I didn't know releasing the facts, and not halting the story just because the IC asked him to was shaping the story to fit someone's political viewpoints.
You're making the false assumption that only Glenn Greenwald is doing the reporting and shaping of the stories, instead of teams spanning news publications, dozens of people at the Guardian, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald.
That said, can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like? Exactly how were these stories shaped that rubs you the wrong way? Because all I see are facts, his editorials are just a side note.
Just because he isn't doing the IC's bidding doesn't mean he's shaping the NSA stories to his own political views.
>can I ask what the reporting of someone who was impartial look like?
There's no such thing as impartiality. Every journalist has bias. I'm sick of people pretending that GG doesn't, just because they agree with his bias.
Exactly, but Greenwald et al are just reporting the facts. They've even agreed with the Intelligence Community to not publish some things and have asked for comment on every story.
I'm just trying to figure out what rubs people the wrong way about his reporting, or why some people would rather remain ignorant of what there government is doing. 'Because if we know, the terrorists know' doesn't cut it.
If we are going to be cynical about Fox News and everything else, why should Greenwald be the one exception to our cynicism?