Glenn Greenwald on Wikipedia's Neutrality | Hacker News Reader

Glenn Greenwald on Wikipedia's Neutrality

en.wikipedia.org

14 pointsakolbe14 comments

Greenwald is a nut. Let's not give him attention.

Respectfully disagree. His stalwart and ever-unpopular efforts from the Bush years down to the present to defend freedom of speech against the efforts of the security state to undermine it have been impressive. It is an ironic sign of the times that he was originally castigated as a leftist ideologue and is now deemed a right-wing nut by erstwhile fans.

As someone who lived years under a quasi-military dictatorship, requiring vigilance of one's environment before conducting frank political conversations, I will always cherish the freedom of speech guarantees in the U.S. and esteem the few remaining journalists who defend them.

> As someone who lived years under a quasi-military dictatorship,

Then it is rich that you are defending pro Putin, pro Russian Greenwald

https://newrepublic.com/article/173902/ukraine-war-cost-russ...

Been there, done that:

"pro-Sadam, pro-Iraqi, pro-Taliban, pro-Viet Cong", the list goes on.

Washington does love its wars and hence cherishes its foes.

Since Hunter Biden is mentioned tangentially in the piece, this was published today by Lee Fang, another former Intercept contributor:

https://www.leefang.com/p/emails-show-hunter-biden-hired-spe...

Fang claims emails show Hunter Biden hired PR specialists to whitewash Wikipedia's coverage of him.

As is so often the case, the Signpost is trying too hard to be clever and sarcastic, and we have a worthless piece as a result.

Glenn Greenwald really went off the deep end.

In retrospect, Sam Harris nailed him down exactly right from day one. (paraphrasing) "Glenn Greenwald didn't do great journalistic work on his own merit. Glenn Greenwald is just the guy that Snowden happened to choose". Hopefully it should be obvious to everyone now that Glenn Greenwald didn't do anything of merit before or since, but I find it remarkable that Sam Harris managed to have the foresight to make this comment shortly after the Snowden leaks.

> Glenn Greenwald didn't do anything of merit before or since.

I'll leave it to curious readers to explore Greenwald's articles at salon.com, generally castigating the Bush security state and nuanced on Obama. Make your own assessment of merit.

https://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald

"Glenn Greenwald didn't do anything of merit before or since" - Patently false given that he broke the Vaza Jato story and provided most of the reporting on stuff happening on Brazil(I guess if you are in the US that isn't so important).

Also, Sam "If COVID was much worse than it was then my COVID hysteria would be justified" / "Hunter Biden Could have literally had Corpses of Children in his Basement and I wouldn't care" Harris isn't the guy you want to get your takes from.

It's almost like you're intentionally leaving out context from the stated quotes that create a clear argument of his beliefs.

I didn't say I take anything he says, I said this take was spot on. Which it was.

Greenwald at least is a well-known journalist. Sam Harris is a pestilent self-promoter.

> Glenn is a rare kind of American writer. He had been passionately writing on constitutional issues, national security, and problematic interpretations of government authority for years, but what made him stand out was his complete independence from the "access journalism" problem.

Edward Snowden, https://www.gq.com/story/exclusive-edward-snowden-on-glenn-g...

Fine, it's not like we can only choose one of the two. Even if you don't like Sam Harris, it's still true that Glenn Greenwald is just "that guy that Snowden picked".

No, not "just". Unless all you know comes "just" from the headlines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com