Actually, it's a lot more fence-sitting and clinical, and 'just the facts' than Greenwald's. So, in short, exactly the sort of predictable, unsurprising, 'both sides' horseshit that I expect from CNN.
Both publications are biased, neither publication's biases result in particularly surprising or unpredictable coverage, so I ask again - what is the difference? That Greenwald's a bit more introspective?
There's introspective writers in the CNN opinion pieces, too - you just might not be biased towards their flavour of introspection. I know I'm not.
Imagine you strip the references from the CNN article referencing Bolsonaro winning and you otherwise did not know this. And you now read this article. Would you expect him to win? Would you have any idea how he could possibly win, let alone by a large margin? The media's job is to inform you, yet our media increasingly often does not do this. Their only notion of why he might have been elected was to 'keep the workers party out'? 'Man, our socialist candidate was arrested for corruption. Wellp, I guess we better go vote far right now!' Yeah...
On one side of a spectrum you have propaganda, on the other side you have journalism. The two are inherently at opposite ends. Propaganda aims to influence people and push them towards an ideology, journalism aims to inform people and let them make their own decisions. A disturbingly large percentage of all western facing media is now more of the kind aiming to influence than aiming to inform. Greenwald is a shining exception to this in that even in topics that he was a resounding conflict of interest in, you find reporting that focuses primarily on informing instead of persuading.
And let's take a look at the rhetoric used:
> THE RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIAN
> his tyrannical movement
Knowing what I know about the two gentlemen, absolutely nothing about Greenwald's coverage was surprising or unpredictable.
Let's look at the rhetoric CNN uses to describe this chap.
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/americas/brazil-election/inde...
Actually, it's a lot more fence-sitting and clinical, and 'just the facts' than Greenwald's. So, in short, exactly the sort of predictable, unsurprising, 'both sides' horseshit that I expect from CNN.
Both publications are biased, neither publication's biases result in particularly surprising or unpredictable coverage, so I ask again - what is the difference? That Greenwald's a bit more introspective?
There's introspective writers in the CNN opinion pieces, too - you just might not be biased towards their flavour of introspection. I know I'm not.