Greenwald has lost a great deal of credibility.
And now he's still harping on about it as if this supposed laptop is earth-shatteringly important news?
Mostly I feel sorry for Greenwald and how clearly unhinged he has become.
If you remember three years ago the talking heads were chanting 'believe all women' in the middle of the Kavanaugh hearings despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. The double standard has to be addressed.
Greenwald has a lot of controversial views, but this isn't one of them. An objective press makes for a better society.
I mean, if you employer promised to do something important and then reneged, isn’t leaving a pretty reasonable thing to do?
In Short Greenwald had full control about his opinion pieces. What he wanted and didn't get is no editorial intervention in a piece of factual reporting.
No half way sane media outlet would ever allow that.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
From Greenwald's resignation blog post [1]:
> The latest and perhaps most egregious example is an *opinion column* I wrote this week which, five days before the presidential election, is critical of Joe Biden, the candidate who happens to be vigorously supported by all of the Intercept editors in New York who are imposing the censorship and refusing to publish the article unless I agree to remove all of the sections critical of the candidate they want to win.
Additionally, the emails he published between himself and the editors indicates specifically the claims they wanted him to remove, which did not include any factually inaccurate claims [2]:
> But your memo *doesn't identify a single factual inaccuracy*, let alone multiple ones. And that's why you don't and can't identify any such false claims. And that, in turn, is why your email repeatedly says that what makes the draft false is that it omits facts which -- as I just demonstrated -- the draft explicitly includes.
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
[2] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
Of course at that juncture, Greenwald was free to disagree with that and depart.
I think this is a characteristics of the “conflict v. mistake theory” [0] where I’m already on a side, try to find an argument for or against and then make it even if it’s not reasonable.
Greenwald writes a lot. He’s written a few articles on the HunterBiden laptop story, but not like he writes every day.
I don’t think it’s unusual to write about this topic given everything else he writes on. Framing this as a “hill to die on” seems disingenuous and not really relevant to the article under discussion, or Greenwald in general.
I can understand arguing on the merits of the topic on whether it is or is not Russian propaganda, but bringing up how Greenwald shows a normal amount of interest seems odd. It seems the summary of OP’s comment is “Greenwald sucks and chooses bad topics.”
My reasoning on how to interpret this, and I may be wrong, is that the belief that Greenwald sucks existed before this article and this thread. And trying to find some reason to discuss the suckers, OP came up with the rhetorical doozy that he reports on this topic too frequently.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
supposed laptop
Yes, Giuliani is a clown. Yes, the circumstances surrounding the laptop are suspicious, to say the least. But the laptop exists and has concerning emails of known provenance. And yet one "side" of the media continues to spread actual disinformation about it. For some reason you find that acceptable?
I mean, if Russian agents dropped the laptop off at Giuliani's office and said, "We broke into Hunter's hotel room and stole his laptop, check out his emails" that would be gross, and illegal. But if the contents demonstrated massive corruption, and were legitimate, I couldn't care less how the information was obtained.