There is no possible way you don’t know what OP means. I can understand if you insist on regarding Greenwald as anything but yet another hack these days: you’d be wrong, of course. But there are too many wrong in that specific way to consider it as remarkable in any way.
But Greenwald 2021 is something different than Greenwald 2010, and denying that difference is not believable.
Google "Glenn Greenwald is unreliable" or simply type his name into Quora's search and you'll soon see the substance of the complaints. Here's one article on the topic.
Or you could look to his support for Putin, Fox News against traditional media (CNN, NYT, WaPo,...), and his denial of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Accusing someone of bigotry while arguing that their speech shouldn't be censored is not inconsistent with the position that their speech shouldn't be censored. It's just answering speech with more speech.
His "support for Putin" is some kind of farce where he'll e.g. speak approvingly of Snowden being granted asylum and this is taken as proof of loyalty to the Kremlin.
He appears on Tucker Carlson periodically, typically to advocate for Assange. It's not obvious why saying the same things he does anywhere else is to be condemned just because he's saying them to the audience of Fox. Should we not be trying to convince them of anything? Why is that bad?
He consistently calls out CNN/NYT/WaPo/etc. when they get something wrong, presumably because these are the media he actually reads.
No one seriously denies that Russia attempts to influence US elections, as they always have in every election for decades. What many deny, because there is no credible evidence of it, is that Trump colluded with Russia. The people providing non-credible "evidence" of this have since been caught out as frauds and one is currently under indictment for lying to the FBI.
Personally I find him very impressive. A genuinely independent and courageous thinker, this is incredibly rare in the media.