I find it much easier to be skeptical of non-experts hawking things that have no credible proof of working than experts at places like the CDC or FDA. However, this can lead to problems when someone with apparent expertise is hawking unproven, an disproven, solutions. A good example of this is none other than Dr. Oz. He has medical expertise, but uses this reputation to promote questionable products, including marketing himself as a politician. Another example is the junior Senator from KY who uses his credentials in one field of medicine to argue with experts outside his field of expertise. These are the people of whom we should be most skeptical.
I think your ‘enemies of my enemies are my friends’ take on Greenwald is spot on. A version of this dynamic plays out on webcasts like ‘The Rising’ and ‘Breaking Points’ where Bernie socialists like Ryan Grim and Krystal Ball build political bridges with working-class Trump voters. Is this a viable left-right coalition that could tip the scales, or a quirky outlier?
"Greenwald spent almost the entirety of the Trump administration eviscerating center-left Democrats and journalists for pushing the story of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, about which he was thoroughly (and sometimes justifiedly) skeptical, and yet had very little critical to say about the rampant corruption, incompetence, and insurrectionary lies of the 45th president and his political and media enablers."
This is how Greenwald alienated 99% of his readership - because he seemed to focus his suspicious nature in a direction where he was blinded by his own belief system, which is something no journalist who cares about their credibility should ever do. Greenwald always wrote polemic stuff, but like a lot of Americans, believed Hillary Clinton was corrupt. And so, it was a small step into the credibility abyss for him to think Trump and his thugs were being victimized by her, despite the lack of evidence.
Now Greenwald is a joke because his tunnel vision makes it so. The difference between him and, say, Bill Kristol, is huge. Kristol still criticizes Democrats openly. Perhaps ironically, I have come to enjoy Kristol's commentaries precisely because they're written by an adult, whereas Greenwald comes across as rather childish in comparison.
I think this is pretty unfair toward Greenwald. I would not say he is giving Trump a pass, but rather that he sees "Why don't you criticize Trump?" as a deflection from his main point, which is criticism of the military industrial complex and security/intelligence agencies.
So Greenwald's position, which I think is defensible, is that most of the left-wing and centrist anti-Trump energy is actually just cover for protecting the establishment, because the establishment wants to keep funding wars and the security state. That the ACTUAL motivation for Trump criticism is his isolationist bent and animosity towards intelligence agencies. Greenwald may seem very pro-Russia, but my interpretation has been he's more very ANTI defense spending, and obviously supporting Ukraine is also supporting the military industrial complex.
I find it much easier to be skeptical of non-experts hawking things that have no credible proof of working than experts at places like the CDC or FDA. However, this can lead to problems when someone with apparent expertise is hawking unproven, an disproven, solutions. A good example of this is none other than Dr. Oz. He has medical expertise, but uses this reputation to promote questionable products, including marketing himself as a politician. Another example is the junior Senator from KY who uses his credentials in one field of medicine to argue with experts outside his field of expertise. These are the people of whom we should be most skeptical.
Good point.
Any so-called expert with a political agenda definitely deserves very close scrutiny. A great example was Scott Atlas, Trump's buddy.
As Richard Feynman put it, "... a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."
I think your ‘enemies of my enemies are my friends’ take on Greenwald is spot on. A version of this dynamic plays out on webcasts like ‘The Rising’ and ‘Breaking Points’ where Bernie socialists like Ryan Grim and Krystal Ball build political bridges with working-class Trump voters. Is this a viable left-right coalition that could tip the scales, or a quirky outlier?
"Greenwald spent almost the entirety of the Trump administration eviscerating center-left Democrats and journalists for pushing the story of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, about which he was thoroughly (and sometimes justifiedly) skeptical, and yet had very little critical to say about the rampant corruption, incompetence, and insurrectionary lies of the 45th president and his political and media enablers."
This is how Greenwald alienated 99% of his readership - because he seemed to focus his suspicious nature in a direction where he was blinded by his own belief system, which is something no journalist who cares about their credibility should ever do. Greenwald always wrote polemic stuff, but like a lot of Americans, believed Hillary Clinton was corrupt. And so, it was a small step into the credibility abyss for him to think Trump and his thugs were being victimized by her, despite the lack of evidence.
Now Greenwald is a joke because his tunnel vision makes it so. The difference between him and, say, Bill Kristol, is huge. Kristol still criticizes Democrats openly. Perhaps ironically, I have come to enjoy Kristol's commentaries precisely because they're written by an adult, whereas Greenwald comes across as rather childish in comparison.
I think this is pretty unfair toward Greenwald. I would not say he is giving Trump a pass, but rather that he sees "Why don't you criticize Trump?" as a deflection from his main point, which is criticism of the military industrial complex and security/intelligence agencies.
So Greenwald's position, which I think is defensible, is that most of the left-wing and centrist anti-Trump energy is actually just cover for protecting the establishment, because the establishment wants to keep funding wars and the security state. That the ACTUAL motivation for Trump criticism is his isolationist bent and animosity towards intelligence agencies. Greenwald may seem very pro-Russia, but my interpretation has been he's more very ANTI defense spending, and obviously supporting Ukraine is also supporting the military industrial complex.
Excellent
I googled "what's wrong with Greenwald " after he randomly & annoyingly pop up in my mind & clicked on this first
Good first read
Where do you think Andrew Sullivan falls these days?