I like Glenn Greenwald because I have a bias towards his politics. I follow him on Twitter, and I read every tweet and article he writes. With that mind I still recognize that he is NOT the future of news. As mentioned he is biased and on Twitter he belittles the opposition. (I do too but the news has to be about informing the public and that includes all facets in an unbiased way.
What's the problem with belittling as long as it is made in a presentation by which you state your opponent's arguments and tear them with facts, and state clearly when you're speculating?
This is the sort of BS that's destroying journalism. You can argue for a side either honestly, presenting all you know, recognizing you opponent's valid points, but using your knowledge to debunk the other side, or you can be mischievous, ignore and distort facts, resort to fallacies, and generally achieve the effects of empty rhetoric.
Opinionated people are not the problem. Fallacious people and talking heads are.
Nah. True journalism is tearing someone a new one... as long it's ONLY facts. "Both sides of the debate" is not about ignoring facts to make you seem "unbiased". If that makes sense.
Who isn't biased? Greenwald is adversarial to the point of flaming on Twitter, yes, but he's admitted that it's more of a stress relief activity. I do hope he'll tone it down when the venture starts (and he has already toned it down for the Snowden stories afaict)
