Originally Posted by DSpivack
You mean the Greenwald who is employed by the Guardian and who usually cites his sources
And Greenwald, for other reasons in his background, is as flawed and biased as they come.
The evidence speaks to the contrary. I don't want to get in a political debate, but it's pretty obvious what's going on when every mogul owned publication in the country loses it's mind to call Greenwald a terrorist for revealing a spying program targeting all Americans, hidden from all Americans, and lied about by the director of the NSA to Congress. The major media is a tool of the government, not nearly as obvious as China, but still pretty damn obvious. You want to defend that by calling Greenwald "flawed" and "biased", that's fine. I feel that speaks more to a pretty obvious bias towards either controlling information or simply repeating what you've been told to believe.