Yeah sure, there's a knowledge fight episode on it.

Greenwald did promotional appearances with Jones

https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/709-2-dans-2-war

He's also done collaborations with Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes and broadcasts on Rumble, the far right version of YouTube where scammers, bigots and hatemongers banned from YouTube go

Even if you agree with those people's politics they aren't investigative journalists. They are sensationalist provocateurs and merchants of spectacle - The internet's equivalent of the tabloid broadsheet

There was this phenomena during covid if you recall where people become radicalized to extremism, conspiracies and delusion, isolating themselves from their loved ones. There's a subreddit for it, qanon casualties.

Seems to have happened to Glenn. It's like the Pulitzer version of the Nobel disease.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/glenn-greenwald-offers-biza...

▲

mixmastamyk a day ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks. I wasn't paying attention to him five years ago, so will look at those. But I did watch a recent talk between him and Carlson and it was excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoBTkpus8Iw

When someone says "GG's crazy," I typically hear "I'm an angry lefty" who's upset he's not on my team any more. I don't think he was ever on anyone's side, one of the things I like about a journalist. He simply came up during the Dubya years and they were the default target. He's still anti-war, the most important position.

▲

matltc 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And when I hear "GG's crazy"

https://share.google/DzxpUJN6Ss31AIhDt

▲

kristopolous a day ago | parent | prev [-]

no. He used to do right-to-reply, no longer does.

He used to do two-source rule, no longer does.

He used to provide contextual clarity, no longer does.

He used to disclose conflict of interests, no longer does.

He used to provide citations and audit trails for his work, no longer does.

Every single rule from the society of professional journalists he's thrown out the window. Here he is pushing conspiracy drivel with a bunch of emdashes: https://substack.com/home/post/p-222186026

I mean look at this: "After the first round of voting, it is true that a Lula victory was unlikely. And last night’s outcome was a surprise even when viewed through the prism of traditional polling and analytical metrics."

No it's not. There's plenty of actual journalism on this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/nov/05/unsung-heroes-...

Yet here he is in the article doing stolen election bullshit: "What I do think is vital to note, however, is that there were election irregularities in the vote last night, and they illustrate one of the worst legacies of Lula’s last four years."

Oh really Glen? Do you have direct knowledge sources? Documents as evidence? Anyone willing to go on record? Journalism doesn't involve wildly unfounded conspiracies. Keep that on TLC.

And look at this:

"The court last night approved a request from Lula’s campaign to extend by two hours the close of Brazil’s voting."

Once again, this isn't journalism. Both candidates requested it. https://valorinternational.globo.com/politics/news/2026/10/2...

Then the losing candidate called it nonsense even though he requested it and he got what he requested. But Glen is more than happy to play along with this obvious deception in an AI-written partisan hackery that he ostensibly charges people for reading.

I could go on, but this is unequivocally not journalism.

Compare that to the place he left covering the same event: https://theintercept.com/2026/10/27/flavio-bolsonaro-trump-v...

See how they follow all those rules and he does not anymore?

	▲	mixmastamyk a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I see nothing with any of these pieces linked above, to make me think they are 1) definitely wrong or 2) the author has gone "crazy." We may quibble over quality, or standards, laziness, but you seem to be rather invested. No one is right all the time, and there is opinion in his piece. Take with a grain of salt. Not to mention in a country as big as Brazil, anything could and probably did happen, at least at a small scale. GG is living there, I've been there, and the articles did not seem obviously wrong. I'll keep my eyes peeled however.
	▲	hobo123 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Oh you mean lazy. He went lazy, fair enough.

▲

mixmastamyk a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, had a chance to look at those. I'll tell you why they aren't very convincing. They are a third-party telling you what to think. The second article is 90% about RFK. Again GG wasn't critical enough of him for the author.

The podcast (so far, not heard the whole thing) is angry someone tried to make a non-judgemental documentary and/or interview.

Also, you mention Rumble without mentioning why he went elsewhere—censorship during Biden administration. These examples suggest a common lefty myopia.

Instead, I would have expected an article or video where GG directly supports a batshit position. Rather than a simple constitutional freedom of speech position where he allows an unsavory person airtime. At very least a direct link to the source material.

▲

Bud 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[dead]

▲

kristopolous 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Many of the prominent people who went to rumble who got banned from YouTube were doing things like cryptocurrency pump and dumps, cyberbullying and severe targeted harassment with in person assault, targeted attacks and calls to violence, illegal money laundering... you know, crime

Crime stuff. YouTube kicked them because they're a legal liability for YouTube, not because mask wearing pronoun police tsk tsked and wagged a shame finger.

No. This is what a platform with lawyers does when they realize they're platforming crime.

Conservatives need to find a kind of conservatism that doesn't require them constantly running cover to defend obvious con artists, pedophiles, rapists and frauds as they go in and out of prison for things like sex trafficking.

Eject them from your movement like William Buckley did. Being known as the group that champions beating women, committing fraud and yelling slurs isn't a winning strategy.

It's like how libertarians need to get rid of those "age of consent" guys. Campaigning for making piddling children legal doesn't win...

Just my opinion

	▲	mixmastamyk 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, yet none of these things describe GG.