Sure, I'm so eager to hear you regurgitate whatever the NYT consensus is.

Greenwald was on the right side of history regarding the Snowden revelations... but your own posts from that era, however, have not aged well.

I stand by basically everything I wrote back then, unlike Greenwald, who tried comically to weasel out of his PRISM writing, while later striking this "I've never been corrected or retracted" pose.

What's the gist?

That both Taibbi and Greenwald have confidently reported out technical stories they were self-evidently not qualified to report, made huge mistakes, and doubled down on them, because truthiness and advocacy is more important to them than accuracy. They're both in their way like that Bloomberg reporter who reported the "Chinese spy chip on motherboards" story.

I can't really get my head around people stanning Glenn Greenwald, who is both shrill and also a dull, tedious writer. I tend to think people are just giving him credit due property to Snowden (stipulate that Snowden deserves credit), and Greenwald's role in that whole thing was mostly to fuck it up.

But I totally get why people stan Taibbi, who is an obviously gifted writer with a talent for making his advocacy entertaining. I think he's a force for evil, a liberal Ann Coulter, but I get why people like him.

Greenwald's writing does tend to be long-winded and repetitious, but I see both Taibbi and Greenwald as a force for good. They don't turn a blind eye to information unfavorable to either presidential candidate, even as it might be politically advantageous to do so.

I've felt calmer and more centered since I started to read their writing. It's really therapeutic to be able to dissociate and laugh at both sides. I think Biden is a lesser evil, but I don't want to experience cognitive dissonance whenever I see likely evidence of his corruption.

I'm still interested to see some corroboration of this claim:

> both Taibbi and Greenwald have confidently reported out technical stories they were self-evidently not qualified to report, made huge mistakes, and doubled down on them, because truthiness and advocacy is more important to them than accuracy

Taibbi on the technical details of how the finance industry works, Greenwald on the technical issues of the Snowden disclosures. By comparison, good writers on technical finance issues: Matt Levine; the Snowden stuff: Barton Gellman.

No one is perfect, so it's about how you handle your mistakes. Was there anything specific that discredits Taibbi and Greenwald as trustworthy reporters?

EDIT: Greenwald not Gellman

The problem here is that both Greenwald and Taibbi are most notable --- by their fans! --- for those respective beats.

You keep restating your thesis without giving any evidence.

I offered (and was subsequently asked) to explain the basis for my comment upthread about those two deserving each other. I didn't offer and am not interested in being cross-examined. I've written in detail about both Taibbi and Greenwald on this site, so if you're interested in details, avail thyself of the search bar beloweth.

I was hoping you would support the argument you are making on this topic in this conversation. I have no interest in wading through your old comments, especially if they are as handwavy as the new ones.

"I'm a recent fan of both of these gentlemen so your comment is very interesting to me", you said. Perhaps "interesting" wasn't the word.

It was, but isn't anymore.