Log in
2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/05/31/hypocrisy-r-us-with-glenn-greenwald/
0
0
  |   7 comments

hipocritesThe blogosphere’s most reliable source of unintended irony has struck again — while excoriating Jeffrey Rosen’s rather petulant promise to give up blogging, Glenn Greenwald laments the lack of accountability among bloggers. Always one to personify what he criticizes, often in very same post he is criticizing it, Greenwald’s most hilarious line is this:

The one trait that defines establishment pundits more than any other is a pathological inability ever to accept blame or admit error.

Given that Greenwald never admits error, responds to critics, or even confesses the mere possibility that anyone could disagree with him about anything whatsoever without being proved hopelessly evil as a result (note for example how Greenwald presumes from the very beginning that there could be no other explanation for Rosen’s dissenting views on Sotomayor other than that Rosen is an evil right-wing conspirator), this exposes a stunning level of arrogance even for him. Indeed, it is almost as hilarious as the time Greenwald lamented the name-calling in the very same post he indulged in his usual habit of calling everyone who disagreed with him on foreign policy “neocons” and “warmongers”.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the lion of the liberal blogosphere.

And for more hilarity, consider the name of Greenwald’s latest book: Great American Hypocrites. He even manages to personify what he criticizes and get published at the same time.

  1. Posted by Bjorn
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95364 ›
    Bjorn I don't think your opinions are supported by evidence. In fact, I really doubt you're read much of his writing, based on what you write. Greenwald has some faults, but he is unusually upfront in responding to critics and will sometimes even admit error, which has done publicly on several occasions. Very few writers for major media outlets regularly engage both the commenters in their threads and criticisms from other publications. If anything, Greenwald loves to mix it up and engage in debate, which is fitting given his background as a prosecutor. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Greenwald, but unfortunately, your article bypasses them and instead engages in unsubstantiated accusations that suggest you have a personal animus against him. The truth is he is one of the strongest writers on the Internet. You will have to work a lot harder to earn the kind of friends and enemies he has gathered.
  2. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95365 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Greenwald loves to mix it up and engage in debate
    I wish that were true because I reallly have some questions I would like him to answer. He has declined to address them in spite of frequent links to his blog and even a few emails. Unlike Greenwald, I recognize that people who disagree with me have a legitimate argument, but I would like them to address a few points of rebuttal that I think they are overlooking. He consistently refuses to respond, however. I'm sure he is just too important. Truth is, I read quite a lot of Greenwald because he is very influential on the far left (dominant) side of the blogosphere. And I have noticed that his pattern is consistently ad hominum -- he finds someone he disagrees with them, calls them a name, spends long and tedious posts repeating the name-calling in various different forms, updates the post 4 or 5 times with new name-calling and links to other people who have joined in the name-calling, and then moves on to yet another post on the same subject without EVER actually addressing the SUBSTANCE of the arguments made by those that disagree with him. His method may be to "mix it up" but it cannot be fairly called "debate". A more accurate term might be "bullying". Greenwald is a bully who uses his enormously popular blog to misrepresent and attack people he doesn't like or disagree with and then to evade the consequences by refusing to answer his critics. And he certainly does not engage with those who criticize that method nor does he even admit to the obvious problems with that method. As a politically correct person, Greenwald believes himself morally and intellectually superior to anyone who might disagree with him about anything. They are all "warmongers" and "neocons". He alone is pure. And he has no obligation to answer them with substance or even honesty. They are beneath his contempt. And more to the point of proving Greenwald's hypocrisy, he often personifies that which he critiques -- using name-calling in a post that complains about name-calling, for example. If he wants to prove me wrong and actually engage with my criticism and my questions for him on various issues, my email link is in the sidebar where it always has been. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Great Greenwald to descend and mingle with the commoners. And if reacting with annoyance to Greenwald's consistently arrogant and dishonest pattern of behavior constitutes "personal animus", so be it. I don't hold a candle to his level of hatred and contempt towards those HE disagrees with.
  3. Posted by Bjorn
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95378 ›
    Bjorn Thanks for a detailed and honest response. The Greenwald you represent in your writing, though, is not one that I have experienced. His approach is almost devoid of ad hominem techniques, although he can certainly be scathing toward people he disagrees with. Except in rare cases, that is not because they have the bad form to disagree with him, but because he finds their worldview objectionable and harmful. His major targets are: - Beltway media stars and Washington media in general - Politicians (on the right or left) who hold noxious viewpoints or whose actions are harmful and dishonest Ad hominem is a technique to distract from the premises of the argument by focusing on the personal qualities of the other speaker. His arguments are, far from being ad hominem, ruthlessly logical and often brilliantly analytical. He typically starts by taking a quote from a media star or politician, drawing out the premises behind it, then coldly tearing those premises to shreds. What makes Greenwald so fearsomely effective is not just his abundant intelligence, but the fact that he has a worldview. He fits facts into a coherent framework that holds meaning for others. You may disagree with that framework, but to call his arguments "ad hominem" reduces your credibility, because you are not addressing what he is saying. Calling them 'far left' does nothing for your credibility either, inasmuch as that term is even meaningful. Since he bases his entire approach on addressing the SUBSTANCE of his targets' words, I have reason to doubt your credibility as a critic. And that may be why he has not engaged you. To achieve some credibility, you have to address the substance of that worldview. There is surely a case to be made, but you haven't made it that I have seen.
  4. Posted by seasandcakes
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95380 ›
    seasandcakes I couldn't have replied better than Bjorn just did: "His arguments are, far from being ad hominem, ruthlessly logical and often brilliantly analytical. He typically starts by taking a quote from a media star or politician, drawing out the premises behind it, then coldly tearing those premises to shreds."
  5. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95390 ›
    Jason Arvak It is interesting that you claim that my use of "far left" undermines my credibility, but you do not apply the same standard to Greenwald's frequent use of "far right", "neocon", and "warmonger". I would be a little more worried about my own credibility, if I were you. And I have addressed the substance of Greenwald's positions on prisoner detentions and electronic surveillance several times when I have suggested that his criticisms fail to engage the practical realities of the situation. Unfortunately, such questions are beneath his exalted notice.
  6. Michael van der Galien You have to be kidding me. Glenn is that you (Bjorn)? The sock puppet is back, me thinks. Sorry, could not resist. Other than that: carry on the debate, I'd say. It's an interesting read for us, observers.
  7. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95404 ›
    Jason Arvak I think it is fascinating that when Greenwald finds someone else's opinions to be "harmful and dishonest", that finding serves to excuse any and all abuse he might lash out with. But when some of us find Greenwald's opinions to be "harmful and dishonest", suddenly we are presumptively non-credible and our posts intolerably rude. More double standards from the leftist blogosphere, I guess. Their political correctness exempts them from the rules they apply to mere mortals.
1