Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2009

Astonishing Greenwald Dishonesty: Greenwald Lies About What He Says In a Post — In An Update to the Very Same Post

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:27 am



Glenn Greenwald has added an update to the top of his post about coverage of the Fort Hood shooting, in which he professes to be shocked — shocked!! that Allahpundit and I took his post as an attack on us in any way.

I didn’t write a critical word about Allahpundit — let alone about Patterico — both of whom are now screaming that I “smeared” them. In fact, to the extent I commented on Allahpundit’s commentary at all, it was to state that “at times” he was “appropriately skeptical.”

This is easily shown to be an utter lie. All I have to do is quote Greenwald’s original post:

Allahpundit’s post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and — at times — appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.

News flash: when you say that a blogger is passing along a bunch of false information, that does not constitute praise. That is criticism.

I knew Greenwald was capable of bold and breathtaking dishonesty, but I never thought that his lies would extend to misrepresenting the content of his own post, in an update to that very post.

(By the way, as I show in my post below, the bolded language is false, as most of the claims that Allahpundit passed along from Twitter were true — including items that contradicted the official narrative put out by government officials. The two times that Allahpundit passed along Twitter rumors that added to the confusion and had no basis in reality, Allahpundit explicitly warned readers that the claims were unverified — warnings that were deleted by Greenwald in his quotation of Allahpundit.)

Greenwald’s update, in fact, makes it even more clear that he intended to slam both Big Media for getting facts wrong, and “right-wing bloggers” for mindlessly passing along the inaccurate Big Media claims. Greenwald dismisses Allahpundit’s commentary with phrases like “right-wing bloggers who copy down what they are hearing on TV” and “Hot Air’s dutiful passing on of their reports” and “Allahpundit’s thorough stenographic recording of what he was hearing.” As much as he wants to deny that he intends to slam Allahpundit, these phrases reveal quite clearly that Greenwald is portraying Allahpundit as a mindless stenographer who dutifully passes along anything he sees on TV. In that regard, then, Greenwald’s update confirms precisely what he is trying to deny.

This further proves that his repeated surgical removal of Allahpundit’s expressions of caution were not accidents, but were acts of deliberate dishonesty.

In other words, par for the course.

57 Responses to “Astonishing Greenwald Dishonesty: Greenwald Lies About What He Says In a Post — In An Update to the Very Same Post”

  1. He watches a lot of tv I guess so we don’t have to. I appreciate that cause sometimes people go on the tv and say interesting things. They just never do it if I’m watching.

    happyfeet (f62c43)

  2. To quote Douglas Adams from “Dirk Gently” –

    “You’re a clever man, Gently Glenn Greenwald,” the cop says. “But you make the same mistake a lot of clever people do. You assume that because you’re smart, everyone else must be stupid.”

    Now, more than ever:

    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius.

    BumperStickerist (4ccc78)

  3. STFU, wingers. Just wait for magoo and MSNBC to tell you the approved narrative. No need to discuss things as they are happening. Wait for your betters to tell you what to think.

    JD (5e5cad)

  4. Allahpundit and Patterico (with an assist from Glenn Reynolds) were trying to ruin the approved storyline, that Hasan acted because of the atrocities of war and American policy toward Muslims.

    That is why Greenwald had to attack.

    MayBee (f18f3a)

  5. Greenwald has as much veracity, and relevance, as Andrew Sullivan, but none of the charm.

    AD - RtR/OS! (7c0a4b)

  6. Those posts might not have been written by Greenwald. There’s some guy living at his house who gets on Greenwald’s computer sometimes. So don’t jump to conclusions.

    gp (72be5d)

  7. Sniff….

    Sniff….

    I smell……sockpuppet.

    N. O'Brain (a4f63e)

  8. Gleenwald lied? Again?

    No one’s surprised, of course.

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  9. I reject your thesis. Greenwald dishonesty does not astonish. Greenwald honesty would astonish.

    SarahW (692fc6)

  10. I think you boys should take this outside. I suppose there are a few people interested in one blogger against another, but after a bit it turns into a nursery school fight.

    katablog.com (c009d8)

  11. one piece of relevant data would be an accounting of how much traffic Greenwald’s links sent Patterico’s way compared to how much traffic Patterico sends Greenwald’s way.

    I’m guessing that Patterico readers are more likely to click-the-link and judge for themselves. Greenwald’s readers are more inclined to accept the pablum offered them without question.

    BumperStickerist (4ccc78)

  12. Hey, Patterico, I find this very interesting! Please keep blogging about stuff like this.

    I suppose this isn’t interesting to Greenwald or Sullivan’s devoted few nutjobs, because there is nothing more boring to them than challenging their assumptions, but to many folks like me, this is important and interesting.

    I know a lot of people seem to be entering the threads here to tell you just how boring this is, or that this is some kind of childish fight, but Greenwald’s the one who started this fight by lying and making major attacks on the integrity of others. He probably doesn’t think integrity is an important thing to attack, since he’s that sockpuppet jackass who has no concept of integrity. regardless, all Allahpundit and you are doing is setting the facts up and showing how Greenwald got them wrong. If that’s childish, then I don’t want you to grow up.

    I think I’m reading this blog a lot more, actually, when you’re showing how Greenwald or the LA Times are baing dishonest. Liberal Fascism: It’s the great story of our times.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  13. Okay, i will admit a certain lack of interest with this kind of flame war, but for me the money quote isn’t what you quoted, Patterico, but this passage a few paragraphs above it:

    > As I made as clear as the English language permits, my post had nothing to do with criticizing Allahpundit’s commentary on the shooting

    Now one can debate whether he was criticizing Allah’s commentary, but there is one thing beyond question: he was not very clear. And i don’t see how a fair minded person upon reflection could say he was clear. We have all been unclear at one time or another, and an honest person cops to a lack of clarity. but instead of that he claims he was as clear as a person could possibly be and that is not at all true.

    I guess you could still defend the guy as a clueless writer, but i am not sure that is much of a defense. And mind you, it is not the lack of clarity that is the crime, but the fact that even now he pretends not to realize how unclear he had been.

    A.W. (b1db52)

  14. I do not read Salon. I was before today unfamiliar with Glenn Greenwald. His post, and update indicate I have not been missing anything. Anyone can spout opinions and showcase attitude for the consumption of those that value such things. The issue resulting in the update is one of fact. It is a fact that Greenwald referred to Allahpundit by name and presented edited quotes to his readers to illustrate a point he was apparently attempting to make. Obscuring context is one thing, but quoting someone without including their contemporaneous observations on the exact quote being offered is the work of a weasel. Calling out that person in an update for objecting to this treatment while posturing about your own importance – and still refusing to address the issue on the merits – well that indicates Greenwald is both a weasel and a coward.

    JDBlackaby (1309cf)

  15. JDBlackaby, It’s interesting to consider what Greenwald thought the issue was.

    Greenwald, when he sockpuppetted, tried to make it clear that Greenwald was really, really, really awesome. That he is super smart, successful, quoted by politicians, etc.

    I don’t think Greenwald’s attacks on Allahpundit are all that concerned with the news surrounding the shooting. He’s trying to show us why Greenwald is a really special and smart person, but not by being smart or special… but by attacking someone else as a stupid stenographer. To greenwald, it’s all a big pissing match. He needs to reduce other bloggers in order to get ahead.

    Allahpundit doesn’t do that, because it’s lame and it’s ineffective. In order to build his blog, Allahpundit gets news to readers, with insightful commentary.

    Greenwald doesn’t even understand the point of news. Everything he’s ever done, from his ridiculously long posts, to his self promotion, to his paranoid attacks on people who don’t really care that Greenwald exists, speaks to his amazing level of insecurity, which blinds him from trying to inform and discuss fairly.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  16. Your determination to entirely miss Greenwald’s point in order preserve your own petty indignation is telling. The overarching theme of his original post was the complete lack of standards in the MSM–a topic he has been covering quite frequently. Yet you throw around accusations that he “slammed” you and Allahpundit when all of your examples are merely inferences plucked from his broader message:

    Greenwald’s implication is clear: right-wing blogger Patterico shouldn’t have recommended Allahpundit’s coverage — and right-wing blogger Glenn Reynolds shouldn’t have linked Patterico’s recommendation of Allahpundit.

    Shouldn’t a slam be…well..obvious? Or this:

    News flash: when you say that a blogger is passing along a bunch of false information, that does not constitute praise. That is criticism.

    No, it is a statement of fact. When you pass on a piece of information that you qualify with needing a “grain of salt” you are, by that very fact, admitting that the information is likely (and, in the end, proved to be) false. End of discussion. The false information has been passed along. That’s what Allahpundit does.

    Again, Greenwald was simply using Allapundit as an aggregation of MSM’s reckless reporting of a tragedy–reporting that often causes lasting harm long after the facts come to light in these racially/culturally charged stories. In that sense he was complementing Allahpundit’s ability to monitor the entirety of the MSM and condense it into a blog. He didn’t expect information reported there to be 100% accurate, and he made it abundantly clear that the fault for these inaccuracies lies with the MSM and not Allahpundit on that account.

    With or without the grains of salt, Allahpundit is an echo chamber–according to you, one the best.

    Jim (3d363b)

  17. No, Gleenwald is the liar, and his sycophants can’t change that. He misstated the basic facts, and now is attempting to backpedal.

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  18. Gleenwald showed himself to be an utter liar in his sock-puppetry, and any report from him needs to be treated as a series of lies from start to finish.

    If he’d ever admit what he did (his sock-puppetry), maybe he’d become someone to be merely distrusted.

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  19. According to Jim, we must only focus on Greenwald’s point, whatever the hell that is. We do not have the right to point out that Greenwald made a vicious slur against someone, and was lying. Because Greenwald doesn’t want us to.

    Greenwald’s always got 20 topics in each post of his. He can always say we’re missing the point as we go on and on debunking each of his points.

    Allahpundit was a much better source for news about this shooting than Salon, the NYT, or CNN. That’s a fact.

    Jim: THIS POST HERE AT PATTERICO is about Greenwald being a liar. It is therefore, on topic to point out how Greenwald lies a lot. It’s not relevant that Greenwald had some big point that he attempted to show while lying a lot… he still lied.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  20. I’m further amazed that anyone would accuse AP of being an echochamber… his blog, of course, is a place of fierce disagreements.

    Allahpundit is very well known for challenging the right. Echo chamber? What a dumb accusation… and again, in defense of a proven liar. It’s probably Greenwald himself.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  21. Dustin, you missed the point about how you all kinda missed the point. I guess I’m not surprised.

    We do not have the right to point out that Greenwald made a vicious slur against someone

    The hyperbole is bordering on insanity. Okay, I reaffirm your right to point out the “vicious slur”. Now all you have to do is point it out.

    Jim (3d363b)

  22. Echo chamber? What a dumb accusation….[elipsis]…Allahpundit was a much better source for news about this shooting than Salon, the NYT, or CNN. That’s a fact.

    Okay, so explain this:

    “Whether there are two shooters or three seems to be in dispute at the moment, but there’s certainly more than one”

    That’s about the grand daddy of all blindly regurgitated “certainties” that came out of this story, straight from Allahpundit. No grain of salt, no nothing. The difference between a lone gunman and a terrorist conspiracy infiltrating an Army base is a pretty significant point to get wrong, don’t you think?

    The irony is that Greenwald wasn’t even criticizing AP for getting this wrong, at least not in the first post. But the ensuing hissy fit brought all of this to light. Conservative strategery at its finest.

    Jim (3d363b)

  23. Jim

    So let me get this straight. Greenwald says “i didn’t criticize Allahpundit.”

    Patterico calls him a liar.

    And you say, “Allahpundit deserves the criticism Greenwald gave him.”

    Even if true, even if Allahpundit deserved to be criticized, still, haven’t you confessed that Greenwald was lying when he said he didn’t criticize him?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  24. And of course those quotes are paraphrase, not actual quotes. i should have made that clear.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  25. You have to love the aggressive dishonesty of the gleeeeens and his gleenwaldian minions, like Jim.

    JD (b9ca6b)

  26. “hissy fit”

    Why do all these people use the same kind of chauvinist style language?

    we’re all not manly enough, too childish, too womanly? What’s that all about?

    Greenwald lied. It doesn’t matter if Jim thinks we are unhuman and don’t deserve to be talked about honestly. There is absolutely nothing a liberal could say that is too awful, and nothing a conservative can say that is good enough. Greenwald gets to act like trash, use tactics and arguments that are obviously stupid, and his little group thinks no less of him. But heaven forbid someone on the right make an intelligent, well documented, and honest post defending themself. Why, that would be a hissy fit!

    That’s Jim’s argument. He really thinks that’s an effective way to rebut so much evidence.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  27. JUST SIT BACK AND WAIT FOR THE GLEEEEEEENS, MAGOO, AND JIM TO TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK !!!!!!!!!!

    JD (0f9c01)

  28. The Quran says it is acceptable to lie to everyone who is not a Mohammedan. Liberals say it is acceptable to lie to conservatives in order to get to their goal. Criminals say it is acceptable to lie to the powers-that-be. A series of unrelated incidents?

    Hrmmmmmm…

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  29. Jim, Greenwald “Dowdified” the words from AP’s blog…

    He changed them so that they would mean something other than the meaning clearly implied by the writer…

    I’ll call that a lie; you call it what you want, but remember, when you do, it’s still a lie…

    Semper Fi…

    reff (01cf4c)

  30. Those posts might not have been written by Greenwald.

    Same MO and BS we heard last time he was exposed as a sockpuppet extraordinaire.

    There’s some guy living at his house who gets on Greenwald’s computer sometimes. So don’t jump to conclusions.

    See, I heard that “some guy” who may or may not be living with Rick Ellers and his cabana boy may or may not be using his computer. After all, who really knows what’s going on in his home?

    Parents, do you know where your computer is right now?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  31. Dmac, I was joking!

    gp (72be5d)

  32. Greenwald was… reckless… causes lasting harm… 100%… lies… Allahpundit is… one the best.

    Greenwald… criticizing AP… hissy fit… at its finest.

    You got it, other Jim.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  33. I have never seen a political movement so willing and eager to get outraged.

    You guys are so damn entertaining. It’s like a victimhood race:

    “Allah, like Glenn was talking about you in Social Studies.”

    “Oh, no he wasn’t”

    Oh, yes, he was. I went off on him!”

    Rather than the great Douglas Adams, I am reminded of the “Jehovah” scene from Life of Brian. Greenwald can’t even type the name “Allahpundit” or admit to reading Patterico with committing an offense. A terrible offense at that.

    timb (449046)

  34. Gleenwald has shown himself to be a serial liar.

    So I take it with a ton of rock salt anytime he professes to be accurate, and I discount any attempt by his sycophants to explain away his lies.

    steve miller (0fb51f)

  35. I have… a… movement… I am… Jehovah…

    Greenwald can’t even… admit to… committing an offense. A terrible offense at that.

    timb is on point!

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  36. Jim, as usual, is the voice of sanity in this asylum. Greenwald must be taken at his word and (therefore) has not slurred anyone by accusing him of passing on falsehoods. Not that “passing on falsehoods” would be a slur. But I, I mean, Greenwald, didn’t say that. Or something.

    Yay Jim! Wanna move in?

    Rick Ellers (890cbf)

  37. Dmac, I was joking!

    Totally missed the context there – my bad.

    You guys are so damn entertaining.

    No question – but compared to timb’s inane rantings, even a slug race would be more exhilirating.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  38. I was pissed I missed the Greenwald bashing thread over the weekend but was very heartened to see more opportunities emerge.

    With Gluppets and sycophants like magoo and Jim the prospect of hilarity is high. It is a good thing that Greenwald himself never serves as a stenographer, unquestionably repeating crap published by others, such as the Al Jazeera jihadi propaganda version of what happened at Haditha he was peddling so hard for so long. Has he ever retracted those screeds?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  39. I am also amazed that for someone revered as a progressive icon he doesn’t get much play on talking head shows, or at least prominent ones. Even Jane Hamster gets appearances. Why is that?

    Is it because he looks like a ferret and can’t stop interrupting and talking over people?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  40. Somebody is actually suprised that Greenwald lies?

    C’mon.

    You’re pulling my leg, right?

    I even heard Socky McSockpuppet claim he wasn’t a liberal once.

    I about died laughing.

    Dave Surls (085710)

  41. All of the Gleeeeens were on MadCow’s show last week, daley.

    JD (51c88c)

  42. Aside from the ellipses issue, it’s funny to see Greenwald use such denigrating and dramatic flourishes in his I’m Shocked explanation.

    “right-wing hysteria, borderline illiteracy, narcissicism, screaming outrage, because writing about right-wing bloggers inevitably leads to these sorts of petty and worthless outbursts of accusatory, self-absorbed petulance (“he’s smearing us!!!!”) that then force one to waste more reader time by responding; toxic combination of reading comprehension failures combined with an “everything-is-about-me” narcissistic complex…”

    Too much drama. He’s just exhausting.

    Patterico, no wonder he thinks you’re screaming; which is funny because I didn’t hear you scream but did hear you logically and systematically explain the issue of the ellipses. Of course I may be one of those right-wingers guilty of a toxic combination of reading comprehension failure and narcissistic complex, but I can live with it.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  43. JD – That’s why I put the prominent qualifier in there.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  44. Dana,
    I can easily see Greenwald’s hysteria at work, and I’m not even a conservative.

    Gleen cites a couple of conservative bloggers, makes nasty asides about their passing along mostly false reports, dowdifies their caveats, then says he wasn’t criticizing them.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  45. The Gleeeeens are all preening dishonest gits.

    JD (51c88c)

  46. Projectionists, JD. In several senses of the term.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  47. The Gleeeeens are all preening dishonest gits.

    A cabal of drama queens. Meh.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  48. This idea that the Gleeeeens can lie and distort, and if you point out, objectively, where they lied and distorted, then you are the one being hysterical and throwing a hissy fit is odd. How dare you defend yourself?!

    JD (0b20bd)

  49. How hard is it to realize that GG was talking about MSM and not YOU? Is English that hard to understand?

    flanders (70a607)

  50. Flanders,

    Greenwald obviously attacked Allahpundit. There’s no doubt whatsoever that he did. It doesn’t matter that he also attacked the MSM… he lied about Allahpundit to attack him, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with defending Allahpundit for that.

    You and several others come in here, say the exact same thing, and then leave. It’s pathetic.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  51. You do realize that OJ Simpson really only meant his murder of Nicole Simpson and not Goldman? Is intent so hard to understand?

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  52. Why do those drive-by’s from the gleeeeens’ place even bother? If he had not intended to criticize AP and Patterico, then he should not have criticized them, and then lied about it.

    JD (a79349)

  53. Flanders – If GiGi wasn’t talking about Patterico, why was he even mentioned?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  54. Tell me that thisPreview of this week’s South Park doesn’t absolutely channel Greenwald and his followers.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  55. dustin, daleyrocks, etc.-

    if you can’t understand the difference in his column then you’re completely off the rocker. this argument is beyond pathetic. throwing the word lie around doesn’t make it any better.

    flanders (70fdcc)

  56. What a compelling argument, flanders. You convinced me. How could I ever have doubted the honesty of the Gleeeens?!

    JD (61265f)

  57. jim treacher

    if you are the same guy from the blog that used to be called “mother may i sleep with jim treacher” can i constructively say, stop commenting here and go write some comedy on your blog. seriously, i miss that.

    A.W. (e7d72e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4114 secs.