How Do Big Media Outlets So Often "Independently Confirm" Each Other's Falsehoods?
U.S. · BUSINESS · MEDIA
March 16, 20213 min read694 words
Published: March 16, 2021  |  3 min read694 words
SubscribeSign inShare this postHow Do Big Media Outlets So Often "Independently Confirm" Each Other's Falsehoods?greenwald.substack.comCopy linkTwitterFacebookEmailMar 16, 2021Share this postHow Do Big Media Outlets So Often "Independently Confirm" Each Other's Falsehoods?greenwa...
How Do Big Media Outlets So Often "Independently Confirm" Each Other's Falsehoods? Read more

Scores for this article.

Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Sensational1
img-contested
N/A
critic score
critic reviews: 0
img-contested
33%
public score
public reviews: 3
img-trusted
92%
critic score
13 reviews
img-trusted
81%
public score
31 reviews
img-contested
N/A
critic score
0 reviews
img-trusted
78%
public score
9 reviews

CRITIC REVIEWS

There don't seem to be any reviews yet.

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Sensational
April 5, 2021
I'm a bit astonished that Greenwald can take the least sensational part of the GQP interference in GA elections and claim that the problem was the WaPo's misquote—a misquote that did NOT affect the thrust of the conversation, and did NOT in any way exonerate Trump's subsequent, recorded call in which he suborned GA's Secretary of State to overturn a fair election. Ditto another story, where Greenwald claims that Barr's hiding of Mueller's report on Trump, and claims the fact that Mueller did NOT subpoena Trump, who gave misleading and incomplete answers to questions, somehow proves no American took part in Russian election interference. No matter one's political beliefs, it is NEVER possible to prove NO person did X; it's logically impossible. But Greenwald takes the absence of published evidence as being published evidence of absence. These notions of truth, crime etc are really fundamental to American law & politics—a court doesn't find a person “innocent,” merely saying that the prosecution did not prove they were guilty. Greenwald twisting them to justify a political position is unsurprising but the piece here merely undercuts our understanding of where we are in 2021 versus a traumatic (and tragic) era of American history
April 5, 2021
Is this helpful?
Investigative
March 17, 2021
I'm sure there will be those who disagree with me, but I found this to be a great and detailed investigative look into some of the boldest Russiagate claims that were later revealed to be untrue and needed correcting. Aside from sourced examples, Glenn Greenwald also adds his touch of context as to why these media mistakes are serious and part of a larger problem. I found his examples and context informative.
March 17, 2021
Is this helpful?
Political Agenda
March 17, 2021
Like a shining red beacon in the night, this piece seems geared to shine a light on the scorpions of the world but instead merely indicates the district where an old profession works into the night. With so many holes tied loosely together, we could either read the piece or go net fish, but there's the concern about marine lice. Thankfully I can use this as a firm foundation on which to further study my parrot's GI.
March 17, 2021
Is this helpful?