[jeegsy]

> "Greenwald quit in fury to make quixotic allies on the right"

This type of (mis)characterization is really tiresome and you see it all the time in new media.

[giraffe_lady]

What's incorrect about this? I guess you could quibble about what "quixotic" is supposed to communicate there, which is not completely clear to me. But he did leave, prominently, angrily. And he has forged new alliances with the right since then.

[kelipso]

Clearly mischaracterizes it as the primary reason for leaving as opposed to one of the things that happened after he left.

[giraffe_lady]

I mean we don't know his motivations but in retrospect he did immediately make a bunch of friends on the right, and align his work with their goals and messaging.

It's a judgement that you can disagree with but as a characterization it does fit the facts.

[kelipso]

Plenty of explanations fit the facts for any given set of facts. That's why politics is so fun.

[richrichie]

Worse is how susceptible otherwise intelligent people are to propaganda. Depressing.

[gengwyn]

What's propagandistic about it?

It seems pretty clear from my perspective that the Snowden papers were a high watermark of Greenwald's career. Everything else since then has been a cash-in on selling to the populist anti-establishment grift, regardless of fact. I wouldn't say Greenwald himself is "right-wing", but that end of the aisle is objectively more favorable to his beat.

[robertlagrant]

> I wouldn't say Greenwald himself is "right-wing", but that end of the aisle is objectively more favorable to his beat.

This is true. We're long past the days when the left was the anti-establishment voice.

[richrichie]

It is truly sad that the right wing speaks truth to power these days. I mean when the Bushes, Cheneys, Roves, Boltons are feted by the left these days, one will have to skip past these traditional pigeon-holing.