison as well, is obviously not because they regard them as ongoing threats but because they want to create a climate where people who discover illegal acts on the part of powerful people inside the government, who want to expose those acts the way Snowden or Manning—who was tortured—or Assange have done, think to themselves, "Wait, if I do that I'm going to have my life destroyed the way these people did."

The people who prosecuted Snowden was the Obama administration. The people who tortured and prosecuted Chelsea Manning was Obama. Even though he added a humanitarian gesture after seven years and let her go by commuting her sentence. They chose not to prosecute Assange even though they wanted to, but that was before the 2016 election. They now hate him even more, and so I'm sure they're going to continue that prosecution as well.

So I'm very worried about what a Biden-Harris administration is going to do when it comes to leakers and whistleblowers and sources, except for the ones who are leaking to their approved journalists for reasons that are designed to advance their interests.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: Canadian Mom Fined for Letting Grandparents Babysit Kids While She Went Grocery Shopping

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look, wrong think must be squashed. Do you really want to live in a world where people can do and say what they want as long as they harm no one?

    1. Be fair. Wrongthink is anything I don’t like to hear, since any challenges to my beliefs cause me harm. So it must be punished.

      1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy.Anm I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than ABC regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page……..MORE READ

      2. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy.Ana I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

        1. ITT, Dee, who calls herself White Knight, continues down her spiral of self-embarrassment with nonsense, hypocrisy, and lies. She’s also changed her name in a bout of grandiose delusion.

          If anyone knows her IRL, please get her some help. She’s having a breakdown.

          1. How do we know WK is a broad?

    2. Well, duh. To Save Our Democracy, it is critical that The Government persecute, prosecute and kill or imprison people who do and say what they want in order to preserve the freedom for people to do and say what they want.

      It Takes a Village, all right. And you’ve obviously got to destroy The Village in order to save it.

      Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.

      1. Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.

        Amen. Can’t be said enough.

    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months hghv and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

    4. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than NLP regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    5. Do you wanna earn money without investing money? That’s how I started this job NBYL and Now I am making $200 to $300 per hour for doing online work from home.

      Apply Now here…….. Visit Here

  2. “The worst thing Trump ever did to any of them was to say mean things about them in tweets. Those aren’t assaults on press freedom. I was threatened by the Obama administration with prison when I was doing the Snowden reporting.”

    —-Glenn Greenwald

    Biden has been in office for two days, and his assaults on the rights of average people to believe what they want and express themselves as they please are arguably worse than anything Trump did in four years or Obama did in eight.

    President Biden has ordered that a, “comprehensive threat assessment will be made by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, coordinated with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and can draw on nongovernmental organizations, Ms. Psaki said. The National Security Council has also been directed to develop ways to identify threats, share information and disrupt networks, she said, adding that free-speech rights would be respected.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-orders-analysis-of-domestic-violent-extremism-following-capitol-riot-11611341727

    How can our free speech rights be respected if the FBI and Homeland Security are assessing our speech in terms of our threat level–in conjunction with an NGO like the ADL?

    When Snowden was exposing the NSA for perpetrating surveillance in secret, without a warrant, at least they were doing those things in secret. President Biden is publicly ordering our intelligence services to identify, judge, and move against American citizens because of their speech.

    1. The FBI is now interviewing and collecting cell phones of anyone whose phone pinged the nearest cell tower to the Capitol on Jan 6th. Welcome to America.

      1. No American should talk trash about Venezuelan or Belarusian political freedoms anymore, without some introspection.

        1. Introspection is only for those pussies who lack the strength to accept what they’re told.

          See something, say something, I say.

          Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.

          1. Rev, is that you?

            1. The Rev doesn’t thank people for their cooperation. He tells them they will be made to comply.

              1. With sexual overtones; “open wider”

                1. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started.

                  ========= Click here

      2. You may not have heard, but there was an insurrection on January 6th, when several MAGAs forced their way into the Capitol building and killed a police officer.

        But, hey, you and your right-wing compadres have no culpability in creating this scenario.

        1. Fuck off with your Reichstag-fire insurrection horseshit you totalitarian shill.
          Go play Mouth of Sauron somewhere more receptive, like Democratic Underground.

          1. It is you, sir, who can fuck off. You’re not even an American but for the past several weeks you’ve been openly jonesing for a second American civil war, so you can sit back and watch it on TV from your trailer in Manitoba, while sucking back on a six pack of Moosehead.

            1. Weird. He hasn’t been banned for being Canadian.

            2. Pretty sure that you’re the one screaming “Insurrection!” everywhere and pleading for mass arrests and internment camps.

              You’re also super hung up on my nationality. Are you too stupid to realize that Reason’s been sold in Canada for forty years?

              1. “Are you too stupid”

                She is.

              2. Ah, complete lack of reading comprehension.

                1. Your new go to when you are flailing is just as awful as your other go tos.

                2. Are you sure you’re using that right? I think everyone here would agree that I comprehended your nonsensical babble just fine.

                  1. January 6th has traumatized poor Dee, and now she’s broken.

                    1. More like doesn’t have an argument so it’s flinging its shit hoping something, anything will stick.

                3. So…… you’re a broad?

          2. “Reichstag-fire”

            So, is that the next big lie you right-wingers are going to spread? First, “the election was stolen”, now “it was really the liberals who attacked the Capitol.”

            1. The intruders were onside the Capitol for less than an hour. The one person directly killed was an unarmed white woman. 3 were merely delayed emergency care for collapsing in a large protest outside and another died of a stroke 2 days later with doctors refusing to say it was related to any injury sustained.

              For this Pelosi summoned 25k troops to the Capitol. When for the past year she railes against federal help for 2 billion in damage, 30 dead, hundreds injuredso go fick your lefty apologist bullshit.

              1. WTF are you talking about:

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/08/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-dies-riot-what-to-know/6593692002/

                You are in denial that the Capitol rioters killed officer Brian Sicknick?

                1. Hey. You pushed the initial media narrative. You’ve had it posted about 10 times about his family saying he died of a stroke and the doctors refusing to say of it was related to any injuries sustained. That’s because you are a dishonest shit who never investigates waiting until after the actual media narrative. Oddly you claim you do but this is yet more evidence that you only read initial narratives. Congrats. You’re a useful idiot.

                  1. This retard can’t even get her/his/its lies straight.

                    1. Is WK a heshe? A transtesticle?

                2. The U.S. Attorney’s office declined to discuss the investigation, which is being done jointly by the FBI and DC Police. But investigators said that if the medical examiner finds he was hit in the head and that contributed to a stroke and his death, that would be murder.

                  They have not stated the stroke was related you piece of shit. His family has asked his death not be political you piece of shit.

                  https://www.whas11.com/mobile/article/news/local/us-capitol-police-chief-resigns-officer-dies-from-stroke/65-b5de01a6-defb-403f-8380-4aa85c30b3cb

                  The media lies and you fucking fall for it every time. Youre a useful idiot.

                3. The   ​ White    Knight
                  January.12.2021 at 1:37 pm
                  Actually, water would be “hydrogen di-oxide”, not monoxide. Guessing you didn’t ever actually take a chemistry class.

                  Did you get banned because you were cocky about not knowing what water is?

            2. I see “Big Lie” is the new talking point/big lie for all our fifty-centers. The MollyGodiva sockpuppet was pushing it yesterday.

              The real big lie is sitting behind White Knights wormtongue spiel; and its that 200 unarmed protesters who meandered through the Capitol building for a half hour (after the barricades were removed and the doors were open for them by the armed, 2000-man-strong Capitol police), was an attack by right wing extremists.

              White Knight is overtly fomenting, right here in the comments, but he has the audacity to pretend that I’m the one doing it.
              What a psychopath.

              1. Maybe it was the fomenting that got her banned?

        2. Yes. We know you’re an authoritarian.

          1. Proving you didn’t comprehend one word I wrote.

            1. Your words meant nothing. You support the fbi investigation, and in a few reports confiscation of property, for being within 5 miles of a cell phone tower.

              Did you feel the same for the BLM riots where 30 people died? I seem to remember you being upset at federal agents even arresting people directly seen on camera near the property destruction merely for agents waiting for them to separate from protesters.

              So yes, youre a piece of shit authoritarian.

              1. She’s also extremely hypocritical.

              2. I didn’t say I supported anything. I said you and your right-wing cronies are not acknowledging *your* role in creating this situation.

                1. Lol. So the blm protesters dirty impeding police are not responsible. Yet me from a state pn the other side of the country is? God damn clown.

                2. The “insurrection” angle is a lie propagated by your party in order to effect an authoritarian crackdown. The only “situation” were dealing with is not-so-creeping fascism and authoritarianism by you and your party bosses.

                3. Yeah, a bunch of random internet commenters on HnR are responsible for creating this “situation.”

                  By this logic, you and your left-wing cronies are responsible for not acknowledging your role in the riots last year.

            2. You wrote a bunch of personal attacks and gibbered your pet conspiracy theory about an insurrection.
              Don’t pretend you’d crafted any sort of debatable argument.

              1. “pet conspiracy theory about an insurrection”

                Well, at least, you and JesseAz are taking your masks off and exposing your true nature.

                1. Lol. You literally just repeat what you’re accused of. Sorry you are a stupid partisan.

                2. What mask? The “White Knight Is Fomenting” mask?

                  You don’t actually believe that what happened on the sixth was any more an insurrection than any other protest, but you’re here to lie about it because you’re a fascist shill looking to excuse all the new, horrible authoritarianism your political party is enacting.

                  And yes… your fucking political party, the Democratic party. I’m not going to let you pretend that your not anymore. We know what you are, you totalitarian piece of shit, you’re a DNC shill.

        3. The officer was injured out front of the capital by a person with a skate board, looked exactly like Antifa tactics with less black on.

          Inside a police officer killed a lady, who was a 14 year veteran, because she was attempting to go through a window.

          But hey, you and your left wing buddies in the media had no culpability in creating this scenario

      3. They better have a damn warrant.

          1. Is Jam Brady a FISA court judge?

            1. ‘Jan’ not ‘Jam’. Dammit, this is like ‘Long Tim’ all over again.

      4. I wonder if Reason will condemn Biden’s secret police.

    2. Hail New Caesar!

      Dig His snazzy new duds!

    3. You’re a sick fuck. Hope they lock you up. You like to look down on minorities, and people struggling. You called them lazy.

      1. You should denounce him to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, comrade. They’ll fix his kulak wagon!

      2. I thought you died, Hihn?

        1. I wish the rest of the progs would follow suit.

      3. Well, some of them are.

    4. I know this won’t last, but so far Biden is better than Trump on foreign policy: Biden to stop supporting Saudi war crimes in Yemen

      Oh, look where that was published. Coincidence?

      1. “Biden to stop supporting Saudi war crimes in Yemen”

        …and to start supporting Iranian ones.
        It’s no secret which side you warmongers are on, Chipper.

    5. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and VGTsqe earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link……….Visit……….Home Profit System

  3. Damn, so many good points made here. I remember back during the 2016 primaries watching CNN and Chris Cuomo had a congressman (IIRC) on as a guest who was scheduled to talk about the latest budget bill or something, but Cuomo wanted to talk about the latest stupid shit Trump had said. The congressman kind of scoffed at it and said it wasn’t important and Cuomo got rather indignant and insisted that it was important. When the congressman said something like “Well, maybe you think it’s important, but it’s not”, Cuomo got really pissed and actually said, “I’m a journalist! It’s my job to decide what’s important!”

    And right there’s the problem with the press – first of all, Chris Cuomo is not a journalist, he’s a pretty-faced news reader and opinion-spouter, and secondly, it most certainly is not his job to decide what stories are important. When journalists take on the role of gatekeepers deciding what people should know and what they shouldn’t, they’re no longer journalists, they’re censors.

    1. He’s also, like most people in media, a legacy/product of nepotism

      1. Really just a high-price whore.

    2. “Damn, so many good points made here”

      There really are.
      Back in the day Reason was full of stuff like this, now we get daily delusional rants from Sullum and ENB which largely consist of DNC propaganda and lying their asses off.

      This also shows that true left libertarianism still exists and is still willing to defend libertarian principles. It shows what DOL/WK, Chipper, Jeff and Tony really are.

      1. ENB is one of those illiberal millennials Greenwald wasn’t worried about when they were in college , thinking they would grow out of it.

      2. I was thinking the same thing when I read this.
        “But also, they don’t believe in the right of citizens to confront power centers. They think that reporting means somebody in power, like in the CIA or the FBI, gives you information and tells you to go repeat it to the public. And then you go and do that. And they think that’s reporting”
        Reason’s defense of the IC swamp back in the Russia collusion days and Sullum’s fear of anything outside “normal parameters” reveal the same mindset Greenwald describes.

        1. That’s really what boils down to Greenwald’s motivation–he’s always been deeply skeptical of what the real power brokers in the US are pulling, irrespective of what political party they belong to. The left is in his sights right now for the very reason that they ARE the real power in the US. Their chief pretension has always been that they are perpetual underdogs, but a history of the left since the French Revolution puts lie to that.

      3. “Back in the day Reason was full of stuff like this, now we get daily delusional rants from Sullum and ENB which largely consist of DNC propaganda and lying their asses off.”

        So true.

        I remember becoming a Greenwald fan during the GWB years and becoming even more of one when he maintained his consistency under Obama. I don’t agree with the totality of his politics but he does a hell of a lot better job fighting for certain core libertarian principles than I think most libertarian organizations/publications do.

        He’s been amazing to follow especially in the past month.

        Bring back that attitude, Reason! Nick – it’s time to put the Jacket back on.

        1. Off with the sweatervest of tyranny, and back on with the leather jacket of liberty.

          1. I don’t know, man.

            Is it vegan? It’s got to be vegan.

            1. The cow that produced the leather for the jacket was a vegetarian, does that count?

        2. I agree. I subscribed to Glenn’s Substack. First journalist I’ve seen worth paying for in years.

          1. Yup

      4. “Back in the day Reason was full of stuff like this…”

        OMG, what a whiner. You are reading this very article in Reason.

        Be honest. What you are really bitching about is that Reason has come right out and written mean things about your beloved Donald Trump.

        1. Fuck off totalitarian shill.

          Greenwald is what actual left libertarianism looks like, and demonstrates that it’s the antithesis of everything you have stood for here.
          You’re no more libertarian than Franco or Castro were, like ENB and Sullum you’re just a DNC apologist astroturfing here. You disgusting authoritarian puke.

        2. Youre a lefty shit. Why do you keep pretending otherwise. You don’t give a fuck about libertarian principles when government power is used against the people you dislike.

          1. This. When it’s BLM and other lefties he is his handle. When it’s people he doesn’t like, he quickly becomes an authoritarian.

            But what do you expect from someone that stole people’s handles to try to get them to behave how he wants, and still think he’s the one being morally superior. It’s truly fucked up.

            1. Ah, the old dishonesty. All I have ever argued is not to use guilt by association to blame BLM for riots which BLM had no part in organizing. I have never said a word in defense of rioting.

              1. The White Knight II: The White Knight Rises!
                January.23.2021 at 6:39 pm
                I didn’t say I supported anything. I said you and your right-wing cronies are not acknowledging *your* role in creating this situation.

                Lol

                1. Dee’s a hypocrite. And rather dumb.

          2. Right. It wasn’t me yesterday was in glee over Will Wilkonson for being canceled and fired. I stuck up for having principles against cancel culture.

            1. Find one post of mine in glee fuckhead.

            2. Here’s my post you lying fucktard. I unequivocally condemned it.
              Don’t try your “implying” bullshit with me.

              “Mother’s Lament
              January.22.2021 at 1:05 pm
              As much as I’d like to crow that turnabout is fair play, nobody should be fired for a stupid joke.
              This needs to stop.

              https://reason.com/2021/01/22/niskanen-center-will-wilkinson-lynch-mike-pence-tweet-cancel-culture/#comment-8719189

              1. What a cheap, dishonest fuck you are White Knight. You had no idea what we actually said, but you were just flinging shit.

            3. It wasn’t most of the regulars on this board, either, you self-involved sack of shit.

    3. Don’t you blaspheme against Fredo here!

      Fredo’s a Stud!

  4. “That’s what Facebook and Twitter wanted to be [a neutral platform]. They had to stop doing that. They had to start censoring…because journalists at CNN and NBC and The New York Times demanded they do so. Turning on their huge megaphones and saying, “Look at the extremists and the hatefulness these platforms are giving voice to.” And they’re going to do the same thing to Substack and Patreon. It’s just a question of time.”

    —-Glenn Greenwald

    The primary driving force for censorship behind that was the advertisers. Social media is an advertising delivery platform, and advertisers don’t want their advertising to appear anywhere near content they consider to be controversial (in a bad way). At various times over the past couple of years, Facebook has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in market cap as the largest advertisers have pulled their advertising over Facebook’s inability to take down undesirable content.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-major-brands-that-have-pulled-ads-from-facebook-2020-06-30

    A service like Substack should be insulated from that for the same reason Cinemax and HBO can show things that advertising driven platforms like ABC and CBS can’t. If you’re on an advertising driven platform, your primary concerns are driven by the concerns of advertisers. If you’re on a subscription based platform, your primary concerns are driven by the concerns of your paying subscribers.

    1. That’s a good point – as is often said, the news media isn’t concerned about protecting themselves from potential blowback, they’re concerned about protecting their corporate masters from potential blowback. And when you realize their corporate masters – Disney, Comcast, AT+T, Verizon and Viacom – have significant business dealings with China, it becomes a little clearer where their interests lie.

    2. “The primary driving force for censorship behind that was the advertisers.”

      It’s a twofer. Authoritarian inclinations run pretty strong in the upper echelons of huge multinationals, including tech. That’s the way that they function internally and they’re successful, so why not society as a whole, they think. The ideology of Top Men.

      The Republican party used to be the party of Top Men, particularly during the Nixon years, but they were rapidly becoming populist even before Trump. Aristocrats like Romney, Cheney and Ryan were still powerful, but rarer, which is another reason why the corporate move to the woke and the ever authoritarian DNC occurred.

      1. “It’s a twofer. Authoritarian inclinations run pretty strong in the upper echelons of huge multinationals, including tech.”

        If I had to rank them in terms of their influence on decisions and policy, the left wing and radical inclinations of staff might come in third place or lower.

        1) Concerns of advertisers.

        If you’re an advertising platform, and the biggest advertisers in the world refuse to use your platform, that’s more important than anything else.

        2) Threat of antitrust.

        The Democrats have repeatedly threatened to break Facebook into at least three different companies–Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram–if they don’t crack down on speech.

        3) Shareholders

        This would be more important in other companies, that aren’t Facebook, but Zuckerberg controls a majority of Facebook’s voting shares, so he doesn’t need to worry about shareholder opposition.

        4), 5), 6), 7) . . . somewhere lower on list the authoritarian and socialist biases of the left who work at Facebook comes into play. If the ideology of Facebook’s managers and employees were something more like those at Parler, Facebook would more or less behave the same way–because of advertisers and the threat of what the government will do to them with antitrust.

        The reasons why Warren Buffet bought CapCities/ABC, Bezos bought the Washington Post, Gates bought into MSNBC, Sheldon Adelson bought into the Las Vegas Review Journal, and Icann bought into Gannett were presumably not entirely unrelated to their desire to insulate themselves from politicians coming after them. In Buffett’s and Gates’ case, it as practically explicit. Buffett was once known as a union buster, and Gates got smart about being the world’s richest man and not having any news organization to protect him in the wake of an antitrust action.

        Zuckerberg and company are subject to the same pressures only more so.

        1. Youre belief that the left doesn’t have an open bias in these companies against speech seems misguided. They are the same ones who poll as saying free speech doesn’t cover hate crimes. They are the same ones on video and leaked stack threads begging the companies to help democrats.

          1. I didn’t say they don’t have any left wing bias. I said there are much stronger forces at work, with the boycott of advertisers and the threat of being broken up both ranking higher than left wing bias.

            Yes, the patient is obese and should have eaten better and exercised regularly, but I think the immediate cause of his chest pain is more likely related to the two shotgun blasts he took to the chest.

            1. I think the stronger forces also foster the left-leaning bias of the reporters.

              The advertising pressure causes the journalists to self-select based on their comfortableness with the approved narratives. The people like Greenwald leave, the bland status quo authoritarians stay. Next thing you know, everyone agrees that the status quo is awesome and must be maintained at all costs.

        2. Ken wrote
          “If I had to rank them in terms of their influence on decisions and policy, the left wing and radical inclinations of staff might come in third place or lower.”

          I disagree, as advertisers haven’t been concerned about controversial (in a negative way) anti-Trump/GOP statements every day by left wing reporters and commentators at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, WaPo, HuffPost, Daily Beast, Reason, etc., which are also advertising delivery formats.

          I consider left wing propaganda and propagandists (who deceitfully call themselves journalists) to be the greatest threats (especially when they collude to repeat lies and conspiracies over and over again, while denying basic truths) to liberty and libertarianism in America.

          The recent collusion by Facebook, Twitter and large left wing news media corporations to censor truthful information about Hunter Biden’s laptop (i.e. corruption by the Biden family, including the Big Guy) almost certainly violates anti trust laws (unlike the bogus anti trust allegations made by left wing Democrats and propagandists who wanted Facebook and Twitter to censor Trump and GOP supporters).

          1. “I disagree, as advertisers haven’t been concerned about controversial (in a negative way) anti-Trump/GOP statements every day by left wing reporters and commentators at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, WaPo, HuffPost, Daily Beast, Reason, etc., which are also advertising delivery formats.”

            Controversial can be good advertising, especially if it’s of the pro-left wing variety. Have you ever noticed that really high rated shows get cancelled sometimes? When that happens, it’s often because although the show is popular, it’s popular with an older audience–and consumer products companies generally won’t pay much to advertise to an older audience.

            Older consumers already know which beer they like, which shaving cream they like, where they like to eat, and they’re less likely to change brands than younger audiences, many of who are trying things for the first time. If the audience for Longmire were twice as large as the audience for The Voice, that might not count for much–if the audience of Longmire is skewed to 50+ and the audience for the voice is a hit with 24-35 year-olds.

            Well, when it comes to social media, guess which age groups skew more conservative and guess which age groups skew more liberal You guessed it! The younger ones are more liberal, and running advertising that offends older conservatives (controversial) may actually play well with younger more liberal audiences.

            Regardless, the idea that Facebook weathered advertising boycotts that cost their shareholders (and Zuckerberg personally) hundreds of billions of dollars in the value of their stock–twice over the past two years–all because they wanted to make a principled stance in favor of anti-conservative bias? That’s not persuasive. Not even Zuckerberg is so rich that he’ll pay $100 billion or so out of his own pocket just for the pleasure of treating conservatives like shit. Meanwhile, all the social media companies are subject to the same concerns about advertisers.

            The only thing that might rival Zuckerberg’s concern about facing a boycott from all the world’s largest consumer products companies that personally costs him billions and billions of dollars is the threat from the Democrats, that they might break his company up into three or more smaller companies.

            No doubt, the workers at Big Tech are delighted to offend the sensibilities of conservatives and Republicans and treat them like garbage. But that’s not the driving force behind this. The driving force is advertising, government threats via antitrust, and the nature of social media itself.

            Free to the consumer, advertising supported media is always less controversial because of the advertisers. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why libertarians have long argued that censorship of broadcast media is unnecessary. Advertisers are more than capable of policing content. In fact, they generally won’t advertise on content they haven’t seen.

            In fact, in traditional broadcast media, they sold the advertising before the show or the series was broadcast, and if they couldn’t sell the advertiser on the show on the pilot, the show wouldn’t get made. We’ve got a show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer that our consumer research suggests will be a big hit with 16 to 24 year old girls. How much are willing to pay for the advertising?

            That falls apart with social media because the people selling the advertising aren’t the ones creating the content. Reason isn’t paying us a thing for the free content we write, and when it comes tot the comments of Shrike, Tony, RasberryDinner, ChemJeff, and White Knight, they’re still paying too much.

            1. “Reason isn’t paying us a thing for the free content we write”

              LOL. Your “content”. One of the top executives at Reason Foundation tell me that the reason the comments section is hidden by default is they realize the comments section is an embarrassment.

              1. Lol. Did this “top executives” help you coin cacl’s?

              2. I’m not the genius who invented the idea that the upside of comment sections (and social media) is that you don’t have to pay people to create compelling content.

                And the next time you’re talking to the top executives at the Reason Foundation about embarrassing things, be sure to tell them about that time you argued that shooting unarmed protesters is justified if they’re trespassing on public property.

                1. Or how he stole a bunch of handles as part of a moral crusade.

              3. “One of the top executives at Reason Foundation told me”

                You’re obviously fabulizing here, but even if you weren’t your analogy tells us everything we need to know about how far in the toilet Reason has fallen.

                1. Dee’s the check out lady at a Reason executive’s local grocery store.

              4. I’m going to channel my inner Dennis Reynolds here and just say “Dee! You bitch!”.

    3. Yet HBO remains woke as fuck.

    4. It’s really both though. If something is up on Facebook next to an advertisement, and journalists ignore it, it’s less likely the advertiser will care. If journalists throw a fit about it, that’s when advertisers feel the need to pull out.

      1. Yeah I think that’s the real point. And the ever present Twitter mob of course.

        1. The Twitter mob and left wing journalists are the same thing.

          1. Pretty much.

          2. Flying outrage monkeys of Woke nitwittery.

            Their service to the Empire is invaluable.

            1. “Flying outrage monkeys of Woke nitwittery.”

              Perfect. Stealing this.

              1. Hey! We should start a band!

                We could make millions for Apple and Spotify!

                1. If there’s a Reason commentariat band, I think Dee should be the drum.

                  1. Or the idiot, tin-eared A&R guy screaming, “More cowbell!”

          3. And the left wing trolls who post here daily.

    5. Very well said.

      Legacy media keeps the advertisers happy, subscription models keep the readers happy.

    6. Subscription based platforms can be de-banked at the behest of the thought police. This has already happened. Now in addition to creating a platform you need to create a payment processor. People have already been silenced by Paypal.

      1. I didn’t say that being subscription based absolutely protects you from cancel culture 100%. I said it insulates them.

        And there are payment processors other than PayPal. MasterCard and Visa are examples. Brave’s BAT is another. Brave paid me about $100 in cash last year.

        Brave was founded by a cancel culture victim.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO,_controversy_and_resignation

        If Greenwald hasn’t gone through the process of becoming a verified content creator so that his subscribers can pay him with the BAT they’ve earned, he really should and probably will.

        1. P.S. Reason is a Brave verified content creator. I can send them money through my browser right now with two clicks.

  5. When you look at things like the destruction of Iraq or the implementation of a torture regime—what has Donald Trump done that even remotely compares in terms of moral evil to any of that? Nothing. And yet we’re supposed to treat George Bush and Barack Obama like morally upstanding statesmen and Donald Trump like the literal reincarnation of Hitler.

    —-Glenn Greenwald

    We think of populism as a reaction to elitism, but there is a certain strain of elitism that is a contemptuous reaction to the common people intruding on policy. The elitists used Trump as a whipping boy for average Americans in the heartland. Plenty of everyday progressives feel nothing but contempt for average Americans and will be happy to tell you all about it, but for journalists, it’s easier to focus their rage on the working class’ heroes.

    Perhaps the most amazing thing about Trump was that a billionaire, playboy casino magnate from New York City with a foreign model trophy wife and an oversize ego somehow became the legitimate embodiment of blue collar, working class values to Middle America. I maintain that this happened specifically because the elitists in the press treated Trump as a whipping boy for the average Americans they hated. As the press universally excoriated Trump in the same “deplorable” terms they used for average Americans during the Obama years, average Americans came to see him as one of them.

    The transformation of Trump into a champion of blue collar America is nowhere near as ironic or hard to explain as the transformation of Greenwald’s fellow journalists into enthusiastic progenitors of cancel culture. If silencing your fellow Americans for their flaws is wrong, against the ultimate interests of journalism, and ultimately self-destructive, they still don’t want to be right?

    1. How do we get back to the sane(r) side of the looking glass?

      Between sensitized and conditioned younger people, who really do want a life without challenges, emotional or financial, and complacent older people dependent on both government and corporate largess, who will challenge the consumer-tech-government complex? Can we count on deplorables, aka the Renegades of Thaddeus Russell?

      1. No one, and no.

    2. Trump won partly for what he said, but primarily because of the way he said it. No politician has been as open and transparent about what he, himself, wanted and planned to do. Compare Obama giving up on shutting down Gitmo after the simplest day-zero pushback, vs Trump fighting for his damned wall, over and over and over. Or Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize even before inauguration, then starting wars all over the place.

      That honesty and transparency is anathema to the political and media classes, but heaven-sent to half the population. He was elected because he was not a typical politician.

      P.S. — for all you wankers who deny Trump was the most honest President since probably G Washington, get yer fingers outa yer butt and wake up to the context of political honesty and transparency. Political honesty has nothing to do with literal truth and literal lies, which are meaningless in politics. Witness Clinton arguing about the definition of “is”.

      1. Yeah I wasn’t particularly jazzed up about the wall but it was pretty obvious Trump was trying to deliver on a promise to his constituents against all odds. I had to respect him for that.

  6. Ugh, Greenwald is literally my least favorite journalist. He should have retired in shame after Robert Mueller’s report proved he got #TrumpRussia completely wrong.

    #LibertariansAgainstGreenwald
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. Blew past Poe’s law in this post, OBL.
      That sentence could have easily been written by Jeff, Tony, White Knight or DOL.

      1. But Jeff and Tony would produce more mouth foaming and flying spittle.

    2. That is the highest compliment any journalist could ever aspire to.

      You are very kind.

  7. Dang, I just saw the news that Larry King has agreed to admit that he’s dead.

    1. About time. He’s been in a coma for years.

  8. When you look at things like the destruction of Iraq or the implementation of a torture regime—what has Donald Trump done that even remotely compares in terms of moral evil to any of that? Nothing. And yet we’re supposed to treat George Bush and Barack Obama like morally upstanding statesmen and Donald Trump like the literal reincarnation of Hitler.

    Man. The leftists are going to hate greenwald even more now.

    1. Never dis your own tribe. They might hate the other side, but absolutely despise apostates.

    2. If they ever get him, they’ll burn him at the stake as one of John Brennan’s “libertarians.”

  9. That’s what Facebook and Twitter wanted to be. They had to stop doing that. They had to start censoring…because journalists at CNN and NBC and The New York Times demanded they do so. Turning on their huge megaphones and saying, “Look at the extremists and the hatefulness these platforms are giving voice to.”

    This is a bit naive on Glens part. The censorship isn’t driven by outside forces in these companies, it is internal. There were videos leaked of these companies own employees asking what happened after 2016 and the CEOs saying Trump wouldn’t be elected again. They hired people like Gadde at Twitter to oversee rules and censorship that have an open leftist dogma and proudly tour their meetings and discussions with DNC members. These companies openly helped Obama on 2008 on their own, not due to newspapers.

  10. “I felt as though we had gotten off course for a few years now by becoming more and more linked with the Democratic Party. Particularly in the age of Trump, where we had become not so much a journalistic outlet but more an activist outlet, designed not to report the truth no matter who it aggrandizes or angers but serving the interests of the Democratic Party. And more so, undermining the interest of Donald Trump, which ultimately became the same thing.”

    This is exactly what happened with Reason magazine.
    And all those involved need to be fired by the Foundation if it wants the magazine to return to its original mandate.

    1. Agreed. It’s really disappointing that no one at Reason offered an alternative voice for 4 years. I’ve been a reader for decades and it’s shocking to see how far they’ve fallen. I don’t know if this is a revenue issue like the ACLU or just the rise of the millennials.

      1. I’m convinced it’s Trump’s mean tweets, his rude, crude, lewd, loud persona which upsets Reason staffers so much. Somehow just couldn’t get past that to look at actual facts. I think you can sum up opposition to Trump from Ilya Somin’s saying that he voted for Biden because Trump spent too much, and threw in some bizarre comment excusing the obvious coming Biden spending spree with some nonsense about it not having happened yet.

        That’s all TDS is, people “recoiling in horror” at Trump’s mean tweets and never looking any further.

        1. It is caring about a facade more than the foundation. It is easier to criticize a facade, takes nothing more than disliking something. Finding out whats wrong with a foundation takes work.

          1. Good comparison, I’m going to steal that!

            1. I stole it largely from Roarke.

        2. It’s just straight up pretentious caste distaste.
          When it comes right down to it, Reason staff are every bit as committed to status quo establishment as George Will or Chris Wallace or Cuomo, and they are 100% committed to the woke narrative.
          Their pushback amounts to minor griping, the purpose of which is to fulfill their place as an “opposing” voice while legitimizing leftism.
          They are controlled/false alternative to msm.

          1. For the life of me I can’t think of a libertarian belief ENB has espoused that isn’t something that bein pensant liberals aren’t okay with.
            Prostitution, sodomy, open borders and drug use won’t get you any serious pushback from the establishment, but free speech and deregulation certainly will.

            1. Her coverage of the riots all last year made it clear that property rights aren’t part of her beliefs.

        3. I don’t think that’s what TDS is at all. Trump’s mean tweets are simply the excuse this time around, but it’s not like the kind of deep personal hatred that Trump inspired was unique to Trump. Just four years before him, Romney inspired that same sort of hatred and the same sort of reactions. The only difference with Trump was how many Republicans got in on the action, probably from fear of any move he might have made to strip our aristocrats of any of the power they’ve accumulated.

        4. “I’m convinced it’s Trump’s mean tweets, his rude, crude, lewd, loud persona which upsets Reason staffers so much.”

          It upsets me too. I do think the “facade” of the president of the USA is indeed important : for example people remember Reagan more for his speech that for his actual politics. Obama was 100% facade (people like him, or hate him, for his “facade” more than for anything else).

          That does not mean that I am supporting Biden, but I am mad at the fact that Trump was unable to stop tweeting and act a little bit more like a president (or just not like an oafish).

          People say the Trump election is partly a backlash against “woke” politics: it is probably true, but I do think that the actual “woke” wave is also partially a backlash against Trump attitude.

  11. That’s just unfortunately the modern-day mentality of the journalist. It used to be an anti-authoritarian mentality. Now they work for big corporations and become authoritarians.

    Good interview and he’s a smart guy. But like all leftists he has an inexplicable need to scapegoat corporations. Journalists didn’t change because they work for corporations, they changed because they now see themselves as part of the ruling class. This is why they started in journalism in the first place.

    1. It’s really not an either or though, but a bit of both. One of the reasons they are part of the ruling class is because they work for big, powerful corporations.

      1. No. They are powerful in part because they work for powerful institutions. These institutions are powerful because they work hand in hand with the ruling class, not because of the corporate form. Where do all these politicians and staff work when their team is not in power? Academia and media. And in these institutions the pinnacle of success is influencing government. Academia is similarly part of the ruling class for the same reasons, but they are not corporations.

        The corporate form is incidental. No matter what form media takes it is the partnership with government which makes them powerful.

        1. This.
          The boundaries between the social media companies and political institutions are also blurry, with a hundreds of top employees moving back and forth between the companies and Democratic administrations.

        2. I think you make a better argument than Greenwald here. But I’m not sure he’d disagree.

        3. Fair enough, the fact that they are incorporated isn’t really the issue. But they are still corporations.

        4. Ministry of Truth and Loathing.

        5. Excellent analysis.

  12. “They had to start censoring…because journalists at CNN and NBC and The New York Times demanded they do so.”

    That is hilarious! Poor widdle powerless social media platforms, they just had to cave in when the mean journalists ordered them to, and start censoring. That they were censoring people they didn’t like wasn’t THEIR fault, nobody could have stood up to that pressure!

    There’s no way Zuck could have gone up on a stage with a dozen famous civil liberties defenders, and announced a principled refusal to censor legal content. That’s just unimaginable!

    Bullshit. These platforms censor because they have the power, and nobody is going to stop them, and they’ve got no interest in the rights of anybody they disagree with.

    1. Something about freedom of the press and owning one.

    2. Right. Greenwald seems fixated that one of the other is at fault. The fact that both want to censor and Facebook is happy for government pressure to justify the actions it wants to take anyway doesn’t seem to occur to him.

      This is a common form of government corruption these days. Title IX extremism used government pressure to help universities justify what they wanted to do anyway. Sue and settle on environmental issues is the same in reverse. The practice is to use a nominally adversarial institution you control to “demand” you follow their rules. This helps the other institution protect itself by deflecting responsibility and use risk concern overcome any internal opposition.

    3. Greenwald from a couple days ago.
      The recent extraordinary removal of the social media platform Parler from the internet was clearly driven by these dynamics. It is inconceivable that Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos and Google executives believe that Parler is some neo-Nazi site that played anywhere near the role in planning and advocating for the Capitol riot as Facebook and YouTube did. But they know that significant chunks of liberal elite culture believe this (or at least claim to), and they thus calculate — not irrationally, even if cowardly — that they will have to endure a large social and reputational hit for refusing mob demands to destroy Parler. Like the Niskanen and Times bosses with Wilkinson, they had to decide how much pain they were willing to accept to defend Parler, and — as is usually the case — it turned out the answer was not much. Thus was Parler destroyed, with nowhere near the number of important liberal friends that Wilkinson has.

      1. The collusion by social media and other Big Tech companies to make Parlor (a competitor) disappear overnight clearly violates anti trust laws. But don’t expect Biden or his FTC to do anything (since Biden was the chief beneficiary of their collusion).

  13. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>> Click here.

  14. But also, they don’t believe in the right of citizens to confront power centers. They think that reporting means somebody in power, like in the CIA or the FBI

  15. “Journalists are authoritarians who believe that the modes of information [should be] regulated by them and by others. ”

    No, journalists are more like sluts who become whores to their perceived (and maybe desired) overlords, or at best idiot ass-kissing minions. Kind of a hybrid Eva Braun and Sergeant Schultz.

  16. Watching an AHC program called Apocalypse: Stalin.
    Good stuff.
    Terribly relevant information in it.

  17. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning for more detail visit the given link………….Visit here .

  18. “What the fuck ever happened to Jim Acosta that constitutes an assault on press freedom? The worst thing Trump ever did to any of them was to say mean things about them in tweets. Those aren’t assaults on press freedom.”

    Aside from threatening Greenwald with arrest, Obama tapped 20 Associated Press office phone lines and the homes and phones of reporters, and tried to eject Fox News from all press briefings because he didn’t like their reporting.

    Trump held more press conferences in four short years than the last four presidents put together, but somehow “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.

  19. Mayor had to be rushed from city hall during to rioting.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-citys-mayor-rushed-to-safety-after-homeless-advocate-rioters-storm-city-hall

    Time to charge a lot of democrats for sedition or something.

    1. Fucking right-wing Trumpers!

    2. That’s totally different. Sounds mostly peaceful.

  20. Damn it must feel bad to interview a real journalist.

    1. Poor Nick.

  21. This interview should be required reading for any “journalist” at Reason under the age of 50, followed by a paper on what they learned from it.

    1. Such a paper would be so brief, it wouldn’t even be able to fit in one, “To be sure…”

      Casting pearls before swine and all.

  22. Gillespie: “Did you vote for Donald Trump in the last election?”

    Greenwald: “I didn’t vote. It’s ironic: That’s the one old journalism trope that I agree with, which is that if you vote, you psychologically become too connected to a politician. I prefer to just keep my distance.”

    There’s this thing called bothsideism, and it doesn’t only work in hindsight. The things Biden is doing were not only foreseeable but also foreseen. I’ve been a principled non-voter for a long time. There wasn’t much of a difference between Bush and Obama on warmongering, surveillance, expanding the welfare state, or TARP. There was a huge difference between Biden and Trump on extremely important issues. For instance, I don’t believe George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden could have negotiated and signed a peace deal with the Taliban–especially not in February of 2020.

    It isn’t just that negotiating with the Taliban is unthinkable from their ideological perspectives. It’s also that they would have considered it far too risky from a political perspective. There was a huge risk that the Taliban could have massively violated the peace deal in the runup to the election in November of 2020 by targeting American soldiers in Afghanistan with terrorist attacks. Back in February of 2020, there wasn’t a competent campaign manager in the world who would have recommended that Trump subject his reelection chances to the mercy of the Taliban keeping their word. That would have been far too much of a political risk for Hillary or Biden.

    The best explanation for why Trump negotiated and signed that peace deal with the Taliban was that he genuinely believed that permanently withdrawing from Afghanistan was in the best interests of the United States. We probably won’t see another president like that in our lifetimes. It was our responsibility as voters to reward the president for that kind of behavior. I have little doubt but that if it hadn’t been for the pandemic and the lockdowns, President Trump would have been reelected. Regardless, we failed to reelect him anyway. One of the reasons we failed is because so many people, especially various journalists, failed to be public with their support for some of Trump’s policies.

    Remember when John Murtha, in 2005, came out saying that there wasn’t much point in continuing the occupation of Iraq? It’s hard for people who weren’t old enough to be politically aware at the time to understand how important that was. From September 11, 2001 until John Murtha in 2005, I don’t remember anybody in the establishment of either party criticizing much of anything about the War on Terror or the Iraq War. Before Murtha, the Democrats were rubber stamp complicit in everything the Bush administration did. And it took a John Murtha before the dam finally burst.

    Soon thereafter, it became socially acceptable on the airwaves and in polite society to oppose the Iraq War–without being smeared as some kind of nutty “truther”. The reason a relative unknown like Obama was able to beat Hillary for the nomination is because he wasn’t yet part of the Democrat establishment. He hadn’t opposed the Iraq War anywhere near as much as he’d simply failed to support it. Outsiders like Ron Paul were criticizing the Iraq War from within the Republican party, but it takes insiders speaking out to make opposing something like that okay.

    That’s where we were with Trump before the election. That’s where we are now at the beginning of the Biden administration. No one on the left was willing to support Trump on any policy. It didn’t matter what the policy was, they couldn’t support it if Trump was involved. I suspect most Americans still don’t even know that we signed a peace deal with the Taliban more than 10 months ago and that not a single American has been targeted by the Taliban in Afghanistan since then. Why?

    Conservative voices are undergoing an aggressive purge from the public square, and I don’t see a Democrat John Murtha type in Congress anywhere. Even Mitch McConnell is more or less condemning President Trump–for his speech–and calling it incitement and insurrection. I know journalists are under a tremendous amount of pressure to toe the line right now, but journalists from stage left may be the only people who can make opposition to Biden and his authoritarian policies socially acceptable in polite society. Too bad Greenwald couldn’t bring himself to support Trump with his vote. Spilt milk.

    Can the left start condemning the Biden administration already? Orwell’s criticism of Stalin’s authoritarianism stung because he was a committed socialist. There was a time when the only truly loyal communists were thought to be dissenters like Trotsky. Biden’s authoritarianism may be a bigger threat to left wing liberalism than the populism that will surely emerge in reaction to it. If there are still any honest liberals out there, it’s time to come out of the closet already. Biden is marching your liberal values up against the wall.

    1. Reason’s relative silence on the Taliban peace deal and the end of the Afghan war, is one of the biggest indicators that it is no longer a libertarian magazine.

      1. Every scheduled withdrawal of troops in line with the agreement was cited as further evidence that the peace deal wasn’t serious–if it was mentioned at all.

        The few times they mentioned the peace deal, sometimes it was without mentioning that Trump might somehow have had something to do with it.

        It did give the impression that they might stand up for the free speech rights of the Klan before they’d highlight a good thing Trump did.

        If the source of funding drives the concerns of management, like I outlined above, then whoever’s paying the bills at Reason presumably doesn’t like Trump.

        1. Open borders Uber Alles.

        2. Ever since rich Uncle Charles’ brother died, he started keeping bad company (like George Soros) and turned his back on the libertarian faith of his youth.

      2. So, stop torturing yourself and stop hanging out here.

        1. What was it that got you banned, Dee? I recognize after January 6th you kinda lost your mind, but to actually get banned takes a lot.

          1. Guy just can’t let private corporations make their own decisions.

        2. You again? Apparently White Privilege does exist.

        3. This was my magazine long before it became your party’s organ, you totalitarian mouthpiece.
          Why don’t you fuck off?

        4. You’re the one that needs to leave. You’ve been banned. That should tell you all you need to know.

          This place is for us, not a Marxist such as yourself.

      3. That and the peace deals between Israel and Arab nations. If anyone else were president at the time, it would have been huge news stories.

        1. And the fact that the House Democrats actually passed a rule in July forbidding Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Germany, and Reason refused to report it!
          They smothered that story because it has reflected badly on the Democrats. Just like they did with the earlier Obama spy scandal and the Biden pay for play afterwards.

          That’s when we learned that TDS could turn a libertarian magazine antilibertarian.

        2. Serbia and Kosovo settled a heated point of contention between them, the name of a lake located in both of their territories, by naming it Lake Trump.

        3. If Obama or Biden had brokered these deals, the word you would see in EVERY newspaper is Landmark! But Trump does it and nobody knows.

          1. John Kerry called normalization impossible without Israel giving Palestine everything they wanted.

            1. I seem to remember something about appeasing people who like to kill Jews…

    2. “There wasn’t much of a difference between Bush and Obama on warmongering, surveillance, expanding the welfare state, or TARP. There was a huge difference between Biden and Trump on extremely important issues.”
      Exactly right. I spent decades voting for Libertarians or not voting at all. Never voted for a Republican until Trump in 2020. Seems to me that Reason sacrificed their libertarian credibility not because they didn’t like Trump but because they refused to even acknowledge his policy successes.

      1. And on the subject of Reason’s favored candidate and foreign
        policy.

        https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/large-us-convoy-rolled-syria-1st-day-biden-presidency

        Two separate reports from Middle East news sources at the end of this week strongly suggest that both Russia and the United States are building up their forces in war-torn Syria within the opening days of the Joe Biden administration.

        First, Syrian state media is alleging a major US build-up and reinforcements sent to “illegitimate bases in Hasakah countryside”. The report in Syria’s SANA details:

        “…that a convoy consisted of 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials, affiliated to the so-called international coalition have entered in Hasaka countryside via al-Walid illegitimate border crossing with north of Iraq, to reinforce illegitimate bases in the area.”

        1. Yeah, but how many mean tweets have their been?

          1. New Caesar clearly deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for that alone.

    3. Well said, but Trump was an aberration that occurred only because The Establishment got complacent for a moment, because The Smartest, Most Accomplished Woman Ever was going to win in a walk.

      They won’t make that mistake again.

      Hail Caesar! Long live The Empire!

    4. Ken wrote
      “I suspect most Americans still don’t even know that we signed a peace deal with the Taliban more than 10 months ago and that not a single American has been targeted by the Taliban in Afghanistan since then. Why?”

      The correct answer is because the left wing ideologues at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, WaPO, Daily Beast, HuffPost, Reason, etc. didn’t want Americans (who vote) to know about ANY of Trump’s many historical accomplishments (because destroying Trump has been their obsession for the past 4 years).

    5. “Biden’s authoritarianism may be a bigger threat to left wing liberalism than the populism that will surely emerge in reaction to it. If there are still any honest liberals out there, it’s time to come out of the closet already. Biden is marching your liberal values up against the wall.”
      As a liberal, I couldn’t agree more.

  23. “What the fuck ever happened to Jim Acosta that constitutes an assault on press freedom? The worst thing Trump ever did to any of them was to say mean things about them in tweets. Those aren’t assaults on press freedom.”

    Did anyone tell the Reason staff writers this?

    1. What part of mean tweets don’t you get?

  24. And on the subject of big tech.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/academic-study-finds-big-tech-elites-are-their-own-class-different-rest-humanity

    The researchers conclude that big-tech elites such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates display a ‘meritocratic’ worldview, meaning they do not see wealth as a source of their influence or success, but rather believe their innate abilities and more altruistic beliefs have enabled them to achieve power.
    “We find that the 100 richest members of the tech world reveal distinctive attitudes that set them apart both from the general population and from other wealthy elites,” the study states.
    The findings reveal that big-tech elites consistently talk about believing in democracy, being philanthropic, and helping make the world a better place for other people.
    “Yet their position in a democratic system is contradictory – as a result of their enormous wealth, they have disproportionate influence over how discretionary income is spent,” the researchers note.
    The researchers found that language used by the tech-elites regularly includes words such as ‘merit’, ‘distinct’, ‘excellent’, ‘value’, ‘virtue’, ‘advantage’, ‘superiority’, ‘worth’, ‘perfect’, ‘important’ and ‘significant’.

  25. Literally Hitler. First he incites an insurrection, now he’s regrouping his troops for a 2nd assault.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/after-two-weeks-sleeping-cold-marble-congress-boots-national-guard-local-parking-garages

    “Meanwhile, Donald Trump has reportedly given permission for troops to stay at Trump Hotel DC if needed.”

    1. Heh!

      This outrage demands an(other) FBI Investigation! Maybe even Impeachment!

      1. Could the House wrap a second article of impeachment into the upcoming trial before it starts, or would we need a third Senate trial?

        1. Definitely a third Senate trial. They keep stabbing Trump’s political corpse but he Just… Won’t… Die!

          And of course, every Democrat Senator deserves an opportunity to preside over a Trump Impeachment Extravaganza, since Chief Justice PenalTax is apparently gonna wimp out from now on.

        2. Apparently John roberts has told Schumer he won’t presiside over impeachment because he believes it is unconstitutional now that trump is put of office, so the senate is going to go forward without the Supreme Court.

          1. He must’ve whispered it very quietly in Schumer’s ear so as not to raise an injudicious ruckus.

            Schumer doesn’t mind. As a former AG for The Peoples’ Republic of Kalifornia, Sub-Empress Kamala I is more than qualified to preside over a kangaroo court.

          2. Well, they’ve thrown the Constitution out the window with the Bill of Attainment already, why let little things like the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stop then now?

  26. and what might go wrong in the Biden administration

    The fuck are you saying? Did you see the flurry of executive orders he signed? He reinstated codified racism into the Federal Government. He rejoined an entirely unconstitutional international bargain with the Paris Accord. What might go wrong? The fucking fuck?

    1. Left wing media propagandists have heaped praise on Biden since his inauguration, including the 23 disastrous executive orders he signed (22 more than Trump signed on his first day in 2017), and his ongoing police state lockdown in DC.

      All the news headlines highlighted and praised Biden’s “Unity” speech where he called for a new crackdown on domestic terrorism and white supremacy (code words for Trump supporters).

      Later that day when Biden’s ginger press spokesperson claimed (during her first press conference) that the US Senate had a “Constitutional Duty” to conduct an Trump impeachment trial, none of the so-called journalists challenged her false claim about the US Constitution.

      1. Biden hasn’t gotten such an enthusiastic rim job since Chris Dodd and Teddy Kennedy mistook him for their date that time back in the day when someone accidentally turned off the lights during one of their coke fueled orgies in the Senate Cloakroom.

    1. “Those who held their nose and backed Joe Biden and generally bought the narrative that Trump was some kind of civilizational threat that they all had to rally behind him, what are you getting out of him?”

      Suck it.

  27. Greenwald had a very interesting take on big tech censorship in 12/2017 in the Intercept.
    https://static.theintercept.com/amp/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments.html?__twitter_impression=true

    I was looking through his Substack last night and somehow wound up on that. There’s been an evolution of the explanation of who is driving the censorship. Now it’s “The DNC.” Or CCP, or Big Tech because it can. Three years ago it was “the US and Israeli governments.”
    I have no way to tell specifically who drives what censorship. There appears to be a veritable octopus of censorship by multiple parties for multiple reasons.
    “Tip of the iceberg” seems to apply here.

    I like that I was wrong about violence in the capitol on 1/21. That was a nice thing to be wrong about. And I think disrupting domestic terrorism is a smart choice; I’ll never forget the article I saw a few years ago, I’ll dig out the link, where a couple was arrested for something minor – in possession of a live rattlesnake, some drugs and a *box of powdered uranium.* That should be disrupted. Covid and PM2.5 in the air is bad enough.

    Speech shouldn’t be considered terrorism though. Full stop. Harassment, incitement, treason, potentially, yes. Terrorism no.

      1. Whiskey is a drug.

  28. This is one of only several excellent articles I’ve read in Reason the past year.

    Unfortunately, the excellent articles were dwarfed by the 500 rants demonizing and trashing Trump.

    1. Sorry, but if you ally yourself with a low life like Trump you’re going to read things about him that offend you anytime you venture out of your right-wing bubble.

      1. Hey Bill, you just got called “bubble boy” by the comment section’s very own Mouth of Sauron. Isn’t that the most retarded thing you’ve read all day?

      2. Youre more fun when you’re honest about the piece of shit you are.

        1. I guess. Now she’s just another Tony.

  29. You know the media is bullshit when they approve of anti-trust crusades, all while insistent that only half a dozen entities should have the right to publish journalism.

    1. Where did you see anyone claim only about a half dozen entities should be allowed to publish journalism?

      1. Everywhere?

        How many companies did you imagine own 90% of the country’s legacy media.

        1. That didn’t answer the question I asked. It went off on a tangential topic.

          1. It went off on a tangential topic

            Lol, oh fuck. Maybe you really are sarcasmic…
            And no. I was completely on topic, you illiterate fraud.

      2. You should read the article Dee. Btw, what did you get banned for?

        1. Probably cloning names again.

        2. Did read it.

          What, are we talking about this sentence in Gillespie’s question: “It’s partly that people at CNN and The New York Times want to get rid of anything that’s going to get more eyeballs than they do.”

          That is not saying that CNN and the New York Times are insisting “that only half a dozen entities should have the right to publish journalism.” It is saying they dislike any competitors being more successful than they are.

          1. What did you get banned for?

      3. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the NYT. Maybe PBS, but who listens to them?

        1. Cite where anyone at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, or PBS insisted “that only half a dozen entities should have the right to publish journalism.”

          1. CNN just held a panel where they suggested exactly that.

            Youtube itself has vowed to censor anything that’s not “approved by the WHO”.

            What’s going on in the business of Journalism right now is the scariest thing I’ve seen in my adult life.

            1. YouTube is investing $25m (£18.8m) in journalism on its platform, focusing on helping news organisations produce online videos and changing its site to better support trusted news providers.

              As well as the investment, which will be partly used to fund a working group to spearhead news product features, the company is changing how its site works to “make authoritative sources readily accessible”.

              The service, owned by Google, will heavily promote videos from vetted news sources on the site’s Top News and Breaking News sections “to make it easier to find quality news”, and create new features – initially only in the US – to help distribute local news.

              1. Isn’t it horrifying. And this is what White Knight is shilling for.

            1. The supposed open platform removed references to a story from a legacy media publication, that turned out to be mainly accurate in its reporting , for nakedly partisan political reasons. The question is not do they have the legal right to do so, but that should they have a political editorial stance?

          2. You’re embarrassing yourself Dee.

      4. I can’t find it, but I remember some panel of talking heads in the media, news anchors lamenting the fact that, back when there was no internet, there were only three channels, so everyone agreed on everything. And now, by god, it’s too easy for people not to listen to them, and yet still be “informed.”

        They may as well just come out and say, “the only good monopoly was our monopoly!” That’s bullshit.

        1. “…back when there was no internet, there were only three channels, so everyone agreed on everything.”

          It is rather telling that what they value is consensus instead of the uncovering of truth. Agreement on what reality is, rather than if the common story does accurately describe reality.

          1. And back when there were only three channels it was not agreement, it was reporting. The listener then interpreted what to make of it all based on the delivered information. Not perfect, but far more neutral and factual than today’s news outlets.

      5. Dee, you bitch! AOC wants her party to sit down and decide who is a ‘journalist’….. according to them.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9149219/AOC-slammed-suggestion-federal-commission-rein-press.html

  30. And when they insisted Trump he’s a worst president than Bush and Obama: I can see how you’re treating them differently, and it’s not very compelling.

    I get that you hate him, but I’m not going to start hating him just because you do. The whole world doesn’t have to be all about making sure Hillary Clinton gets what she wants out of this life.

    1. “They”? What “they” are you speaking to?

      1. Ah. Sorry. You comment above this one was scrolled off my screen. They = mainstream media.

        1. Haha.
          You got all pretentious and snotty like when you tried to spellcheck me on capitol/capital, or your water fiasco, but it was just you being retarded again.

          1. He still thinks the sun only sometimes rises on the east.

              1. Well, yeah, you ARE a HO, too!

                Can you, say, “I da ho”, ho? Ho-ho-ho, ho!

            1. I admit when I am wrong. Something YOU never do.

              1. Youre starting to turn into sqrsly.

              2. No you don’t.

                We told you that water and hydrogen dioxide were definitely not the same substances and you fucking doubled down.
                Then you got all snotty about “capitol” because you didn’t fucking understand how quotation marks work, and then ghosted the thread rather than admit it.
                Now you’re going around screaming “insurrection” when even the NYT and Jacobin is starting to back away from the claim.

                You’re so fucking dishonest.

              3. “I admit when I am wrong. Something YOU never do.”

                Do you still maintain that shooting unarmed protesters is justified because they’re trespassing on public property?

              4. Dee, you bitch! Quit lying.

  31. Alternative headline:

    Glenn Greenwald: An interview with an actual Libertarian journalist

    I bet Sullum, Boehm and ENB are reading this article and seething at Glenn. How DARE he NOT believe that Trump is LITERALLY Hitler!

    1. I bet Sullum, Boehm and ENB are ignoring interviews like this as hard as they can.

    2. None of them will actually read this.

      1. Maybe if vox tweets it.

        1. They’ll only read the tweet.
          Journalisming is already hard enough.

          1. And the tweet will not be complimentary.

    3. I love the way Greenwald just says it like it is.

      When other authors feel forced to say, “I know Trump is the worst politician in history, but…”, he just comes out and says, “bullshit. Trump isn’t even the worst president in the last 20 years, and here’s why…” and his why makes complete sense.

      In a world where the establishment media’s worried our biggest problem is too many voices allowing too much wrong think, he points out that the real problem: an establishment media acting as a propaganda arm for the government. They don’t speak truth to power; they’re powerful people putting the citizens in their place.

      I’m glad someone’s trying to do real journalism.

      1. Another one of the less discussed reasons why the media class hates Trump – he stood between them and the revolving door of government jobs.

        Even for the ones who never get government jobs this is a problem, since it’s hard to move up in the industry unless some of the higher ups move on.

  32. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Bezos three months ago: Mail-in voting is 100% solid and secure!!!1!!

  33. ‘The main reason Facebook and Google and Twitter so actively censor now isn’t because they wanted to.’

    I disagree, the CEO of Google himself, Sundar Pichaiin, in a meeting with his employees following Donald Trump’s election win, said they needed do something, and then set out to change the course of the next election through manipulation and censorship.

    1. Exactly. And about two weeks after the 2016 election, Twitter went on a banning spree of alt-right accounts that they felt had been influential in getting Trump elected.

      The Tech Trust needs to die.

      1. Fuck off, you authoritarian slaver fuck. Google can do whatever it wants, and when it’s revenues don’t cover its expenses, it will die. Take a fucking flying leap.

    2. Mark Zuckerberg used 350 million in dark money aimed at selected precincts for the democrats.

  34. “Glenn Greenwald: ‘Journalists Are Authoritarians”

    Someone should state the obvious.

    1) This is more or less another way of saying what President Trump said when he said that the news media is the enemy of the American people.

    2) In the ways these statement were intended, both Greenwald and Trump were right.

  35. We are entering a decade of political crisis. Many different outcomes are possible. The worst is the continued authoritarianism. I look and at the Left and see authoritarians. And they don’t even know they’re authoritarians.

    1. They should be removed all the same.

  36. Corrupt authoritarian politicians and corporate journalists (debatable if you can actually call them journalist) are a threat to personal liberties and freedoms.

    They continue the false narrative to maintain the duopoly vacillating between the two factions (Republicans and Democrats) to increase the power of the government (them) over the people (us).

    I disagree with the notion of not voting, however I understand the sentiment. I’m in favor of the masses who don’t vote, to vote third party instead. Not saying any particular third party, just any third party. I happen to favor the Libertarian party even though I have never been a member of any political party.

    My goal is to deny the duopoly the argument of having a mandate with their argument where 30% of eligible voters is considered 55% due to actual voters. If there are enough votes for third parties such as the Libertarian or Green parties it will open up the door and damage the false narrative.

    It is nice to have Glenn Greenwald reporting where he is willing to call out the hypocrisy of the left even though he is personally a progressive. We need journalists that will call out their parties they match up with to keep the parties on the straight and narrow instead justifying their aberrant behavior.

    A multi-party state is the solution to keeping political parties in check. We need political parties that are more narrow on the their focus instead of the schizophrenic nature of the two duopoly parties.

    I have no home in either the Democrat or Republican parties because I disagree and agree with both parties on some issues. I’m sure that this is normal for the vast majority of people. I would favor a third party on a particular issue because the duopoly parties have so much distasteful baggage.

  37. George W Bush, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were much bigger troublemakers than Donald Trump. They liked to stir up trouble up close by waging wars and drone strikes and from a distance by sanctions. Trump liked to stir up trouble from a distance by sanctions and telling other nations and the UN to impose the same sanctions as the US. He scrapped the Iran Deal and reimposed sanctions against them and sent a drone to kill Soleimani. He meddled in Brazil’s election to get Bolsonaro in power. Brazil was much better off under Da Silva and Rousseff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.