Glenn Greenwald

I approach my journalism as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.

Glenn Greenwald is a disgraced American journalist and attorney currently based in Brazil, who has written for Salon, The Guardian, and at eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar's successful vanity project "First Look Media", which funds The Intercept, an investigative journal he co-launched with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras in 2014. Greenwald's beat has generally included national security issues as they impact on civil liberties, free speech and press freedom, media criticism and U.S. and allies' foreign policy in the Middle East.

Greenwald is a former civil rights lawyer, and writes and speaks as a contentious litigator would. People (especially Greenwald himself) describe him as a journalist, but there's no record of him ever being hired as one. Which is good, because if we judged him by the standards we judge actual journalists, he would be graded very poorly.

In late 2012, while at the Guardian, Greenwald was approached online by an anonymous person who would eventually claim to have documents from the NSA revealing U.S.-led global electronic surveillance. In May of 2013, Greenwald, along with his friend and colleague Poitras and Guardian journalist Ewen McAskill, all met Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and began reporting on top secret documents revealing a Global Surveillance Apparatus which included telephone metadata of all Americans. Thanks to Greenwald's efforts, the Guardian and the Washington Post won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize in the category of Public Service. Greenwald's writing can be pretty....out there (mixing fact and hyperbole to sensationalize for a purpose), but you can't deny he pioneered an entirely new form of journalism on the back of the Snowden files.

Starting around mid-2017, Greenwald devolved from a consistent critic of the U.S. government into a contrarian jackoff who devotes himself almost exclusively to excoriating the "neoliberal establishment" (or the "neoconservative" one; he uses the two epithets interchangeably). He wrote conspicuously little about the actual U.S. presidential administration under Donald J. Trump, began palling around with Tucker Carlson, and sank even lower in 2020 by promoting oddball theories about the Covid-19 pandemic. Even after Trump's departure, Greenwald has kept serving as a groupie for almost any despot who claims to stand against the West, however authoritarian or murderous. Perhaps his most shameful moment has been his rationalizing of Vladimir Putin's imperialist onslaught in Ukraine.

Views
In the past, Greenwald was hotly critical of both the Republican and Democratic parties, though now he shows a much stronger willingness to be critical of the latter rather than the former. In his first year of blogging, Greenwald's posts were decidedly more right-wing, with such pearls as "The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day." Greenwald has since added a note to that article pointing out that he no longer holds that view and supports the

Though he acquiesced to the Iraq War, by the time he started blogging in 2005, Greenwald had turned against it. His writing has consistently been critical of both that war and its neoconservative promoters. He began to write scathing pieces on the NSA's Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal pointing out dangers in the PATRIOT Act, and scrutinizing the administration's justifications for Guantanamo.

Greenwald has long refused to identify himself politically and finds political labels nearly meaningless:

Support (or not) for Ron Paul
Greenwald stands accused by Democrats of being a closet Libertarian, having spoken in front of the Koch Brothers' Cato Institute. To the consternation of critics, Greenwald has also spoken more than once at a Socialism Conference where he nearly gushes warmth and enthusiasm. Greenwald has also advocated many positions libertarians would hate, such as opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Greenwald was one of three speakers at the 2014 YAL (Young Americans for Liberty) National Convention; the other two were Ron and Rand Paul. Greenwald does hold Dr. Paul in some esteem, but he laments the man's checkered past:

His opinion of Baby Doc is on point, too.

As Ed Brayton has noted, many conflate Greenwald's narrow approval of select Paul positions with endorsement (something Brayton himself is often accused of). Brayton labels Greenwald's analysis of Paul as "brilliant," declaring that it "perfectly explains why I have said many of the things I’ve said about Ron Paul...it also speaks strongly to the question of how liberals should handle libertarians and libertarianism as a whole."

In point of fact, his only political endorsements have been given to left-wing Democrats, e.g. Russ Feingold and Rush Holt. In 2016, Greenwald published his interview of progressive Democrat Tim Canova, who was then challenging incumbent Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Florida primaries. Greenwald linked to a site where contributions to Canova's campaign might be made. Canova is controversial for being a militant Zionist. He opposed the Iran nuclear deal, accusing Wasserman Schultz of being "in on it". He later changed his position on it, stating that he supported "its full implementation," only to go back to being against it shortly after.

Opposition to Bolsonaro
As of 2022, Jair Bolsonaro is one of the last non-Western tyrants whom Greenwald still denounces. It's anyone's guess how much of this opposition is principled and how much is out of personal interest. Greenwald is gay, Jewish, and lives in Brazil with his husband, Brazilian national and city councilman David Miranda. When they became a couple, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was still in effect in the U.S. and Miranda could not have received a visa to live in the U.S. with Greenwald, but Brazil recognized their relationship and granted a visa to Greenwald.

On June 2019, Greenwald's The Intercept published Sergio Moro's (Jair Bolsonaro's Minister of Justice) leaked chats that suggested that the trial of former President and Latin American leftist icon, Lula da Silva, was a judicial farce orchestrated by the far right so the massively unlikable Bolsonaro could win the 2018 election. The veracity of the claims were, however, put into question since it's extremely easy to manipulate messages on the Telegram; as a result, the leaks were quickly forgotten. Bolsonaro, in true dictatorial fashion, threatened Greenwald with jail time and described Greenwald (a Jew) as a "trickster" for marrying a Brazilian man in order to "prevent deportation".

PRISM
Greenwald has no particular expertise in technology, foreign policy, the military, or the intelligence service. Anyone with knowledge in technology just scoffs at the stuff he writes, but people who know just a bit don't know enough to poke holes. This doesn't mean he can't report on these topics, but actual reporters fill the holes in their knowledge with expert sources. Greenwald's only source was Snowden and the documents he provided; he relied on no one else and filled a lot of the holes with insinuation. None of this is to say the NSA story wasn't—and isn't—pertinent, but Greenwald's coverage caused more problems than it needed to.

In his initial story on the PRISM affair, Greenwald stated that:

The NSA never had "direct access" to any of these companies or their systems. They make requests for information on specific users, and that information is vetted and sent out by the companies. The NSA never touched those servers themselves, only requested information that was delivered to them. Greenwald implies that the agency has unhindered access to any information these servers contain, without oversight. The Washington Post made similar claims and ended up walking them back. Other reporters at the Guardian had to mop-up after Greenwald's sloppy reporting. Greenwald never walked it back or corrected it. Yet the difference between having unfettered access to servers and having a drop box for companies to voluntarily send information is enormous. It's the difference between massive government overreach and an investigative tool which may require more oversight. Greenwald strongly implies the former, and he responds to criticism by doubling-down.

It's essential to remember that in all his reporting, Greenwald never actually revealed any wrongdoing at the NSA. He never revealed a criminal act. He describes the legal system we have in place (controversial in its own right, and the NSA has engaged in illegal warrantless wiretapping in the past), but he can't prove it's being misused. That's not the impression you get from reading his articles, though! He hints at illegality constantly. From his PRISM story:

This happens a lot in Greenwald's "reporting"—insinuating more than he can actually prove. From an article on the NSA adding surveillance devices to computer equipment being shipped abroad:

He followed up with this on The Colbert Report:

His 'evidence' for it got buried in an unindexed PDF on his personal website:

So it's a program for spying on select foreign targets? (You know, the sort of thing we pay spy agencies for.) But Greenwald implies it's being used to spy on the public. He leaves out the specifics to sensationalize the story, letting his readers' imaginations fill in the gaps where the nuance and facts would ordinarily go.

Greenwald's problems didn't end when he moved to First Look Media, home of his multi-million dollar venture The Intercept. Take this article on the government spying on Muslim-Americans. Despite the headline and big, scary "Under Surveillance" banner, the article provides no evidence that the men in question are still being spied on:

To sum up: the article hints at religious discrimination and ethnic hatred (it cannot prove) and illegal surveillance (without proving it), and Greenwald cannot know why these men were monitored, for how long, or to what extent. In almost 9000 words, all he proves is that five Muslim-Americans had their emails monitored from 2002-2008. He could be right that the monitoring was unwarranted, illegal and racially-motivated. But that "could" represents a big gap where all of Greenwald's reporting should be. We know the NSA was engaged in warrantless wiretapping up until 2008, with The New York Times reporting on it as early as 2005. (He knows those men were spied on because their names were in a FISA court document, which implies warrants were issued.) So he treats it like a bombshell revelation that the US government spied on Americans at a time when the US government admitted it was spying on Americans. And he can't prove it's still ongoing.

For Greenwald, that something could happen automatically means it does. He has an ideological bent he won't admit to, agendas he won't disclose fully. His reporting on the NSA story was full of holes, errors and exaggerations from the start.

More asshattery

 * He supported Brett Kavanaugh over Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against him.
 * As an attorney, Greenwald zealously defended a murderous white supremacist and secretly recorded eyewitnesses, an action which was found to be unethical by the court. That's right, he wiretapped them.
 * Some claim he was using sockpuppet accounts a few years ago to self-promote.
 * He defended Citizens United, to much progressive confusion. Greenwald would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of a major party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”
 * There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama could have vetoed that bill without killing the entire NDAA.
 * He supported Oath Keepers, a far-right militia who believe, among other things, that Barack Obama is a card-carrying communist, the U.N. is going to put troops on American soil, and US cities will soon be turned into concentration camps under FEMA. The Oath Keepers were well-known within the libertarian movement, and whilst Greenwald isn't one (at least not of the "right"-libertarian persuasion), he has published within those channels when it suited him before.
 * He claims Democrats are censoring his articles on Reddit to whitewash Obama. Misuse of the word censorship and claiming the government is secretly running the internet. That's what you look for in a journalist!
 * His postmortem of the FBI inquiry of Clinton stated that she (a) demonstrated "malignant intent" in setting up a private server, (b) we (read: the law) should distinguish between malignant intent and "benevolent" intent (a la Snowden, Greenwald), and (c) he thinks that Hillary should not have been indicted. Those are logically incompatible. Which is to say, Greenwald wouldn't be happier in the world he wishes for, nor in the world he already lives in.
 * Greenwald originally, as an apolitical full-time lawyer-- acquieced to the Iraq War and, though he condemned his original opinion of the war, he has since inaccurately insisted he never wrote or spoke in defense of the war.
 * The most recent NSA leaker was a Bernie supporter who "resists" Trump. Probably explains why she idiotically leaked it to a pro-Russia "anti-establishment" outlet tied to WikiLeaks instead of WaPo, WSJ, NYT, etc. And then they hilariously burned her and went straight to the NSA with the documents before publishing anything. If she had trusted a reputable newspaper which cared at all about protecting its sources, she wouldn't be in jail right now. According to David Folkenflik of National Public Radio, "An Intercept reporter shared a photo of the papers with a source, a government contractor whom he trusted, seeking to validate it. The printout included a postmark of Augusta, Ga., and microdots, a kind of computerized fingerprint. The contractor told his bosses, who informed the FBI. Verifying the legitimacy of leaked documents is common journalism practice, as is protecting third parties who may be incidentally harmed by the leak being published. However, professional media outlets who receive documents or recordings from confidential sources do not, as a practice, share the unfiltered primary evidence with a federal agency for review or verification, as it is known that metadata and unique identifiers may be revealed that were not obvious to the journalist, and the source exposed.
 * Note, however, that, according to The New York Times, he was not actually involved with handling the document (being in Brazil at the time) and that he was reportedly "not interested" in it when he first heard about it. According to Greenwald himself, "the person who oversaw, edited and controlled that story was Betsy Reed" (The Intercept's editor-in-chief) and "it was Intercept editors who pressured the story’s reporters to quickly send those documents for authentication to the government". Laura Poitras, co-founder of The Intercept, claims to have been fired due to her comments to the media on the case.
 * He also believes that there's no evidence of collusion between Trump/his campaign an Russian and claims that's it's just conspiracies theories pushed by the mainstream media. After U.S Attorney General William Barr released a four page "summary" of the Mueller report, Greenwald took a victory lap. He even went on Tucker Carlson's show and teamed up with him to attack and smear criticize MSNBC and Rachel Maddow for "pushing conspiracies". When the redacted version of the Mueller report was released in April, Greenwald regurgitates some right wing talking points about the report, such as quote-mining parts of the Mueller report to downplay evidence in the report, such as the evidence of obstruction of justice.
 * Greenwald thinks that in general, Trump's flirting with white supremacy is just "some tweets and unusual personality affect". and that he is totally not literally telling them to "stand back and stand by".
 * Fueled Trump's sowing of doubt about the counting of mail-in votes
 * Actual blackshirts actually occupying the legislature? Those who are fighting it are the real authoritarians
 * He is worried about Social media censoring bastions of fake news journalism like Fox News
 * Drew a false equivalency between people protesting police brutality and Floridians going to the beach without a mask during the 2020 pandemic
 * Claimed that the United States government hated Anwar Awlaki, not because he was a hate cleric encouraging terrorism against Americans, but because he was “speak[ing] effectively to the Muslim world about violence that the U.S. commits in [Yemen] and the responsibility of Muslims to stand up to this violence.”

News team fight
Greenwald is legendary for his sparring matches with, and dripping contempt for, most mainstream journalists. In an exchange with David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press that went viral, Greenwald blasted Gregory for "publicly mus[ing] about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies.” During an appearance on a CNN panel discussion of Wikileaks, Greenwald mocked Jessica Yellin for (in his view) operating as a government mouthpiece. He subsequently wrote a piece on Yellin's sad performance, heaping scorn on "America’s intrepid Watchdog journalists." Perhaps Greenwald's most memorable contretemps with a journalist was his appearance on BBC's Newsnight, when interviewer Kristy Wark asked what Greenwald was hiding in his bedroom (she speculated he might have some Snowden documents there). British journalist Jonathan Cook said Wark fired "questions so childish even she seems to realise half way through them how embarrassing they are." Greenwald, of course, was hardly left speechless and the entire "interview" is worth watching for the entertainment value.

The sparring matches even extend to journalism outlets that Greenwald helped create. In 2013, Greenwald helped co-found a media outlet called  with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras. On October 29, 2020, Greenwald sent a scathing letter announcing his resignation from The Intercept, claiming that the outlet was censoring him for deviating from "mandated ideological and partisan loyalties" when they refused to publish an article that, according to Greenwald, merely was critical of Joe Biden. Such claims of partisanship puzzled the staff of The Intercept (who in general are no fans of Biden). In reality, Greenwald was attempting to advance a flimsy conspiracy theory involving Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, which was being advanced by Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post at the time, that a laptop found at a computer repair shop Greenwald's column simply had too much questionable "evidence" and conspiratorial assertions, in editor  judgement. Rather than work with Maass to get the article published, Greenwald chose to throw a hissy fit, resign, and publish both his rejected story and internal Intercept emails relating to it on his Substack site. Since then, Greenwald hasn't stopped feuding with The Intercept. For instance, ironically for someone who career was launched on the basis of analyzing a data leak, in May 2021 Greenwald called The Intercept "shit", "liberal DNC hacks", and "mouthpieces for the CIA" for doing a story analyzing a data leak of Gab.

Prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz detests Greenwald and considers him an "anti-American" felon who "loves tyrannical regimes." Greenwald fully returns the animosity, and the day before a Toronto-based formal debate — which Greenwald won — on the legality and morality of the NSA programs confirmed by the Snowden documents, Greenwald said he finds Dershowitz (along with General Michael Hayden, Dershowitz's debate partner) to be "...two of the most pernicious human beings on the planet. I find them morally offensive. There’s an element of hypocrisy to being in the same room with them, treating them as if I have outward respect, because I don’t."

Another reason for the feud is that Dershowitz is a pro-Israel advocate, while Greenwald just as fiercely criticizes both that country and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. It has been put forth that Greenwald's statements on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are anti-semitic. Greenwald dismisses these accusations, declaring that Zionists are "casually and promiscuously accusing political adversaries of anti-semitism". He warns that "cheapening the charge of anti-semitism through frivolous and politically manipulative uses weakens the ability to combat actual, real anti-semitism." It is also worth noting that Greenwald is himself "ethnically" Jewish.

There are, of course self-hating Jews, like Gilad Atzmon. Greenwald called Carlos Latuff, creator of numerous blatantly anti-Jewish cartoons, a “brilliantly provocative cartoonist.”

Greenwald also claimed that Hamas and Hezbollah are “NOT terrorists movements,” even though both organizations want to kill all Jews and deliberately target civilians.

Greenwald's books

 * How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok (2006) ISBN 9780977944002
 * A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency (2007) ISBN 9780307354198
 * Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics (2008) ISBN 9780307408662
 * With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (2012) ISBN 9781250013835
 * No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State (2015) ISBN 9781627790734

Films about Greenwald

 * Citizenfour (2014) Winner of 2014 Academy Award for best documentary. Footage of Greenwald, Snowden and McAskill in Hong Kong and examination of privacy implications of the NSA's myriad electronic surveillance programs.
 * Snowden (2016) Directed by Oliver Stone. Snowden portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Greenwald by Zachary Quinto, and Poitras by Melissa Leo.