>The mainstream-critical news field seems very populated by extremely polarizing figures
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.
Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.
Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.
In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public.
Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...