No; this is just a rhetorical question. Glenn Greenwald’s political tilt remains solidly left, and he is still more knowledgeable and consistent than most talking heads, pundits, and politicians in the West.
It is just that in recent articles, as well as in TV appearances-usually on FOX, for he has been “banned” from MSNBC-he often defends Trump and/or attacks the Dems. One of the latest articles “The Threat of Authoritarianism in the U.S. is Very Real, and Has Nothing To Do With Trump” (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-authoritarianism-in) is a prime example. His main arguments in the article, that Trump might be an aberration in style, but not in substances, enabled by the well-established economic and political structures favored by the ruling class, including both mainstream parties, however, are decisively valid and hardly controversial at all. Much can be related to the 1988 classic “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, or even before. This article, along with others by Greenwald, reveals more truth and insights than MSM. But it still leaves something to be desired. So, what went wrong?
It has something to do with how Greenwald often conflates valid criticisms on Trump with the false ones, or sometimes totally negates the former, not just in this article, but also in other writings and interviews. Greenwald is no fan of Trump, but his explanation has been, paraphrasing his words, that he will do his contrarian thing while leaving attacking the orange monster to others, which are plenty. Fair enough. Yet in doing so, objectivity suffers, gradually.
One of the main themes in his recent writings and talks is to denounce how much the MSM lies and performs poorly such that it is distrusted by the public. True, but irrelevant. Does any large institution in the US enjoy a high level of trust? The House, the Senate? Who cares? Even politicians with a lower rating than MSM get re-elected overwhelmingly. Besides, it is not that the MSM was any better before whatever-time-one-remembers. Curiously, Greenwald concentrates his fire on CNN, MSNBC, etc, but rarely mentions FOXNews, which has the largest audience on cable news. Why? Does FOXNews belong to MSM or not? Or, does Greenwald consider the conservative media better than liberal media?
A major problem in the liberal news, as Greenwald correctly points out, is the obsession with the so-called Russian 2016 election interference. Greenwald goes on to predict that the MSM will cover for the Biden admin. All these warrant perspectives, and his Biden prediction will be proven wrong. News networks yapping about Russia is nothing uncharacteristic in the long history of traditional media: it is simply the let’s-kill-the-King mentality. Scandals in almost every US presidency-remember the Whitewater affair that lasted most of Clinton’s time in the WH? One might think what Trump encounters is unusual simply because Obama got it clean for the previously 8 years. But Obama was an exception: how many of his cabinet members were involved in a scandal, indicted, or resigned? Compared to Trump’s or Bush’s? Still, Obama got plummeted for his policies such as ACA, and who can forget the birther movement, which followed him into and out of the WH? In this trend, why would anyone believe Biden will be treated any differently? Lastly, should we include FOXNews or not?
By denouncing the Russia fakenews, Greenwald often discounts the fact that Trump has been uniquely horrible on so many levels. Greenwald says he relegates Trump-bashing to others, but he too often actively avoids or minimizes the subjects when they are pertinent. For example, in the article “The Threat of Authoritarianism in the U.S. is Very Real, and Has Nothing To Do With Trump” Greenwald pointed out Obama also put children in cages, but he neglected to mention that it was Trump who deliberately used it as a strategy, and did it at a much, much larger scale.
Greenwald holds out hope that Trump prefers a different foreign policy like fewer wars. Sadly it is all a smokescreen, and don’t blame the deep state for defying Trump because Trump himself is supported by the DS, or at least part of it. Just look at his cabinet and his most ardent supporters in the Congress: who wants fewer wars or less money for bombs? His entire cabinet, even those Trump had fired, who is/was anti-interventionist? How about his policies against Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and many others, etc, that are much worse than Obama’s? How about Trump critically poisoning the well on China relationship, potentially leading to a new cold war or WW3? Why did Trump do these, and who led him to do so, other than Trump and the worst characters in the world he surrounds himself with? Greenwald hardly calls out the people advocating the extreme positions, who are mostly GOP and FOXNews hosts. Not to mention the retreats on climate, environment protection, etc. This much is certain: Trump is never what he said he was or was going to do, based on his long history since 1980s. Thinking he will or is able to do anything good is patently naïve, even in 2016. Too many people, including Greenwald, thought they might be able to push or hold him accountable for his grand promises, but it is a mirage all along.
Greenwald knows all those, even though he seems to spend more time blaming DS and Liz Cheney than Trump BS. Greenwald also misses more serious matters. One is in the article “The Threat of Authoritarianism in the U.S. is Very Real, and Has Nothing To Do With Trump” he brushed off Trump’s authoritarianism, although that corporate monopolies or others are dictatorial or more so doesn’t mean Trump can’t be. What Trump tries to do is sufficient to raise non-stopping alarms since 2017. In cases where he lost, it was simply because he is so ignorant and incompetent that nothing could have salvaged him. Much Trump does after the 2020 election has been foiled. Yet this outcome has more to do with the reality-detached ineptness of Trump than his lack of trying, and even though he fails, Trump has marshalled enough people to do his bidding and set the precedents to sow the seeds for a bleaker future.
Greenwald also espouses the theory that COVID-19 coverage is over politicized for Trump. It fits Greenwald’s thesis that MSM is bad, which may be true, but it still doesn’t mean that everything MSM does is bad or worse than Trump. To the extent that the media works, especially during crises, this idea is hard to fathom, unless it refers to MSM’s China bashing, which clearly is not in Greenwald’s mind. What is his beef? One is that Greenwald blames the MSM for ignoring doctors and scientists being inconsistent with their messages about masks and racial protesting. The consensus on mask wearing in the West underwent a major revamp, and you can’t blame people changing their mind after learning something new, by April. On racial protesting Greenwald cited an open letter in the summer signed by about 1000 doctors and medical staffs supporting protests even when crowds were unavoidable. But the criticism is petty: those 1000 doctors did not claim to represent the medical community, and many (more) doctors, e.g., Fauci, didn’t sign the letter.
A more substantial viewpoint of Greenwald’s is that the US COVID-19 response may not be so poor but is unfairly depicted by the liberal media to hurt Trump. This is the least supported of all Greenwald’s arguments. He cites figures from countries such as Canada to show that per capita, US is not so different. His fallacy lies that while per capita the US is not the worst, it is still among the worst in the world. And in terms of the total confirmed infections and deaths, the US is all by itself. Perhaps for the actual infections and deaths, India and Brazil come close or surpass the US, but should the US savor any satisfaction bettering India and Brazil? The US being an advanced country, and topping the global pandemic preparedness in Oct 2019 (https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/02/27/trump-johns-hopkins-study-pandemic-coronaviruscovid-19-649-em0-art1-dtd-health)? Worse than so many Asian/pacific countries and many European and African countries? Trump’s role is undeniable. His lax views and actions on COVID-19 set the tone for his believers, GOP governors and officials, and when enough of these people flout COIVD-19 regulations, the states and whole country suffer, one wave/surge after another. No extra amount of negative reporting is needed. Biden or Clinton being the President in 2020 might not have made the US like Germany, but unthinkable it would have been as dismal as now. Maybe Greenwald lives in Brazil, not exactly a paradise either, so from afar the US is not THAT bad. But consider this: how many in the Trump circle and GOP officials having gotten COVID-19, vs how many in the Biden Team and Dem! This shows that containing COVID-19 is doable, just a matter of whether you do the hard work or not, at the levels of individuals, groups, communities, and countries. Trump was finally right: It is what it is.
Journalism intertwines with opinions, which veers towards less both-sidedness. But since nobody is perfect, fairness and objectivity safeguard right vs wrong, no matter how strongly one holds any views. OK for Greenwald to say Trump/GOP and Dem are all evil, but even implying Dem as terrible as Trump/GOP skewers objectivity and is way off in 2020. It is good service by Greenwald to call out the absurd narrative of Russia, Russia, Russia, but not fair that by doing so he often minimizes the many unique dangers posed by Trump and enablers. Of course Biden admin can be bad, but this remains a speculation and topic for the next 4 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.