Where to get your news

I think we're saying exactly what we're saying, which is that he has these inexplicable sympathies and alignments, *not* that he supports Trump or the alt-right.

I also don't think "the alt-right said this, therefore it's invalid" was the argument. I wonder how you got to either of these conclusions.

Instead, I think it's an attempt to highlight the flaws in Greenwald's broadsides. The argument is that he's so virulently anti-establishment that it will lead him to some really unfortunate places. Like the one where he buys Trump's "no cuts to entitlement" promise at face value, and more than that, bizzarely infers that the Democratic platform was therefore the opposite. This is a stunning lack of discernment being peddled by someone of Greenwald's caliber. Most worthy of reprobation I think is his utter blindness to Russia's behavior. The thing is, I think a lot of Greenwald's conclusions are simply axiomatic consequences of the way he views the world, particularly the U.S. establishment. He himself is not himself a bigoted white nationalist cheering Putin as a "champion ... against Islam", but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" leads you down the sort of strange rabbitholes where you wind up calling Russian interference claims "elaborate conspiracy theories" and DJT Jr's meeting "sort of the way politics works."

This is, I think, a necessary context for understanding and digesting Greenwald and what he puts out. He's a passionate and important voice and one among many that I think are nonetheless worth listening to. I share this for the context that I feel is needed, and not as a suggestion to dismiss him out of hand or stop reading what he writes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
I think we're saying exactly what we're saying, which is that he has these inexplicable sympathies and alignments, *not* that he supports Trump or the alt-right.

I also don't think "the alt-right said this, therefore it's invalid" was the argument. I wonder how you got to either of these conclusions.

Instead, I think it's an attempt to highlight the flaws in Greenwald's broadsides. The argument is that he's so virulently anti-establishment that it will lead him to some really unfortunate places. Like the one where he buys Trump's "no cuts to entitlement" promise at face value, and more than that, bizzarely infers that the Democratic platform was therefore the opposite. This is a stunning lack of discernment being peddled by someone of Greenwald's caliber. Most worthy of reprobation I think is his utter blindness to Russia's behavior. The thing is, I think a lot of Greenwald's conclusions are simply axiomatic consequences of the way he views the world, particularly the U.S. establishment. He himself is not himself a bigoted white nationalist cheering Putin as a "champion ... against Islam", but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" leads you down the sort of strange rabbitholes where you wind up calling Russian interference claims "elaborate conspiracy theories" and DJT Jr's meeting "sort of the way politics works."

This is, I think, a necessary context for understanding and digesting Greenwald and what he puts out. He's a passionate and important voice and one among many that I think are nonetheless worth listening to. I share this for the context that I feel is needed, and not as a suggestion to dismiss him out of hand or stop reading what he writes.
Click to expand...
You claim not to be painting Greenwald as supporting Trump or the alt-right, but then you say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is exactly what I'm arguing against.
Having said that, I think we mostly agree. Greenwald does have a bias against the establishment that may be influencing his conclusions. I just don't think the NYMag article is a good one as it's trying to paint Greenwald as sympathizing with the alt-right: "A second source of Greenwald’s sympathy for the nationalists is their populism." Let me say it another way: that would be a much better article and a more powerful critique of Greenwald if the article didn't mention the alt-right.

 
Well, I'm arguing against that, too. I think the suggestion is that Greenwald kind of sees it this way: not to the extent that he endorses Trump or the alt-right. But he would consider them to be right on these matters because they stand opposed to the neocons.

That's a charitable interpretation, where he arrives at these positions because there's a reducing set of arguments or logical propositions to support such conclusions. The sinister one, which the NY Mag author avoids and which I agree with, is that he's some sort of secret supporter of their agenda.

I don't think populism is a bad word. But I do think it seems fair to say that Greenwald's position here leads him to an uncompromisingly suspicious view of the establishment that is echoed in alt-right chambers. It leads him to, as the article suggests, "ascribe only the most repellant" of motives to those on the other side of him. This doesn't seem healthy and it doesn't seem shared among left-wing populists in the main. So, I think the connection drawn to the alt-right was both fair and necessary. There's a lot of fairness to criticisms of the elite and there's also a hyper-suspicious, conspiratorial way of looking at all mainstream institutions. Populism doesn't demand the latter; they're echoes of another thing entirely.

 
zoogs said:
Well, I'm arguing against that, too. I think the suggestion is that Greenwald kind of sees it this way: not to the extent that he endorses Trump or the alt-right. But he would consider them to be right on these matters because they stand opposed to the neocons.

That's a charitable interpretation, where he arrives at these positions because there's a reducing set of arguments or logical propositions to support such conclusions. The sinister one, which the NY Mag author avoids and which I agree with, is that he's some sort of secret supporter of their agenda.

I don't think populism is a bad word. But I do think it seems fair to say that Greenwald's position here leads him to an uncompromisingly suspicious view of the establishment that is echoed in alt-right chambers. It leads him to, as the article suggests, "ascribe only the most repellant" of motives to those on the other side of him. This doesn't seem healthy and it doesn't seem shared among left-wing populists in the main. So, I think the connection drawn to the alt-right was both fair and necessary. There's a lot of fairness to criticisms of the elite and there's also a hyper-suspicious, conspiratorial way of looking at all mainstream institutions. Populism doesn't demand the latter; they're echoes of another thing entirely.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you're saying here except that I think drawing parallels to the alt-right weakens the argument (like an alt-right version of Godwin's law). If I edit out parts of your last paragraph, the criticism is the same without the misdirection to the alt-right bogeyman:

I don't think populism is a bad word. But I do think it seems fair to say that Greenwald's position here leads him to an uncompromisingly suspicious view of the establishment. It leads him to, as the article suggests, "ascribe only the most repellant" of motives to those on the other side of him. This doesn't seem healthy and it doesn't seem shared among left-wing populists in the main. There's a lot of fairness to criticisms of the elite and there's also a hyper-suspicious, conspiratorial way of looking at all mainstream institutions. Populism doesn't demand the latter; they're echoes of another thing entirely.
Click to expand...
 
Is this actually a Twitter thing? Every news outlet I've followed does this: post the exact same thing several hours apart, several times over. It's driving me nuts.



I've read your dang article, @ForeignPolicy. Stahp.

 
zoogs said:
Is this actually a Twitter thing? Every news outlet I've followed does this: post the exact same thing several hours apart, several times over. It's driving me nuts.




I've read your dang article, @ForeignPolicy. Stahp.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a thing. They do that so new people will see it. People may miss the tweet the first time, so they keep refreshing it in their time line. Many published articles are posted multiple times.

 
Yes, and they're automated as well. Just load up the link, add some text, and schedule when you want it to show up on the twitter. Boom.

 
I know they lean left, but The New Yorker has some of the most stringent fact-checking in the industry and a willingness to pursue stories and sources that might prove inconvenient to liberal groupthink. When it comes to opinions, they are smart mofos who know how to write.

The Atlantic is just one level down. They appear to have planted their flag on more libertarian turf. You might question their conclusions, but the facts they use are facts.

Of course you have to wait a week or a month for them to sort things out for you, but that's not a bad idea in itself.

 
I've wondered about the WSJ's lean. Being owned by Rupert Murdoch makes a lot of sense. It's not just that it's a right lean for me, it's the fact that this kind of thing can get published there (but not just there) not just by an op-ed writer but by the editorial board:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus

I think "vetted journalism" can only get you so far. I agree about its prestige generally, of course; it's like the NYT in that regard.

 
It should be noted that an editor over there actually told them to NOT publish the full interview of Trump (only the transcript), presumably because they thought it would make him look bad.

They're still a solid publication, but it seems a lot of their editorial decisions amount to protecting Trump.


 
Of course they're discussing Kaepernick. They have to constantly blow that dog whistle to keep people artificially enraged.

In Kaep's instance, the rage is from the offense White Boomers feel over any real or perceived slight to their nationalism (which has been stoked by Fox for just such a purpose).

 
The thing is, the National Review is both legitimately one of the more reputable conservative publications in America, and one of the most willing to criticize Trump.

 
Back
Top