independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Glenn Greenwald vs the Corporate Media
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 05/21/21 6:05am

Strive

Glenn Greenwald vs the Corporate Media

Glenn Greenwald is the journalist that broke the Snowden case. He's somebody who has grown increasingly more disgusted at the blatant partisan nature of modern news rooms and the lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting the truth.

I highly recommend his free substack. https://greenwald.substack.com/

This article is fun because he straight ethers them. But he's been on fire lately pointing out all their hypocrisy

On Monday, The Washington Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi contacted me to say that he had spoken with numerous editors and journalists at The Intercept, who voiced to him a wide range of personal and professional accusations about me. This was all in response to criticisms I had expressed about two recent Intercept stories. On Friday morning, The Post published Farhi's article about their attacks on me.

Among other things, that Post article features The Intercept's ongoing attempt to depict me as mentally unwell in order to delegitmize my criticisms of their shabby journalism. It quotes the site's editor-in-chief, Betsy Reed, as saying I have “lost [my] moral compass and grip on reality,” echoing The Intercept’s prior claim that mounting anger at their organization is being fueled not by widespread revulsion over their increasingly unethical and politicized journalism but rather by my “unbalanced tweets.” The Post also quotes Reed as claiming that I have “done a good job of torching [my] journalistic reputation": liberal journalists, who only speak to and for one another, always believe the the primary if not sole metric of journalistic credibility is how popular one is among other liberal journalists. "He's a huge bully,” she added.

Depicting critics of liberal orthodoxies as mentally ill, a rage-driven bully, and a shadow of their former selves is a long-time tactic of guardians of liberal orthodoxies to expel dissidents from their in-group circles. A lengthy 2003 New Yorker smear job on Noam Chomsky headlined "The Devil's Accountant” — at the time when he was a rare and vocal critic of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy — described how Chomsky was once a credible voice but, sadly, has now "become increasingly alienated from the mainstream” because he "has no ideas to offer.” Chomsky's "thinking has grown simplistic and rigid,” the author wrote. She quoted Christopher Hitchens as saying that while he once admired Chomsky's stable ideology and noble commitment to principle, he is now going basically insane, describing his views of the war in Afghanistan as "the gleam of utter lunacy piercing through.”

The article also claimed that while Chomsky's criticisms of Israel has alienated his liberal following, it has caused him to become popular in far-right anti-Semitic circles. That article also described Chomsky as an angry bully, prone to outbursts of rage against his female critics to the point of making them cry, being humorless, and in general just plagued by mental pathologies which accounts for his unwillingness to accept liberal pieties. Sound familiar?

In 2018, I compiled many of those personality-driven and mental health smears that had been weaponized back then against Chomsky because, at the time, other liberal outlets — such as The New Yorker and New York Magazine — were already using the same mental health and personality-based themes to expel me from the precincts of liberal decency due to my rejection of their Russiagate conspiracy theories, which had turned into a virtual religion, including at The Intercept. Both of those long profiles were devoted to a central theme: I refused to accept what everyone who is sane and mentally healthy could see — that Trump had colluded with Russia and Putin exercised some sort of clandestine control over Trump — because I had rage-based trauma from childhood that I never resolved.

In 2012 and in the years after I frequently described how the same mental health themes were weaponized by liberal establishmentarians against Julian Assange: an incessant focus on the Wi...ersonality and alleged mental health pathologies to discredit his pioneering work. I've often noted that the reason the Nixon administration ordered a break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst as a response to his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers was because depicting someone as psychologically unwell is the preferred method of power centers to distract attention away from valid critiques and expelling dissidents from their salons. The script which The Intercept and their liberal allies are using against me is an old, stale, and trite one.

All of this, quite obviously, is an attempt to distract attention away from The Intercept’s serious journalistic sins. It is also designed to personalize the anger which their behavior validly provoked onto me, to conceal the fact that numerous journalists across the political spectrum — not just me — reacted with disgust at what they did and what they are still doing.

One of the Intercept stories to which I (and many others) objected involved a fund-raising email sent by The Intercept to the public on May 4, in which they proudly boasted that they had obtained the full archive of private data on all users of the social media platform Gab. The Intercept vowed that they would use the data archive to target ordinary citizens, including Q Anon conspiracy theorists and those who believe that the election was defrauded. Based on that promise, the email solicited donations from the public (why an outlet lavishly funded by the world's 73rd richest billionaire and which provides their largely unread writers and editors enormous, above-market salaries has to beg for donations from the public in the middle of a pandemic and joblessness crisis is, as I understand it, the subject of an imminent investigative exposé on their finances). Because I am not on their email list, I became aware of that Gab email only when a former senior Intercept editor forwarded it to me, furious that The Intercept was now doing the work of the NSA and FBI by infringing privacy rights rather than protecting them: a core mission of the organization's founding.

The other Intercept story I criticized was an expensive, highly produce...nute video, narrated by former New York Times live-blogging reporter Robert Mackey, designed to vilify numerous journalists with small right-leaning news outlets who do the work that The Intercept would never get near: namely, they report on what actually happens at Antifa protests. Why would a news outlet that has a $15 million/year budget, which works from a $3 million/year penthouse office on the 18th floor of a Park Avenue tower offering panoramic views of Manhattan, and which pays their senior employees annual salaries between $350,000 and $450,000, devote their vast resources to villainizing obscure, poorly paid video journalists who — unlike most Intercept reporters — do actually dangerous, on-the-ground reporting? Who is the "bully” in this situation?

The primary grievance which The Intercept is voicing in response to my criticisms of their work is the same one which liberal outlets now constantly try to weaponize in order to place themselves off-limits from criticism: namely, that by criticizing Intercept writers, I have “endangered” them — a dangerous and shabby standard which, like their liberal media brethren, they obviously do not apply to themselves. Why can The Intercept use a billionaire’s money to expose ordinary people’s Gab activities and produce a video smearing multiple journalists such as Townhall’s Julio Rosas and The Daily Caller's Jorge Ventura, but I and others cannot criticize them? Numerous other journalists and commentators, including Matt Taibbi and Jimmy Dore along with Fox News and the other news outlets whose ...re smeared by The Intercept, along with the targeted journalists themselves, voiced the same criticisms I did.

Despite the widespread criticism The Intercept has been receiving, I was contacted on Wednesday by The Daily Beast’s media reporter Lloyd Grove, who asked me to respond to a long list of accusations, smears and other attacks furnished to him by various Intercept reporters and editors — in order, again, to pretend that I was their only critic, driven by mental problems. These accusations conveyed by Grove were similar to the ones they fed to The Post. Now that The Post article is published, and knowing that one’s own views are never fully represented in articles written by other journalists, I’m posting below the full written exchange I had with Grove: his questions based on The Intercept’s accusations, followed by my answers.


I do so not only to ensure that the full context of my answers are known, but also because this double standard which liberal outlets like The Intercept are trying to impose — they can attack, expose, smear or vilify anyone they want, but you can never criticize them without being accused of “endangering” their journalists — is an unsustainable and unethical double standard that is now pervasive in liberal journalism culture:

As I told Grove, much of what is motivating The Intercept's rage is their institutional failures. They lost an enormous chunk of their membership base when I resigned last October, which they have not come close to replacing. They have repeatedly sent out emails pleading for donations on the ground that their fund-raising efforts are falling woefully short. And despite their enormous budget and exorbitant salaries, virtually nobody reads that site outside of a couple of writers:


The Intercept’s audience size is humiliatingly small. I’ll bet any amount of money that the Intercept spends more dollars per reader than any media outlet in the west. Outside of my articles and those of a couple others, their traffic is and always has been vanishingly small. They think they do such great journalism but nobody reads it, because it’s nothing more than the same partisan tripe one finds at the New York Times, Vox, MSNBC or any other liberal/DNC-loyal /AOC-loving outlet. . . .


The Intercept Brasil, which I founded in 2016, has 1/9 the budget that the Intercept US does and ⅛ the size of its staff, yet for many months, the Intercept Brasil produces more in raw traffic numbers than the entire Intercept US in raw numbers. That’s how few people read their work. It’s embarrassing.


Just to provide one illustrative example, the extremely expensive video they produced that attacked and endangered two working-class journalists of color who do the dangerous work of covering Antifa protests was one of their most-discussed pieces of journalism of the year, mostly due to how many people found it repellent. And yet even with that, the YouTube video — which has as many people who disliked it as liked it — did not even attract 10,000 views. Most unpaid random YouTubers have a larger audience than that:


In sum, The Intercept is an outlet that is as lavishly funded as it is widely ignored. But their journalistic breaches still matter because of how much billionaire funding they receive and, more so, because the tactics they are using to render it inherently illegitimate to criticize them — lest you be accused of “endangering” them — have become commonplace among other liberal outlets. That is the tactic that merits the most attention.

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 05/22/21 6:43am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Greewald is still a REAL journalist. so of course the corporate media hates him, and anyone that doesn't reinforce the narratives they impose on the population.

It's journalism vs propaganda.

If you believed that the possibility of a lab leak was a debunked conspiracy theory, you're getting your news from the wrong source. Just sayin'...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 05/22/21 7:52am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You just hurt his image DJ.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 05/22/21 3:01pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

You just hurt his image DJ.


What's the matter? Do you have to stop liking him now because you found out I like him too? lol

If you believed that the possibility of a lab leak was a debunked conspiracy theory, you're getting your news from the wrong source. Just sayin'...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 05/22/21 4:12pm

IanRG

The easiest way to identify propaganda from real journalism is to look at the proportion of the journalist's writings that target just one side of politics and how much of each of their articles are devoted to casting other journalists as wrong or to discredit them rather than simply and clearly present the facts about the topic.

[Edited 5/22/21 16:43pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 05/22/21 7:32pm

Strive

IanRG said:

The easiest way to identify propaganda from real journalism is to look at the proportion of the journalist's writings that target just one side of politics and how much of each of their articles are devoted to casting other journalists as wrong or to discredit them rather than simply and clearly present the facts about the topic.

[Edited 5/22/21 16:43pm]


How's it propaganda to slaughter the ruling class' sacred cows?

Glenn did it in the Obama era, he did it in the Trump era, he did it to Bolsonaro and now he's doing it to the Biden administration.

It actually takes some guts to look at things critically and not go along with the crowd for the easy money.

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 05/22/21 8:39pm

IanRG

Strive said:

IanRG said:

The easiest way to identify propaganda from real journalism is to look at the proportion of the journalist's writings that target just one side of politics and how much of each of their articles are devoted to casting other journalists as wrong or to discredit them rather than simply and clearly present the facts about the topic.

[Edited 5/22/21 16:43pm]


How's it propaganda to slaughter the ruling class' sacred cows?

Glenn did it in the Obama era, he did it in the Trump era, he did it to Bolsonaro and now he's doing it to the Biden administration.

It actually takes some guts to look at things critically and not go along with the crowd for the easy money.

.

If a promoter hails a opinion blog site as a slaughterer of other people's sacred cows, then this is almost certainly proof that it is propaganda.

.

When all he does is articles against one side and most of the content is devoted to why other journalists are wrong then this is agenda based propaganda.

.

ALL the articles you can see without having to sign up are of the one flavour and against the one side.

.

There is no shortage of "guts" by people blogging opinions on the internet. You are just attracted to him because it matches your crowd's beliefs. Matching your alt right beliefs is no proof of critical thinking.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 05/23/21 12:16pm

Strive

IanRG said:

Strive said:


How's it propaganda to slaughter the ruling class' sacred cows?

Glenn did it in the Obama era, he did it in the Trump era, he did it to Bolsonaro and now he's doing it to the Biden administration.

It actually takes some guts to look at things critically and not go along with the crowd for the easy money.

.

If a promoter hails a opinion blog site as a slaughterer of other people's sacred cows, then this is almost certainly proof that it is propaganda.

.

When all he does is articles against one side and most of the content is devoted to why other journalists are wrong then this is agenda based propaganda.

.

ALL the articles you can see without having to sign up are of the one flavour and against the one side.

.

There is no shortage of "guts" by people blogging opinions on the internet. You are just attracted to him because it matches your crowd's beliefs. Matching your alt right beliefs is no proof of critical thinking.

Ian, I'm starting to believe you have a reading comprehension problem because you are unable to comprehend any point made outside of what you already think.

.

How is doing it to Trump, how is doing it to Bolsonaro "against one side"? Glenn Greenwald goes to where the truth is needed the most. He has to have a security team to leave his house because he made so many enemies speaking out against Boslonaro, who's a far right Trump-like figure in Brazil.

.

There's absoultely a shortage of people willing to point out the democrats' flaws within accepted circles. People like you view Fox News or alternative sites as illegitimate. Well here's an real journalist throwing absolute fire and instead of reading any of his points, you dismiss him as propaganda.

.

Do me a favor. Tell me how it's propaganda to write an article pointing out that the entire "Squad" said they wouldn't vote for Biden's 1.9 billion dollar security bill and that we need to defund the police, then they split 3 "no" and 3 "present" so the bill could still pass instead of them blocking it like they said they would. Why is no other outlet covering that story? Why are they protecting and actively promoting the "Squad" if they are the real journalists and not propaganda? Shouldn't they just be reporting the news?

.

[Edited 5/23/21 12:32pm]

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 05/23/21 4:10pm

IanRG

Strive said:

IanRG said:

.

If a promoter hails a opinion blog site as a slaughterer of other people's sacred cows, then this is almost certainly proof that it is propaganda.

.

When all he does is articles against one side and most of the content is devoted to why other journalists are wrong then this is agenda based propaganda.

.

ALL the articles you can see without having to sign up are of the one flavour and against the one side.

.

There is no shortage of "guts" by people blogging opinions on the internet. You are just attracted to him because it matches your crowd's beliefs. Matching your alt right beliefs is no proof of critical thinking.

Ian, I'm starting to believe you have a reading comprehension problem because you are unable to comprehend any point made outside of what you already think.

.

How is doing it to Trump, how is doing it to Bolsonaro "against one side"? Glenn Greenwald goes to where the truth is needed the most. He has to have a security team to leave his house because he made so many enemies speaking out against Boslonaro, who's a far right Trump-like figure in Brazil.

.

There's absoultely a shortage of people willing to point out the democrats' flaws within accepted circles. People like you view Fox News or alternative sites as illegitimate. Well here's an real journalist throwing absolute fire and instead of reading any of his points, you dismiss him as propaganda.

.

Do me a favor. Tell me how it's propaganda to write an article pointing out that the entire "Squad" said they wouldn't vote for Biden's 1.9 billion dollar security bill and that we need to defund the police, then they split 3 "no" and 3 "present" so the bill could still pass instead of them blocking it like they said they would. Why is no other outlet covering that story? Why are they protecting and actively promoting the "Squad" if they are the real journalists and not propaganda? Shouldn't they just be reporting the news?

.

[Edited 5/23/21 12:32pm]

.

Not one single article on his opinion blog site before you sign up is against the coup leader. Not one. These are the articles that he uses to attract his flies.

.

They are not journalistic articles. They are opinion pieces pushing his agenda. They spend most of their time focusing attacking one side and on why other journalists are not as good as him:

.

1 My resignation from the Intercept - Anti-media

2 Joe and Hunter Biden - anti media and the Dems

3 Emails with Intecept - anti media and the Dems

4 The aftermath - anti media and the Dems

5 Miles Taylor - anti media and the Dems and specifically pro-coup leader in his attempt to steal the election

6 US election uncertainty - Prep article for mistrust in the election result

7 A locked video on why Biden's win is bad - anti dem

8 Bush was worse than the coup leader - pro current GoP

9 Pro Flynn - anti media and the Dems

10 Biden, media and CIA working together - anti media and the Dems

11 Anti-ACLU - anti left

12 3 great dangers odf Biden/Harris - anti media and the Dems

13 Afghan withdrawal - anti media and the Dems

14 French civil liberties advocate video - First article that is not anti media and the Dems

15 Obama sold wars - anti the Dems

16 Mainstream is hyper partisan - anti media

17 Snowden on Biden - anti media and the Dems

18 Ant Ilhab Omar - anti the Dems

19 Biden appointee spread conspiracy theories - anti the Dems

20 Locked article on 3 tactic of the neo-liberal order and Biden/Harris - anti the Dems

21 Pro myth of deep state underming Sanders - anti the Dems

22 Anti Biden choice for office - anti media and the Dems

23 Biden influenced by China - anti media and the Dems

24 Locked Hunter Biden article - anti media and the Dems

25 Open Hunter Biden article - anti media and the Dems

26 Call for Snowden pardon - Second article that is not anti media and the Dems

27 Fact checking on Biden wrong - anti media and the Dems

28 Biden on Russia - anti media and the Dems

29 Covid authoritarianism is real and nothing to do with the coup leader - anti media and the Dems

30 Assange - anti media

31 Locked video on Assange extradiction rejection - 3rd article may not be anti media or anti dem

33 Locked article that hints that the failed coup is not the problem - the responce to it could be

34 Opne article on why the failed coup attempt is not the problem - anti the Dems

35 Defence of parlor - anti media

36 The dems and corporate media will send us to a new war on terror - anti media and the Dems

37 Defence of Wilkinson suggesting Biden lynch Pence - anti media and the Dems

38 Protecting the capital from far right mobs is bad - anti media and the Dems

39 Locked video on Gamestop - Possibly the 4th article that is not anti-media or anti dems

40 Open version of the video on Gamestop - Possibly the 4th article that is not anti-media or anti dems

41 A locked note on what has happened since he left the Intercept.

42 Article on journalistic techniques used by others - anti media

43 Attack on the Lincoln project - Pro coup leader

44 Downplay coup attempt - Pro coup leader

45 Dem on tech censorship - anti media and the Dems

46 Dems targeting far right media - anti media and the Dems

47 Video on LGBT issues - possibly 5th article not anti media or dems

48 locked articel on Biden and Saudi leaders - almost certainly anti-dem

49 Downplaying insurrection attempt - anti media and the Dems

50 Video on looming war on terror

51 One of only three articles from where he lives - 6th one that is not anti media or dems

52 Defence of his attacks on public figures and the media but he almost exclusively attacks dems and media

53 Protection of the opinion site he uses from attacks by news media

54 Online censorship and journalists - anti media

55 Big media and independent confirmation - anti media

56 A corrected tweet shows how bad the left media and only the conservative media is good - anti media and the left

57 Video on LGBTQ issues and how it used by politicians mainly from the left

58 Article against CIA involvement in combatting domestic terrorism - this is complex but the vast majority of domestic terrorism is by the far right.

59 Anti Chris Cuomo reporting on Covid - anti media and the Dems and fist mention of covid

60 locked article on the "repressive objective of the democratic-controlled congress" - anti media and the Dems

61 Open version of the above

62 Article in favour of crowd funding for those involved with the coup attempt couched as an attack on on the powerless - anti media and the Dems

63 An article on his experiences with a home invasion just outside of Rio and the impacts on this in comparison to another home invasion. The 7th article not on bing anti media or dems

64 Article in favour of Gaetz - anti media

65 Article on corporations and activism right when corporations were acting against GoP voter suppression tactics

66 Article on Russian bounty, something that was always reported as unconfirmed linking this to CIA reports of ongoing Russian involvement in Afghanistan - anti media and the Dems

67 Anti ACLU / BLM article - anti media and the Dems

68 Guest article by person warning that the moved against domestic terrorism (were this has mostly been by the far right) ciuld affect others - anti controls on far right extremism

69 Personal attack on a CNN reporter - anti media and the Dems

70 NYC is too progressive - anti left

71 Downplaying the coup yet again - anti media and the Dems and pro far right extremism

72 Article on left tactics - anti left

73 Justified attack on inaccurate tweets by media people

74 Article on free speech and Blinken asserting that Assange's imprisonment makes him a liar - Note no equivalent article against the previous US government who actively sought his extradition.

75 Justified attack on the Dem stance in favour of Israel

76 Attack on Liz Cheney, the latest target of hate by the GoP right

77 to 79 3 guest articles against progressive reform in the Philadelphian DA office

80 Article asserting a Dem "Russiagate" - anti media and the Dems

81 Article on the Squad seeking proper spending on Capital Police - anti media and the Dems

.

Do you see what is missing? Despite your claim that this site wrote against the coup leader - Greenwald does not. The site only started after he left The Intercept in October last year. About 10% of the articles are not specifically against just the one side politics or "corporate" media or both - All the rest are. Not all of the articles are agenda based propaganda, just virtually all of them. He is not just reporting the news: Virtually all the articles conflate separate issues to create the image of a pattern so as to have the audience pre-judge the current event in line with his spin on prior events.

[Edited 5/23/21 19:15pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 05/23/21 4:49pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Greenwald wants the left to work with the crazy right--no go. He downplays the thuggery of the Jan 6 coup attempt. He says the coup plotters were mostly guys that live in their mother's basement.

And he likes Jimmy Dore--a lose, lose.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 05/24/21 11:32am

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Greenwald wants the left to work with the crazy right--no go. He downplays the thuggery of the Jan 6 coup attempt. He says the coup plotters were mostly guys that live in their mother's basement.

And he likes Jimmy Dore--a lose, lose.


So you stopped liking Dore too, I see. Interesting...

If you believed that the possibility of a lab leak was a debunked conspiracy theory, you're getting your news from the wrong source. Just sayin'...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 05/25/21 7:28am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Force the vote was a joke.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 05/25/21 11:13am

jaawwnn

avatar

No one agrees with Glenn Greenwald about everything, and that's kind of part of his strength. If Freaky is choosing to throw people to the wolves when they disagree with him over an issue, well no wonder the American left is weak, all that stuff the center says about them must be true. No solidarity.
"I think people ought to know that we're anti-fascist, we're anti-violence, we're anti-racist and we're pro-creative. We're against ignorance."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 05/26/21 4:00pm

Strive

IanRG said:

Do you see what is missing? Despite your claim that this site wrote against the coup leader - Greenwald does not. The site only started after he left The Intercept in October last year. About 10% of the articles are not specifically against just the one side politics or "corporate" media or both - All the rest are. Not all of the articles are agenda based propaganda, just virtually all of them. He is not just reporting the news: Virtually all the articles conflate separate issues to create the image of a pattern so as to have the audience pre-judge the current event in line with his spin on prior events.

So, in your opinion, there is no such thing as journalism. Just agenda based propaganda.

If you don't believe that, please provide with an example of what you think it is a reputable publication with reputable journalists.

You could have browsed wikipedia in 5 minutes and seen that Glenn was anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, anti-Trump (but he didn't view Trump as the complete evil the corporate media branded him as and rolled his eyes at them destroying his profession and their credibility trying to destroy him) and now anti-Biden.

Hell his latest book is titled "Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Bolsonaro’s Brazil" if he's just cynically trying to make a buck with "agenda based propaganda", why go after a far right idol like Bolsonaro? Isn't that his market?

Like I said, he speaks truth he feel needs to be heard. Considering that the corporate media is basically a branch of our intelligence agencies and DNC, blindly parroting whatever they say with no research or desire to press back against their claims, alot of his focus goes there. It's things not being covered outside of right wing publications and people like you dismiss those publications without even looking at what's being said.

So wouldn't you agree it's kind of important for him to write about those issues?

Here's an old interview with Glenn where he talks alot about Trump https://slate.com/news-an...d-war.html

Isaac Chotiner: A lot of journalists in 2017 have approached the Trump administration in opposition and have said, “This is an unprecedented threat to democracy or to America or to the world,” and this is an incredible time for journalists to be in opposition to power. You seem to me to have approached it a little bit differently.

Glenn Greenwald: I think it’s sort of ironic because when I began writing about politics, I did so very much as a byproduct of dissatisfaction with the media’s refusal to do exactly the things you just said they’re doing now, under the Bush years: that they were refusing to call torture torture, that they were refusing to point out when Bush and Dick Cheney were lying, that they were being insufficiently adversarial.

And the view of journalism I adopted and have been an advocate of now for almost a decade is one that says that journalists should be much more aggressive in their rhetoric and in their journalism; in being adversarial to people who wield political power and calling out lies when they say things that aren’t true; and questioning aggressively the things they say rather than just accepting them on faith; and to not be afraid to have this perception that they’re being too on one side or the other by actually doing journalism.

It’s ironic in one sense that that is what the media has now done with Donald Trump, and I’m glad to see it. My concern, though, is that this change in behavior is very much unique to Trump and that once Trump is gone, it’s going to return to the way things were. My more general concern is that while there are some things that are unique in terms of the threats the Trump presidency poses, there are a lot of things that are just continuations of what has been taking place for a long time that maybe he makes a little bit more manifest. I worry about the whitewashing of history and the rehabilitating of lots of terrible people based on this myth that Trump, and Trump alone, is this malignant force in American politics.

I guess obviously there are other malignant forces in American politics, but do you not feel that we’re dealing with something unique here that should be approached uniquely? Even if the things you say about hypocrisy among people in the media is well-taken and obviously correct at some level.

I think there are some things that are unique. I think the extent to which they are willing to pathologically lie is unique, but I think it’s unique by a matter of degree rather than kind. The journalist who probably has influenced me the most since I’ve been writing about politics is I.F. Stone, and the motto of his journalism was, “Governments lie.” The government lied its way not just into the Iraq war but into the Vietnam War with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

I think the Trump White House lies more often. I think it lies more readily. I think it lies more blatantly. Is that unique? It’s unique by a matter of degree and not by kind, and I would say that that’s true for a lot of things. One of the things I object to is when I see things that have been done for many years, or even decades, being treated as though they’re things that Trump pioneered. That’s generally when I start being more overtly concerned about the narrative being misleading.

Anyone who’s read about everything from Henry Kissinger to the way the Iraq war was sold cannot say that America doesn’t do things that are horrific, and the things Trump has promised to do—such as bomb people and take their oil, that America has historically done—are things that are indeed that bad. But it does seem that because Trump does present a threat in certain unique ways that at least I feel that people should be welcomed for coming to the right side of something. Even if they should at the same time have to answer for the things that they’ve done or said that were wrong.

I’ll give you an example where I think it’s more than just about hypocrisy, where I think it becomes harmful deceit. When Trump met with Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt in the White House, and also when he went to Saudi Arabia and praised the regime, there was all of this sanctimony about how can an American president possibly embrace tyrants this way? When the entire history of post–World War II America is not just embracing tyrants and heaping them with praise, but propping them up with money and with arms.

Hillary Clinton said that Hosni Mubarak, one of the worst despots of the last four decades, was a close friend of her family’s who she looked forward to seeing when he came to the United States. Pretending that Trump is kind of this pioneer of embracing despots, something that the American presidency previously was so anathema to, it’s not just hypocrisy: Democrats didn’t care when Obama hugged Saudi despots, and now they pretend to care when Trump embraces Saudi despots or Egyptian ones. It’s deceitful. It’s creating a false narrative about what the bipartisan class in Washington actually has done, and actually what they still believe in doing, as a way of stigmatizing Trump for something that they themselves all do.

I think as a journalist it’s my obligation to say that this narrative is actually false. I think the times that I get bothered the most is not just simple hypocrisy but when it extends into rewriting history. I got my start writing about primarily civil liberties in the Bush era, and the people who built up my platform and who enabled me to find a readership were Democrats, the liberal blogosphere, and liberals who were saying, “Oh, Glenn Greenwald’s so great. Look at this critique he’s making of the Bush administration, their executive power theories, their law-breaking.”

And then when Bush left office and Obama came in and continued many of those same policies, a lot of those people not only stopped caring, they started defending those policies and attacking those of us who were consistent. I don’t actually think that there’s limited value even in people who pretend to care about issues only for partisan opportunism and gain. I actually think those people are really harmful because the minute those policies are embraced by members of their own party, they’re going to become cheerleaders for them, and I’m not interested in vesting them with credibility in order to do that.

[Edited 5/26/21 16:02pm]

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 05/26/21 5:49pm

IanRG

Strive said:

IanRG said:

Do you see what is missing? Despite your claim that this site wrote against the coup leader - Greenwald does not. The site only started after he left The Intercept in October last year. About 10% of the articles are not specifically against just the one side politics or "corporate" media or both - All the rest are. Not all of the articles are agenda based propaganda, just virtually all of them. He is not just reporting the news: Virtually all the articles conflate separate issues to create the image of a pattern so as to have the audience pre-judge the current event in line with his spin on prior events.

So, in your opinion, there is no such thing as journalism. Just agenda based propaganda.

If you don't believe that, please provide with an example of what you think it is a reputable publication with reputable journalists.

You could have browsed wikipedia in 5 minutes and seen that Glenn was anti-Bush, anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, anti-Trump (but he didn't view Trump as the complete evil the corporate media branded him as and rolled his eyes at them destroying his profession and their credibility trying to destroy him) and now anti-Biden.

Hell his latest book is titled "Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Bolsonaro’s Brazil" if he's just cynically trying to make a buck with "agenda based propaganda", why go after a far right idol like Bolsonaro? Isn't that his market?

Like I said, he speaks truth he feel needs to be heard. Considering that the corporate media is basically a branch of our intelligence agencies and DNC, blindly parroting whatever they say with no research or desire to press back against their claims, alot of his focus goes there. It's things not being covered outside of right wing publications and people like you dismiss those publications without even looking at what's being said.

So wouldn't you agree it's kind of important for him to write about those issues?

Here's an old interview with Glenn where he talks alot about Trump https://slate.com/news-an...d-war.html

<article that largely praises the coup leader or exuses him as just doing what others before him did with the only real criticism being "the Trump White House lies more often. I think it lies more readily. I think it lies more blatantly">

.

It is complete illogical bullshit to say when it is pointed out that all of Greenwald's opinion pieces since he left "The Intercept" are not the way you described him, that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-journalism to the point that they think there is no such thing as journalist!!!

.

The reason Greenwald is nothing but an agenda based propagandist is shown in why he left The Intercept. This is media corporation he was involved with starting but they refused to include an article he wrote that was full of assumptions and unverified assertions against the coup leader's opponent that he wanted posted 5 days before the election because the coup leader was set to lose. His fellow founders and managers saw that this was bad journalism meant to push the personal agenda of a media corporation founder. Greenwlad said about himslef as he left: "it's possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine" in reference to his own editorial judgement.

.

I am not required to show any other journalist is better. You are one pushing an opinion pusher with the lie that he did not support the coup leader, so I put this back on you: Show why anyone should respect the articles I highlighted as containing an anti-media and/or anti-left agenda and pro-coup leader based propaganda SINCE he left The Intercept - This is a list of around 70 articles since October 2020.

.

It is important that anti-Dem, anti-US left and anti-Brazilian press restrictions opinion pushers be read as much as anti-GoP, anti-US right and pro-Brazilian press restrictions opinion pushers be read. His book and articles since leaving "The Intercept" just show he is anti-left and pro-press freedom - like Greenwald so often does since leaving The Intercept, you are conflating two seperate issues to pretend that he is not just pushing an agenda.

.

P.S. This is second whole article that you have posted in this thread. This is against the rules of the site.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 05/26/21 6:16pm

Strive

IanRG said:

P.S. This is second whole article that you have posted in this thread. This is against the rules of the site.

Jesus Christ, LEARN TO READ IAN

PLEASE do not copy articles verbatim from other sites or post videos without comment! If you want to quote something, or post a video, fine... say where it comes from, provide a link, and also provide ANALYSIS and INSIGHT of your own.

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 05/26/21 6:51pm

IanRG

Strive said:

IanRG said:

P.S. This is second whole article that you have posted in this thread. This is against the rules of the site.

Jesus Christ, LEARN TO READ IAN

PLEASE do not copy articles verbatim from other sites or post videos without comment! If you want to quote something, or post a video, fine... say where it comes from, provide a link, and also provide ANALYSIS and INSIGHT of your own.

.

My reading is fine. The rule says PLEASE do not copy articles verbatim from other sites. It goes on to say or post videos without comment.

.

Sure, the rule is ambiguous but many people have been pinged for quoting whole articles here in the past. Their articles have been deleted or truncated. You could have just followed the rules and provided a link.

.

I note you could not answer my comments on Greenwald's agenda based propaganda or your logic errors and instead just responded to the PS.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 05/26/21 7:36pm

Strive

Without comment. Keyword. "If you want to quote something, fine...say where it comes from, provide a link and also provide analysis and insight of your own."

Which I did.

And the interview wasn't even the full article, which you would have known if you actually clicked the link.

Your problem is that you enter a conversation with an idea in your head and bend everything to fit that idea. I suggest being a normal human being that interacts with others and other ideas and addressing their merit. (Example: point out where Glenn Greenwald is wrong with his articles instead of dismissing him wholesale for what you percieve as slanted reporting)

Or just report me like a bitch. lol

[Edited 5/26/21 19:40pm]

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 05/26/21 8:24pm

IanRG

Strive said:

Without comment. Keyword. "If you want to quote something, fine...say where it comes from, provide a link and also provide analysis and insight of your own."

Which I did.

And the interview wasn't even the full article, which you would have known if you actually clicked the link.

Your problem is that you enter a conversation with an idea in your head and bend everything to fit that idea. I suggest being a normal human being that interacts with others and other ideas and addressing their merit. (Example: point out where Glenn Greenwald is wrong with his articles instead of dismissing him wholesale for what you percieve as slanted reporting)

Or just report me like a bitch. lol

[Edited 5/26/21 19:40pm]

.

No, I will just laugh at inability to respond with anything other than with personal attacks each and every time you are shown to be wrong.

.

Despite your claim, you have provided not one single article that was anti your beloved coup leader from the website you were pushing. He even left the media corporation he helped to start because the other founders and managers could no longer stand being tarnished by his bias for your man.

.

I have pointed out around 70 opinion pieces (as in virtually all of them) where Greenwald shows his bias. The quote by Greenhim is from one of these his opinion pieces: Even he said on his way out "it's possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine" in reference to his own editorial judgement. He quoted himself saying this in his own defence on his opinion blog site as if the email it came from supported his reason for leaving. He knows his slant in his reporting. You simply cannot see it because you are also to far down the rabbithole.

.

Consider how you had already made up your mind before you posted and how you cannot address anyone who points out just how obvious your bias is to the point that you think any criticism of your views is entirely the fault of the person pointing it out.

.

We know your form: your next step to avoid addressing what is said to you will be a claim that you are just having fun.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 05/26/21 9:36pm

Strive

IanRG said:

Strive said:

Without comment. Keyword. "If you want to quote something, fine...say where it comes from, provide a link and also provide analysis and insight of your own."

Which I did.

And the interview wasn't even the full article, which you would have known if you actually clicked the link.

Your problem is that you enter a conversation with an idea in your head and bend everything to fit that idea. I suggest being a normal human being that interacts with others and other ideas and addressing their merit. (Example: point out where Glenn Greenwald is wrong with his articles instead of dismissing him wholesale for what you percieve as slanted reporting)

Or just report me like a bitch. lol

[Edited 5/26/21 19:40pm]

.

No, I will just laugh at inability to respond with anything other than with personal attacks each and every time you are shown to be wrong.

.

Despite your claim, you have provided not one single article that was anti your beloved coup leader from the website you were pushing. He even left the media corporation he helped to start because the other founders and managers could no longer stand being tarnished by his bias for your man.

.

I have pointed out around 70 opinion pieces (as in virtually all of them) where Greenwald shows his bias. The quote by Greenhim is from one of these his opinion pieces: Even he said on his way out "it's possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine" in reference to his own editorial judgement. He quoted himself saying this in his own defence on his opinion blog site as if the email it came from supported his reason for leaving. He knows his slant in his reporting. You simply cannot see it because you are also to far down the rabbithole.

.

Consider how you had already made up your mind before you posted and how you cannot address anyone who points out just how obvious your bias is to the point that you think any criticism of your views is entirely the fault of the person pointing it out.

.

We know your form: your next step to avoid addressing what is said to you will be a claim that you are just having fun.

No. I'm going to call you autistic because only somebody with a disability would have such a high view of themselves while being utterly clueless how they come off to others.

Conversation is fun. Light hearted slap fighting is fun within reason. You following me around posting bizarre walls of texts where you crawl up your own ass...not fun to read, not fun to interact with.

[Edited 5/26/21 21:37pm]

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 05/26/21 10:32pm

IanRG

Strive said:

IanRG said:

.

No, I will just laugh at inability to respond with anything other than with personal attacks each and every time you are shown to be wrong.

.

Despite your claim, you have provided not one single article that was anti your beloved coup leader from the website you were pushing. He even left the media corporation he helped to start because the other founders and managers could no longer stand being tarnished by his bias for your man.

.

I have pointed out around 70 opinion pieces (as in virtually all of them) where Greenwald shows his bias. The quote by Greenhim is from one of these his opinion pieces: Even he said on his way out "it's possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine" in reference to his own editorial judgement. He quoted himself saying this in his own defence on his opinion blog site as if the email it came from supported his reason for leaving. He knows his slant in his reporting. You simply cannot see it because you are also to far down the rabbithole.

.

Consider how you had already made up your mind before you posted and how you cannot address anyone who points out just how obvious your bias is to the point that you think any criticism of your views is entirely the fault of the person pointing it out.

.

We know your form: your next step to avoid addressing what is said to you will be a claim that you are just having fun.

No. I'm going to call you autistic because only somebody with a disability would have such a high view of themselves while being utterly clueless how they come off to others.

Conversation is fun. Light hearted slap fighting is fun within reason. You following me around posting bizarre walls of texts where you crawl up your own ass...not fun to read, not fun to interact with.

[Edited 5/26/21 21:37pm]

.

More personal attacks rather than showing one single place in his new opinion website where Greenwald was anything other than anti-left, anti-other journalists or pro-the coup leader.

.

I am not following you around, you posted here for a response - That is how a public discussion forum works. I am just addressing your errors. You just don't like that your position is so untenable that Greenwald's own words can be used to show that you are wrong.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 05/27/21 8:20am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

This whole P&R shit is about personal attacks. Awful.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 05/27/21 12:31pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

This whole P&R shit is about personal attacks. Awful.

.

It is an org wide issue - Go to PMM and say you like the wrong era, album or song and stand back

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 05/28/21 7:17am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Or say you reject the racialist orthdoxy. wink.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 05/28/21 9:00pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Or say you reject the racialist orthdoxy. wink.

.

So long as you understand the difference between directly addressing a racist statement and when a person is avoiding addressing a statement by accusing a person of being autistic because the statement clearly demonstrated that OP was factually wrong and unable to support his assertions.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 06/09/21 1:56pm

Strive

Oops another fake media narrative collapses. Too bad alt-right nazi Glenn Greenwald reported it. Why is he so obsessed with holding his fellow journalists accountable for their poor behavior? Must be because he's an unhinged grifter. Not because he cares about the truth.

There were some denials of this narrative at the time, largely confined to right-wing media. ABC News mocked “hosts on Fox News, one of the president's preferred news media outlets, [who] have spent the days since the controversial photo op shifting defenses to fit the president's narrative.” Meanwhile, The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway — in an article retweeted by Trump as a "must read” — cited sources to assert that the entire media narrative was false because force was to clear the Park not to enable Trump's photo op but rather “because [protesters] had climbed on top of a structure in Lafayette Park that had been burned the prior night” and the Park Police decided to build a barrier to protect it.

But as usual, the self-proclaimed Superior Liberal Truth Squad instantly declared them to be lying. The Washington Post's "fact-checker,” Phillip Bump, mocked denials from Trump supporters and right-wing reporters such as Hemingway, proclaiming that a recent statement from the Park Police “brings the debate to a close,” as it proves “the deployment of security forces using weapons and irritants to clear a peaceful protest so that the president could have a photo op.”

All of this came crashing down on their heads on Wednesday afternoon. The independent Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mark Lee Greenblatt, issued his office's findings after a long investigation into “the actions of the U.S. Park Police (USPP) to disperse protesters in and around Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2020.” Greenblatt has been around Washington for a long time, occupying numerous key positions in the Obama administration, including investigative counsel at the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at Obama's Commerce Department.


The letter released by Greenblatt's office accompanying the report makes clear how far-reaching the investigation was:

Over the course of this review, our career investigative staff conducted extensive witness interviews, reviewed video footage from numerous vantage points, listened to radio transmissions from multiple law enforcement entities, and examined evidence including emails, text messages, telephone records, procurement documents, and other related materials. This report presents a thorough, independent examination of that evidence to assess the USPP’s decision making and operations, including a detailed timeline of relevant actions and an analysis of whether the USPP’s actions complied with governing policies.

The IG's conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway's widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “ the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day."



The detailed IG report elaborated on the timeline even more extensively. It was “on the morning of June 1” when “the Secret Service procured anti-scale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day.” The agencies had “determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence.” Indeed, “we found that by approximately 10 a.m. on June 1, the USPP had already begun developing a plan to clear protesters from the area to enable the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fence” — many hours before Trump decided to go.


The clearing of the Park, said the IG Report, had nothing to do with Trump or his intended visit to the Church; in fact, those responsible for doing this did not have any knowledge of Trump's intentions:

The evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31. Further, the evidence showed that the USPP did not know about the President’s potential movement until mid- to late afternoon on June 1—hours after it had begun developing its operational plan and the fencing contractor had arrived in the park.


Beyond that, planning for that operation began at least two days before Trump decided to visit the church. “The fencing contractor told us and emails we reviewed confirmed that on May 30, the assistant division chief of the Secret Service's Procurement Division discussed with the contractor how quickly the contractor could deliver anti-scale fencing to Lafayette Park,” the Report found.


Plans for the fence were finalized at least the day prior to Trump's walk: “the fencing contractor's project manager told us that she learned on May 31 that the Secret Service had contacted the fencing contractor about an anti-scale fence.” And while Attorney General William Barr did visit the Park shortly before Trump's walk and saw what he viewed as unruly protesters, causing him to ask Park Police commanders whether they would still be there when Trump arrived, the order to clear the Park had been given well before that and was unrelated to Trump or to Barr: there is “no evidence that the Attorney General’s visit to Lafayette Park at 6:10 p.m. caused the USPP to alter its plans to clear the park.”

Indeed, none of the key decision-makers had any idea Trump was coming when they implemented plans to clear the Park:


The USPP operations commander, the USPP incident commander, and the USPP acting chief of police told us they did not know the President planned to make a speech in the Rose Garden that evening. The USPP incident commander told us he was never informed of the President's specific plans or when the President planned to come out of the White House. He said, "It was just a, 'Hey, here he comes.' And all of a sudden I turn around and there's the entourage."


The USPP acting chief of police also told us he did not know about the President's plans to visit St. John's Church and that the USPP incident commander told him the President might come to the park to assess the damage at an unspecified time. The USPP acting chief of police and the USPP incident commander told us this information had no impact on their operational plan, and both denied that the President's potential visit to the park influenced the USPP’s decision to clear Lafayette Park and the surrounding areas. Numerous other USPP captains and lieutenants and the ACPD civil disturbance unit commanders also told us they received no information suggesting that the USPP cleared the area to facilitate the President's visit to St. John's Church. The DCNG major we interviewed told us that his USPP liaison appeared as surprised as he was when the President visited Lafayette Park, stating, "We [were] both kind of equally shocked."

Of the dozens of people who participated in the investigation, “no one we interviewed stated that the USPP cleared the park because of a potential visit by the President or that the USPP altered the timeline to accommodate the President’s movement.”


In sum, the media claims that were repeated over and over and over as proven fact — and even confirmed by "fact-checkers” — were completely false. Watch how easily and often and aggressively and readily they just spread lies, this one courtesy of CNN's Erin Burnett and Don Lemon:


With the issuance of this independent debunking of their claims, the journalists who spread this latest lie have started to come to terms with what they did — yet again. “A narrative we thought we knew is not the reality,” NBC News’ chief CIA Disinformation Agent Ken Dilanian awkwardly acknowledged on Meet the Press Daily. Shortly before publication of this article, Politico begrudgingly admitted that while “the department's Park Police failed to give Black Lives Matter demonstrators proper warning before it cleared them from Lafayette Park,” their primary media claim was untrue: “its actions were unrelated to President Donald Trump’s photo-op appearance at a nearby church.” Time will tell how readily others who spread this lie will account for how they — yet again — got this story so wrong.


Over and over we see the central truth: the corporate outlets that most loudly and shrilly denounce “disinformation” — to the point of demanding online censorship and de-platforming in the name of combating it — are, in fact, the ones who spread disinformation most frequently and destructively. It is hard to count how many times they have spread major fake stories in the Trump years. For that reason, they have nobody but themselves to blame for the utter collapse in trust and faith on the part of the public, which has rightfully concluded they cannot and should not be believed.

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 06/12/21 9:05am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Yea, sure, but homedude goes on Tucker all the time.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Glenn Greenwald vs the Corporate Media