> He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before.
Which questions? Criticizing the news media has been a national (and international) sport continuously for a very long time, at least 200 years it seems.
Also, his approach to the issue has long been used by fascists and authoritarians.
> Also, his approach to the issue has long
been used by fascists and authoritarians.
Quite generally that argument is not very
solid: For a simple but extreme
refutation, no doubt "fascists and
authoritarians" breathe air, drink water,
walk, talk, write, read, etc. also.
If Trump is being, or trying to be, a
fascist or an authoritarian, then,
sure, we should know that.
I very much liked the OP: I've long
thought of all the criticisms in the OP,
more or less independently, and am glad to
see that the "press" and/or media are
much the same as in Jefferson's time
because that is some evidence that what I
long thought has been correct -- e.g., I'm
not the only one saying that the press
pumps out too much sewage.
I had seen that negative attitudes toward
the press were clear in a 1930's Andy
Hardy movie; IIRC Mark Twain had some such
comments; but the Jefferson quote suggests
that the objectionable aspects of the
press I, etc. have seen go way back at
least to Jefferson: From this we suspect
that the press has their techniques and
that these have not changed in 200+ years
and, thus, might be solidly based on
something or other. Again, I like the
evidence that I'm not alone in negative
attitudes toward too much of the press.
Another description of the press was from
a college English professor my older
brother had: That professor claimed that
the press used the techniques of formula
fiction -- a case can be made for that.
From the Trump rally in Florida yesterday,
I see a coincidence (different things the
same in time and, thus, possibly with a
common cause): (1) The First Lady of the
US made what might be regarded as her
first appearance as First Lady. (2) The
First Lady recently won a libel law suit
brought against a person associated with
the press who had made vile comments about
her. (3) Trump mentioned the Jefferson
statement as if it was a way to tell the
First Lady that vile press behavior was
not unique to her or the Trump
Administration but went back at least to
Jefferson. (4) The First Lady started her
speech with the Lord's Prayer as it she
had found that helpful in her reaction to
the vile libel.
I have to guess that nearly all US
citizens would be outraged at the vile
libel against the First Lady and pleased
if Jefferson's statement, the Lord's
Prayer, her husband's affectionate
support, etc. helped her -- I was.
On "fascists and authoritarians", during
the campaign Trump was attacked with,
apparently, about all the possibly
somewhat damaging vile accusations that
could be uttered. We all heard a lot of
the accusations that were common --
sexist, racist, misogynist, xenophobic,
Islamophobic, fascist, bully,
authoritarian and more. When I heard
those, I looked right away, immediately
following the accusations, for the
supporting evidence or at least references
to such evidence. I never saw solid
versions of any such evidence.
1. "A nativist, sexist, arguably fascist
and racist demagogue who twists the truth
is the front-runner in the race to become
the Republican Party's presidential
nominee..." — Liberal columnist Charles
Blow, March 3.
that is, such an accusation but
(apparently) without solid evidence.
In contrast, eventually I did see
Jeffrey Lord, "When Trump Fought the
Racists", The American Spectator,
November 13, 2015, 9:00 am, at
where apparently Trump worked hard,
including with a law suit, to stop the
near universal racism of clubs in Palm
Beach.
Many people in the US, no doubt nearly
everyone at HN, is really good at
considering solid evidence. We commonly
see high respect for such evidence in
physical science, medical science,
computer science, engineering, law, a lot
in finance, etc.
E.g., we know from freshman physics that F
= ma, from basic electricity and magnetism
that I = E/R, from computer science that
heap sort runs, for positive integer n and
n records to be sorted, in both worst case
and expected time O( n ln(n) ), from
mathematics that, given a positive integer
n, the set of real numbers R, a subset C
of R^n closed in the usual topology of
R^n, there exists a function f: R^n --> R
so that f is 0 on C, positive otherwise,
and infinitely differentiable (we have a
solid proof, and there is no sense in
saying otherwise).
Well, we should attempt also to have solid
evidence in evaluating our candidate and
actual political leaders.
No doubt nearly all of us have seen the
disasters of fascists, e.g., Hitler, and
authoritarians, e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol
Pot, and want no such disasters here in the
US.
Well, we can guess that the US Founding
Fathers also saw the dangers of
authoritarians and designed the US
Constitution to protect the US from such.
Recently for Trump, he wrote an executive
order (EO) temporarily blocking
immigration from seven countries
identified by the Obama Administration as
so deep into civil war and/or chaos that
vetting people from those countries was
impossible. Soon a US judge issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) on the
Trump EO.
Apparently the Trump EO was based at least
in part on section (f) of "8 U.S. Code §
1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at
> (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of
restrictions by President
> Whenever the President finds that the
entry of any aliens or of any class of
aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United
States, he may by proclamation, and for
such period as he shall deem necessary,
suspend the entry of all aliens or any
class of aliens as immigrants or
nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
appropriate ....
Okay, so, here, at least first cut, it
appears that the Trump EO was legal.
Still, a judge issued a TRO. Then the
appeals court of the US 9th Circuit upheld
the TRO.
So, what did Trump do? He argued against
the courts but did obey the courts. An
authoritarian might have asked "How many
tanks and airplanes does the court
command?", told the court "try to make
me", sent troops to lock up the judges, or
some such.
So, net, Trump did respect the judicial
branch.
So, on this issue, it appears that Trump
did not act like an authoritarian.
More generally, I'm short on solid
evidence that Trump is a fascist or
authoritarian or is racist, sexist,
misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, a
bully, etc.
Instead, it appears that during the
campaign and since, some Trump opponents
and some in the press, much as in the
Jefferson statement, just tossed out
whatever vile accusations they could think
of and omitted any solid evidence.
How could many people come to believe vile
accusations or just lies without solid
evidence?
With some irony, as maybe we could see
from some fascists such as Paul Joseph
Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of
Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, if a lie
is repeated often enough from enough
sources, then, even without solid
evidence, the lie will be widely believed.
Also we can expect from some aspects of
human psychology, e.g., E. Fromm, The Art
of Loving, people tend to be insecure, in
response seek membership in groups, and,
then, adopt the norms and beliefs of the
groups they join. Here they can come to
believe or at least repeat lies simply
from belonging to a group that wants to
repeat the lies and without solid
evidence.
The story is true, Trump used race and creed as wedge issues when he was working to open Mar-a-Lago as a social club (it had been a private estate). The part where I believe Jeffrey Lord is a sycophant is the part where he presents it as Trump nobly fighting for integration in Palm Beach, rather than Trump using accusations of racism to smear the town council and make it difficult for them to act to restrict his plans.
Just to be clear, I don't think Donald Trump is malignantly racist, I think he's more or less nihilistic when it comes to people that aren't him. I believe that if he thought it would have been more profitable/easier to open a segregated club, he would have done that.
Trump "used" the Jews for some business or political purpose?
So, the implication is that Trump doesn't really care about the Jews?
But, in this case we are awash in other evidence: Trump was made Grand Marshall of the Israeli day parade or some such. We note Ivanka's conversion and marriage to Jared. We just saw the astoundingly strong statement by Bibi.
So, the game seems to be, if can't come up with such overwhelming evidence, and even when can, Trump is from the opposition anti-semitic. No evidence; just make the accusation; ignore that the burden of proof is on the accuser; when there is lots of evidence that the person is really a strong supporter of Israel, just ignore that evidence and repeat the accusation.
I call BS.
I'm still looking for solid evidence to support the accusations. Rivers of accusations from the Hillary campaign and the MSM, and so far not a single drop of meaningful evidence.
Right, Trump is xenophobic, that is, doesn't like foreigners. He married two of them, his mother was one of them, he's hired thousands of them, and just because he wants to enforce long standing US immigration laws, policies, and practices, passed to protect US workers, we're supposed to believe he doesn't like foreigners? The US immigration laws are clearly examples of important labor laws; a lot of labor laws are really important; we should enforce the important labor laws, and that is reason enough for what Trump is doing on immigration.
As a special case of the Jefferson piece, we've been getting rivers of BS propaganda: They just keep saying stuff, just nasty stuff, just keep saying it, give no meaningful evidence, and just let the nasty stuff just sit there while repeat it. BS.
So, net, in Palm Beach, Trump did fight racism hard and successfully.
So, tough to claim that he is racist.
His motives are more difficult to document.
But the burden of proof that Trump is racist is on the accuser -- tough to prove that he never had a racist comment in a private conversation some place. Instead, the key issue is proof that he did something racist and, then, proof that he has done such things often enough to have a pattern that lets us conclude he is racist.
I grew up in Memphis. Memphis was and still is awash in some strong and bitter racism against the Blacks. My parents were both from the North and wanted nothing to do with that racism; neither did I; and I got the heck out of the Deep South ASAP; my ancestors are from England and Germany, but, still, I did NOT like the strong racism of Memphis.
Thus, from Memphis, I've seen a lot of racism. To me, I see no evidence that Trump is racist. To me, all the billions of Hillary campaign and MSM claims that Trump is racist are missing one simple item: Some solid evidence.
I can't read the whole comment; it's too long. But there are many well-documented examples of racist (or more precisely, prejudicial) and authoritarian behavior by Trump. It would be wrong for the news media to omit it. Your personal judgment on the legality of his executive order isn't worth much.
One of the most common tactics of propagandists is to raise endless questions and imply that unless they are answered, no judgment can be made. I could say Neptune is the 8th planet from the Sun, and the propagandist would say, 'prove it' - which of course I don't have time or resources to do.
Another tactic is to suggest that all allegations and claims are equal; it's the perspective of a liar: 'You say something and I say something; it's all the same in regard to truth.' But to say all statements have the same value - that's the opposite of truth.
There's no game, and your Neptune example does not apply.
Instead, you are making an accusation of racism; I claim, rightly, that for such an accusation solid evidence is needed and you, the person making the accusation, should provide it; and then you are refusing to provide such evidence and, now, claiming that providing such evidence would be a silly "game".
Grade school students know English and reasoning much better than that.
Exactly. There is nothing original or insightful to Trump's rhetoric.
It's just a sensational, aggressive, unhinged version of the "attack the liberal media" strategy that Rupert Murdoch successfully deployed in Australia, UK and the US.
Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press (or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth. Just that people say good things about him.
He is by no means a moral voice in this cause, he's a part of the problem: he lies consistently, and when he's taken to task, he just screams 'liar' or bullies people - instead of explaining, justifying.
Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true.
But it's a problem because the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' - because there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing it. This is not fair, because instead of playing 'against Trump' they should be being more objective. But they really hate Trump, and can't but help themselves play hardball back against him (and I don't mean 'doing more of a better job, I mean cheating a bit with the bias). And the press is definitely hurting their credibility in that way.
The paradox is, that it is very easy to read any of the MSM headlines and easily find anti-Trump bias - which lends credence to Trump supporters acceptance of his 'anti press' rants.
Example: Trump's orders on immigration were pretty hardcore. Possibly illegal. Instead of explaining it, and highlighting concerns - the press mostly lambasted it, and created a sense of 'national fury'. Buried away were the polls that showed more Americans supported the action, than were against it.
This demonstrates the paradox because although the press were 'truthful' in their response to Trump's policy - they were also somewhat biased, which is a form of misrepresentation - and were also creating the idea that 'America was outraged' when really it wasn't so clear. The press was not allowing for nuance ... they were playing the role of 'vocal opposition'. Which isn't quite their job.
But more to the point of the article: 'the press' was never considered truthful at all, not up until the modern era and Television, when at least the notion of 'truth' and 'impartiality' was supposed to be observed.
In the 19th century, Newspapers existed as businesses only, and to push the propaganda and flame-wars of their owners. Obviously this exists today, but not quite as much. It's between the lines, and in the bias.
The EO is a good example of how your request could be very hard to satisfy.
I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did! They explained the legal issues, expanded on the natsec consequences (we all know about the Iraqi interpreters now).
And I saw polls in the NYT about this. Asking multiple questions as well, notably showing that a solid majority did not support touching permanent residents (which was the crux of the legal argument)
Let's say Trump decided to nuke the ocean. How does the media cover that objectively?
If you just say "Trump is going to nuke the ocean" without stating more facts, that's bias by omission. Like when they would report on Trump's voter fraud claim without stating that there's zero evidence.
But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias! Some things are"objectively" bad ideas!
But if you say "Trump is doing something stupid with no logical basis" then that looks like bias.
If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH, then it's the press's responsibility to point that out.
>> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!"
Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it.
Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO:
CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen.
When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well.
More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya?
It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at.
Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries.
Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US.
Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should.
So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not.
CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story.
>> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this."
That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective.
Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big.
>> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!"
CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'.
Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim".
But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here".
Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context.
But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here".
This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased.
Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban').
What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump.
What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'.
Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines.
>> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH"
I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them.
Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased.
Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words.
Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.
As if the motivation for the immigration order was anything other than a political stunt.
There were already reasonable procedures checking out people from the 7 countries. Universally choosing to deny entry to Visa holders that were in the air and trying to deny entry to Green Card holders was all about making a big news story. It wasn't about improving the vetting procedures, which could have been done without being capriciously disruptive.
The claim is that the bad people would hurry up and come in if they knew a ban was coming, but that simply isn't how US immigration works, people can't just hurry up and obtain a Visa (and thus won't even be able to get on a plane).
I fully understand that - and that's a good point.
However, it's not necessarily the logic on which the case should hinge.
Tunisia is the #1 source 'per capita' of ISIS/AlQueda memebers - but they won't be on any list. Why? Because their government works actively against terrorism, and really does help the US. When a Tunisian wants to enter the US, US customs can say "hey, is this a bad guy" and Tunisia will respond with something reasonably credible. Ditto for Saudi.
Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq (because of W. Iraq), can't do that today. Iran won't.
Moreover - the issue is not 'whether we should ban people from there or not' - the issue is 'how the press chose to present the facts'.
Fareed made a good case for why the ban is bad. (Which I agree with by the way!) But he didn't offer objective analysis. He was 'advocating'.
> When a Tunisian wants to enter the US, US customs can say "hey, is this a bad guy" and Tunisia will respond with something reasonably credible.
Is that actually the case? The attacker in the Breitscheidplatz truck attack in Berlin was Tunisian, and the German authorities made a pointed comment that the Tunisian government only issued the passport for his deportation the day after the attack. I wish I could find an exact citation for this (I saw it on live TV, presumably Deutsche Welle), in the meantime the closest I can find is this:
"Amri was an asylum-seeker whose application had been rejected by the authorities. He was granted a residence status in Germany referred to as "tolerated," meaning his deportation order had been temporarily suspended. This happened after an initial attempt to deport the man failed."
"Is that actually the case? The attacker in the Breitscheidplatz truck attack in Berlin was Tunisian"
First - there are 1 million migrants in Germany for which the government made no checks whatsoever.
Second - nobody is going to argue that a governments assessment is going to be entirely valid.
But it's helpful.
The notion of 'not allowing people in unless there is a background check' is very rational from a policy perspective.
Anyhow - it's besides the point regarding the press: that the countries listed were those for whom there can be no background checks is most of the rationale. The press largely failed to report this. Specifically in Fareeds presentation of the facts. Ergo - not doing his job.
The press, more than ever, needs to hold themselves to the most objective standards they can.
I agree about that, and I'm somewhat sorry I brought the point up as it was unrelated to the original link. Not sure why you were downvoted, but thank you for steering my comment back on topic.
Iraq just today sent their troops in the biggest offensive against ISIS in Mosul. Somalia and Sudan have been working extensively with the US on anti-terrorism efforts in their countries. Iran is backing 100K+ Sunnis who are fighting the largely Shiite ISIS.
And of course in Somalia and Yemen you are dealing with Al-Shabab who are unaffiliated with ISIS. Just like you have groups in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand who have their own Al-Qaeda offshoots.
What the US has stupidly done has been to tarnish those countries as state sponsors of terror when they have been working so hard to eliminate terorrism and really needed US and International support.
And no country right now including allies can adequately identify terrorists. Many terrorist acts have been committed by individuals without direct ties to ISIS or Al Qaeda i.e. rougue sympthasizers.
'No country right now including allies can adequately identify terrorists'. Correct and gets to the heart of the problem. In other words, people's intentions cannot be judged by the stance their government takes. In the absence of adequate identification, minimizing the chances of someone being maimed or killed is, for me at least, more important than the 'tarnishing' or not of a country. The question then comes down to estimates of the likelihood of this happening with incomers from country X bearing in mind that it's what is likely to happen in the future rather than in the past that counts. I have no data to hand on this so cannot comment. Maybe the estimate is very low in which case the anti-ban people are right. Otherwise?
>I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective.
This is very much a "my feelings are more important than your facts" argument.
There are many decisions that are "objectively" bad for the country. Nuking the ocean would be a bad decision. Yelling at the Australian PM seemingly unprovoked is a bad decision. Trying to run the government by yourself instead of at least asking for input from people who are out in the field actually doing things is a bad decision.
The EO is the perfect example of this. The core idea (limiting immigration from these 7 countries) could have been executed upon! If they could have controlled their fascist spasms for a week, they could have gotten lawyers to write up a bulletproof EO. Lots of people would be pissed, but the administration would have gotten what they want.
Instead, they just sent out the first draft from Bannon's cocktail napkin as-is, and it took less than 24 hours for it to get shut down by the courts. That's not some crazy strategizing, they're just bad at their jobs.
Little OT but this comment proves to me that HN is the only (if unlikely) place I can read a balanced and calm discussion on somewhat incendiary subjects. It seems to me that every political discussion lately turns into a shitshow instantly.
Anyhow, does anyone know some outlet similar to HN discussion-quality-wise? I don't mean political discussions exclusively.
> the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition'
I strongly disagree. Their job is discover and publish information important to the public and 'speak truth to power'. Trump doesn't like that role, of course, and his administration's high level of corruption, illegality, and incompetence so far has resulted in a lot for the news media to cover.
He can allege that he's unfairly persecuted - people can make empty allegations about anything - but so does every public figure, from every president to business figures to celebrities. The press was just as aggressive with Hillary Clinton (remember the email server scandal, Benghazi, and the continuous reports on the leaked DNC emails; she wouldn't give press conferences in order to avoid the journalists), Obama, Bush, etc.
First, Greenwald:
>1) Trump presidency is dangerous. 2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected >Govt is dangerous. One can cogently believe both.
Second, the media is not to be trusted. Truman, JFK, Bernie Sanders, Eisenhower, Ron Paul, all warned of the CIA, and all said it should be basically destroyed or returned to its original mission. The CIA meddling in media and pushing agendas through our newspapers, cable news, and respectable media outlets has been long established. It is no conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
>Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true.
Most people I've encountered, when informed of Hillary's connections to Saudi Arabia, simply do not believe me.
This problem can be summarized by Douglas Adams:
>"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
Full quote:
“[Ford said] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.”
If the era of lizards is allowed to continue, tyranny is closer around the corner than most people would believe, and almost everyone loses.
Finally, we're very lucky for Glenn Greenwald and people like him. Without people like him the world would be a much darker place.
What you are saying is erroneous. It is not in agreement with the facts.
You can not ignore that the Washington Post specifically said, as the headline:
>Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
They published this in their news section. Not their op-eds.
ProOrNot was the source this article used to substantiate the central premise of this article that subversive, clandestine Russian Propaganda was spreading into the US.
They've since tried to walk away from this claim without admitting to the journalistic garbage that it is.
First of all, Wikileaks has obvious bias against the DNC/Clinton/establishment politics, most of which are personally motivated by grievances of Assange, which are based on perceived injustices he has suffered allegedly coming from them.
I will however defend Greenwald on alleged bias. Greenwald is a Jewish-born gay man who justly and earnestly defended a White Nationalist on principle alone. I can't think of another journalist who more purely fights for constitutionally-granted civil rights. Can you?
Now, about your inaccurate news argument. I believe you ignored the examples I already listed; however, graciously allowing that to be set aside: you said that you'd find most information accurate information at CNN. In fact, I believe one could dutifully read the information at CNN and it would be mostly accurate; yet the reader's perceptions would still be further from reality than one who read a lot of misinformation from mainstream representations of alt media like reddit.com/r/conspiracy.
For example, Google searching site:cnn.com Tulsi Gabbard returns mostly articles with headlines with negative connotations about her 'facing criticism for meeting with Assad.' How many US citizens know most of our funding towards the Syrian proxy war with Russia is to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria?
"If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you read the news, you're misinformed." -Mark Twain
He's once again raising important questions that were ignored before.