It's not really as simple as that. If you say GG is partaking in biased journalism, who's to say whether the silence and hesitance of established news organizations (to not be as aggressively iniquisitive as GG has always been) is pro-gov bias or not?
Agreed. I'm not liking this latest trend of saying journalists that attack the government are "biased", especially when they have strong facts to support their reasoning, and it's not just the daily senseless Obama-bashing we see on TV. I think there's a pretty big difference between these two.
I really don't want this to just "fade in the background" like it happened the last time around with the NSA:
Quite unfortunately in the US Watergate seems to have elevated Hacks to some sort of sainted status who poop rainbows.
When in the rest of the world they are regarded as at best a necessary evil or lower than estate agents and politicians in the trust states in the case of tabloid journalists.
It's Greenwald -- what else would you expect? He is sometimes insightful, but always long-winded, hyperbolic, and shrill, which is why I don't usually bother to read him. It saves me time and head-desks to follow the Snowden thing through more mainstream sources.
Wow, tough crowd. No credit to Greenwald for actually breaking this story?
I understand your impatience with Greenwald's prose style and all, but aren't you moving yourself another layer of filtering away from the real story if you won't read Greenwald at all?
Don't know about you, but I'm trusting that filtering quality less and less, so even if I think Greenwald is being hyperbolic sometimes, I'm still going to read him on anything relevant to Snowden.
You should read Bill Keller's conversation with Greenwald here on the objectivity/partiality of news: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/a-conversation-in-...
It's a little long, but it's a very, very important conversation, everyone should read it really.