That this article -- which everyone knows is false -- not only remains on the Guardian site, but remains there without any retraction or even Editors' Note, tells you all you need to know about the Guardian under @KathViner. They are 100% willing to lie if the target is right:
Relatedly: that the most hated person in US corporate media circles is the one who has broken the most major stories -- Julian Assange -- tells you all you need to know about the US corporate media. It's bizarre, but what they hate most are journalists who break huge stories.
Please remember -- as solemn and sanctimonious videos pass through your social media feed of western officials and think tanks condemning Bad Countries for assaults on press freedom -- that the US/UK continues to imprison Assange for publishing, with most of the media supportive.
There was one TV host in corporate media who had the courage to make it a cause to denounce the persecution of Julian Assange, and who devoted show after show to arguing that he should be pardoned, and -- quite revealingly -- that is the TV host most hated by corporate media.
Tellingly, there was only one place on all of television where one could go to denounce and work to end the greatest attack on press freedom in years: the persecution of Julian Assange for the crime of publishing highly relevant documents.

• • •

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

28 Nov
Two weeks ago, I invited any critics to have a substantive off-Twitter discussion to explore the validity of their critiques.👇

My motive was the widespread use of coward-tactics: posting out-of-context video snippets or attacking people on their YouTube shows in their absence:
Several critics volunteered. The first is now on Rumble. Steven Fritts voiced the standard left-liberal grievances: I go on Fox/Tucker, pander to the right on the "culture war," I changed my views, etc. Good discussion: judge yourself if those are valid:

rumble.com/vpxrrv-a-criti…
There are 2 ironies to this. Before I could even post this new discussion, dreary Democrats -- led by one notorious for distorting videos -- spent today spreading out-of-context snippets of what I said: the exact coward-tactic this invitation to dialogue was designed to combat. ImageImage
Read 9 tweets
28 Nov
For those who still think "the Deep State" is a deranged conspiracy theory invented in 2017 by Sean Hannity:

YouTube has been re-circulating a 2015 speech I gave at the Univ. of Utah at the height of the Snowden reporting. Here's what I said about secrecy and the security state:
The whole speech was about how the key point of the Snowden docs wasn't so privacy as much as the unaccountable power of the Deep State, which operates outside democratic structures. I described one document I viewed as most important: a secret interview with a top NSA official:
I'm not sure why YouTube suddenly re-surfaced and viralized this speech -- Google's algorithm-gerbils work in mysterious ways -- but it shows how the left fully affirmed that the Deep State/CIA was supremely pernicious. Russiagate changed all of that:

Read 7 tweets
27 Nov
David falou muito no Flow sobre a tragédia da fome no Brasil: mais, como *ele é um dos poucos políticos que entende o que é isso pq ele passou grande parte de sua infância enfrentando isso*. Mas pq ele criticou levemente Lula, estão tentando difamar a defesa dele das animais:
A ONU advertiu que é impossível prevenir o desastre climático sem lutar contra os males das fazendas industriais. Bilhões de animais são torturados todos os dias por esta indústria. É imoral tentar zombar dessa causa.

Mas me diga: isso parece como alguém que não entende a fome?
Pode reconhecer as conquistas de Lula e respeitá-lo ao mesmo tempo em que entende que, como todo político, ele é um ser humano com falhas e críticas válidas. O grupo que acredita que quem critica Lula deve ter sua reputação destruída é uma seita cheia de malícia e doença.
Read 4 tweets
25 Nov
It is impossible to overstate how repressive Google has become in its censorship regime on YouTube. Almost no establishment orthodoxies can be challenged. @0rf was long a pro-Bernie videographer and this is what he's enduring. Thankfully, Rumble exists to allow free discourse:
The excitement over the internet in the 1990s was it would liberate us from centralized state and corporate control, allowing us to interact with one another freely. Instead, thanks largely to employees of media corporations demanding censorship, Big Tech platforms are tyrannical
Here's @0rf's video report on the Rittenhouse case that Google decreed outside the bounds of permissible discourse, and thus deleted it from YouTube. You can and, I hope, will, watch the banned video on Rumble, where you can also follow his great work:

rumble.com/vlownq-kyle-ri…
Read 4 tweets
25 Nov
The claim that Joe Rogan -- a supporter of Bernie Sanders, an anti-imperialist, a crusader against factory farms, etc. -- is of the "far right" is the kind of stupidity in which liberals specialize: "let's try to expel the most influential media figure and insist he's our enemy."
Watch this brilliant @krystalball segment on the unspeakable stupidity of this tactic. Rational political movements try to *expand* the range of those who identify with them. The liberal-left so often looks for ways to expel as many people as possible:

Rogan has an audience of millions. You can't change that. The only choices you have: 1) engage with that huge audience to build common ground or 2) create a climate where nobody on the liberal-left can go there, ceding it all to the right. Those who *want to lose* chose (2).
Read 10 tweets
22 Nov
Kyle Rittenhouse -- now free of all criminal liability -- did his first interview and said he believes systemic racism is a problem in the US and supports "BLM."

If you think this will cause anyone to reevaluate their decree that he's a "white supremacist," you'd be incorrect.
Rittenhouse has no reason to say any of this if he doesn't believe it. In fact, saying those things could undermine his self-interest, given that many on the right probably didn't want to hear them. There was never any evidence he was a "white supremacist" but that never matters.
There are very few accusations you can make about someone more serious than publicly branding them as "white supremacist" or "white nationalist." But in liberal discourse, especially media discourse, there is literally no evidentiary requirement that must be met in order to do it
Read 4 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(