Why Glenn Greenwald’s new media venture is a big deal

[ljm2002]

69. It's fine with me if people criticize Greenwald...

...but those who do so here, generally start by either name calling (i.e. he's a self serving, hypocritical hack -- almost always without citing a single supporting fact to back up the opinion), or making unsupported accusations (i.e. that he conspired with Snowden to help him get the documents, things like that).

I will admit that in general, I find Greenwald credible and admire his bulldog tenacity as well as his ability to think on his feet when the establishment types come at him, such as in the David Gregory interview, where Greenwald's response was a thing of beauty. That does not make me a sycophantic supporter, yet I'm sure many here will read those words and laugh loud and long. Because, you know, anyone who generally supports Greenwald BY DEFINITION is a sycophant in their eyes. (Yes, I am aware there are some who act in that same fashion towards Obama supporters -- but I am not one of them)

The strong reactions to Greenwald occurred mainly after the NSA scandal put him in a big spotlight. A lot of folks here have very strong feelings about that, believing that Snowden is nothing more than a thief and possibly a treasonous one at that; and believing that Greenwald's full-throated complaints about the Obama administration are politically motivated rather than principled. These beliefs tend to translate into knee-jerk contempt for anyone who supports either Snowden or Greenwald, regardless of the issue at hand.

BTW I have not seen anyone lay out a "long history of self-serving hypocrisy" by Greenwald. Feel free to cite particulars. I'm sure he has some areas of weakness and flaws, and it is perfectly legitimate to point them out. But it is not perfectly legitimate to simply assert such things without backing them up.