> Greenwald is not known for publishing "garbage pieces".
Reputation trails actions. Overall Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist with strong rhetorical chops who lucked into a couple good stories. But he's spent the past few years squandering that social capital on a mix of conspiracy and irrelevance, and this may be his bankruptcy.
> He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does.
This means absolutely nothing. If anything lawyers aren't especially known as paragons of truth! (And that's fine for a lawyer where the adversarial system holds, but can make you a bit shit as a journalist.)
> Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist
Sure, bud. Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is all of a sudden "average", just because he dared to ask questions and expose near-airtight censorship by mass media and Big Tech.
OK - and the NYT has won six Pulitzers this year. Every news organization that choose not to run the story has a dozen.
Your seemingly single criterion for trust still doesn't give the weight to Greenwald.
Mediocre people win prizes, and smart people do dumb things. Greenwald is not a reliable person to carry the entire institution of journalism on his shoulders as you keep insisting he does.
(Newsweek, by the way, has been owned and operated by Olivet / David Jang's Community cult for several years now. It has no connection to the previous magazine of the same name.)
Reputation trails actions. Overall Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist with strong rhetorical chops who lucked into a couple good stories. But he's spent the past few years squandering that social capital on a mix of conspiracy and irrelevance, and this may be his bankruptcy.
> He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does.
This means absolutely nothing. If anything lawyers aren't especially known as paragons of truth! (And that's fine for a lawyer where the adversarial system holds, but can make you a bit shit as a journalist.)