The overwhelming victory by Evo Morales’ party in the Bolivia election highlights a key propagandistic scam: when westerners like @SecPompeo & @Yascha_Mounk want to undemocratically change the governments of other nations though coups, they lie & say they’re supporting democracy.
That the US-approved removal of Morales by force could be described with only one word — “coup” — was undebatable because Morales indisputably got more votes, just like his party again did yesterday. If you said this wasn’t a coup, it’s because you don’t believe in democracy.
This is so true about the subtle propagndistic ways US news outlets talk about democracies in the Global South versus western countries:
The Pompeo-applauded Bolivian coup — also supported by standard anti-democratic voices like Marco Rubio, the Economist, etc. — didn’t just come close to destroying one of the most vibrant and successful democracies in Latin America, but also empowered a murderous coup regime:
With @evoespueblo, @SuzieGilbertLdn, @vpougy & Andalusia 10 months ago in Mexico City, when I interviewed Morales just weeks after he was forced to leave Bolivia under threat of violence. So rare for there to be such a happy ending to a violent coup and western imperialism. 🇧🇴 🇧🇴
So rare for stories like what happened in Bolivia to have such a quick and clear happy ending. So inspiring to watch a population relentlessly work and sacrifice their lives to demand a restoration of their democracy. Let’s hope it stays a happy ending. This is beautiful:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ggreenwald

20 Oct
I hope journalists realize: if Biden wins, and you report anything incriminating about his administration - even if you ask critical questions - you're going to get accused of spreading Russian disinformation and helping the Kremlin.

That's the toxic template being implemented.
When you're trying to live down that time you got exposed as a journalist who collaborates with the CIA, but then Bush/Cheney's CIA & NSA chief comes and endorses your attack on a journalist as a Kremlin asset.

This is the union between US journalism and the CIA, here: 👇 Image
Read 4 tweets
20 Oct
Is ACLU's long-standing defense of free speech still viable, or should other political goals override it? I spoke to an old-school civil libertarian - Ira Glasser, ACLU chief from 1978-2001 - about that question & others. Debuts today, 2 pm ET, on @theintercept's YouTube channel.
My SYSTEM UPDATE episode today with Glasser covers key civil liberties battles of the past, and how they inform our current debates about free speech, racial justice, the ACLU & civil liberties. A new great film, "Mighty Ira," examines his life and work:

mightyira.com
Is the Traditional ACLU View of Free Speech Still Viable? Ira Glasser Speaks Out.

theintercept.com/2020/10/20/is-…
Read 4 tweets
19 Oct
Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren't saying so? There has to be some limits to your willingness to go to bat for them.
When you report a huge archive, there's no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don't deny the authenticity.
When we reported the Snowden archive, we knew it was genuine, but breathed a huge sigh of relief when NSA didn't claim the docs were fake.

The same was true with our Brazil reporting over the last year: publishing private messages from corrupt Bolsonaro officials & prosecutors.
Read 5 tweets
18 Oct
Leaving all the corruption questions to the side, why was Biden — elected to serve the Americans as Vice President — so active in trying to dictate the internal affairs of Ukraine, to the point of demanding the firing of the chief prosecutor? Why does the US try to rule everyone?
Spare me the bullshit of how Biden (and the EU) wanted the prosecutor fired because he wasn’t vigilant enough about fighting corruption. The US & EU don’t care if their puppet regimes tolerate domestic corruption. Why is the US VP dictating who the Ukrainian prosecutor should be?
For those who believe Biden's motive in demanding the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor -- and withholding $1b in aid to force it to happen -- was Biden was just deeply worried about Good Governance in Kiev, the prosecutor who replaced him was a joke:

reuters.com/article/us-ukr…
Read 7 tweets
17 Oct
Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it’s immoral to report on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden.

In reality, it’s the responsibility of journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden.
Not even Hunter or the Biden campaign claims the emails are forgeries - which they’d obviously do if they were. And of course it’s relevant whether Biden’s son tried or in fact succeeded in getting his dad to do his dirty work in Ukraine for cash. Not cataclysmic, but newsworthy.
A journalist’s credibility does not depend on how popular they are among Democratic partisans. Craving that popularity is almost certain to lead journalism into corrupted realms. Enduring and dismissing partisan Twitter attacks is a necessary part of being a good journalist.
Read 4 tweets
15 Oct
Look carefully at what Twitter is saying to justify censoring the Biden story. If applied consistently, it’d mean that some of history’s most consequential journalism — the Pentagon Papers, WikiLeaks’ war logs, Snowden docs, Panama Papers, our Brazil Archive — would be banned.
So much of the important journalism you read is based on a source providing to journalists “content obtained without authorization.”

Beyond the above examples, why doesn’t Twitter ban links to the NYT’s stories based on Trump’s tax returns, “obtained without authorization?”
Please don’t be deceived. The authoritarian mindset expressed below — celebrating mass censorship of journalism they dislike — is absolutely a significant strain in current US liberalism, which is why so many of them cheered the stunning censorship yesterday:
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!