I actually don't have very much respect for Glenn Greenwald. Whilst I largely agree with his views on free speech, he has repeatedly shown himself to be a petty and narcissistic man who seems to be unable to have a healthy disagreement with anyone. Once he decides someone is an enemy he seems to lose his head - his attacks on Sam Harris, who I'm by no means an acolyte of, saw him repeatedly seek to discredit Harris not through argument but by claiming Harris was "radicalising" people to adopt extreme right-wing views.
I've seen a few people in this thread refer to his reputation to affirm his account. This is a very dangerous way to evaluate the veracity of conflicting claims. Particularly when part of his reputation is built atop Snowden's choosing of him rather than anything he uncovered himself.
Having read the piece and the emails I don't think this justifies the hysteria, I've had far more aggressive email exchanges at work that didn't blow up this badly. I can see why the editors felt revisions were needed, the title was clickbaity and it read more like an angry blog post with facts interlaced with strangely personal attacks e.g.
by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories
That is certainly not what I would consider dispassionate and impartial analysis. He has a problem with this person having in the past called him a 'cold war grifter'. He seems to consider any suggestions that Russia may be using internet disinformation to sow discord in the US ridiculous and conspiratorial. Which I find as naive as all the democrats who dismiss all negative stories as Russian disinformation. If the NSA had the opportunity to undermine Russia for geopolitical advantage it would, I have no doubt the GRU/FSB would seek to capitalise on this opportunity.
However, I do think he has some valid general points re: Biden's refusal to engage, as well as the criticisms of the blatantly partisan news media - that includes his sources. I just don't think that particular piece is a good exploration of it.
Disclaimer: I'm not an American and I have no particular affinity for Biden or Trump.
I've seen a few people in this thread refer to his reputation to affirm his account. This is a very dangerous way to evaluate the veracity of conflicting claims. Particularly when part of his reputation is built atop Snowden's choosing of him rather than anything he uncovered himself.
Having read the piece and the emails I don't think this justifies the hysteria, I've had far more aggressive email exchanges at work that didn't blow up this badly. I can see why the editors felt revisions were needed, the title was clickbaity and it read more like an angry blog post with facts interlaced with strangely personal attacks e.g.
by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories
That is certainly not what I would consider dispassionate and impartial analysis. He has a problem with this person having in the past called him a 'cold war grifter'. He seems to consider any suggestions that Russia may be using internet disinformation to sow discord in the US ridiculous and conspiratorial. Which I find as naive as all the democrats who dismiss all negative stories as Russian disinformation. If the NSA had the opportunity to undermine Russia for geopolitical advantage it would, I have no doubt the GRU/FSB would seek to capitalise on this opportunity.
However, I do think he has some valid general points re: Biden's refusal to engage, as well as the criticisms of the blatantly partisan news media - that includes his sources. I just don't think that particular piece is a good exploration of it.
Disclaimer: I'm not an American and I have no particular affinity for Biden or Trump.