The point of the article is that journalists telling tales on dubious things semi-public figures wrote on social media is bad, particularly when they make evidence-free claims about their motives for doing it and appear to mostly be trying to encourage an enraged mob to pile on. In isolation, this might be considered a reasonable point to make.
To prove his point the author, a journalist, spends most of his article telling us a tale about a dubious thing a semi-public figure wrote on social media, claims she is "malicious, disgusting and sociopathic", suggests the only possible motivation for journalists like her investigating things which semi public figures say off the record is "to control, to coerce, to dominate, to repress"[1] and says his followers should feel "a particular obligation" to heap scorn on her and other targets of his ire.
My irony meter exploded.
[1]yes, this is the founder of The Intercept and prominent Wikileaks advocate Glenn Greenwald suggesting there's something wrong with "eavesdropping on private conversations" of influential billionaires by getting invited to their chatroom.
I don't understand? The difference between author and NYT reporter is one reported a lie, and the other reported based off of facts (though will a lot of emotion/ tone).
Sure, the journalist's tweet was incorrect, but in Glenn's own words "that she got it all wrong is arguably the least humiliating and pathetic aspect of all of this".. His entire schtick is that "tattletale" hanging out in forums naming and shaming of people for comments they made is bad, and he does so in an article consisting entirely of naming and shaming people, ending by saying that people should feel obligation to scorn them
A freelancer tweets a banal point that Substack's level of direct support for its writers means that - unlike Patreon - at some stage they're going to have to consider perceived editorial slant if they end up promoting a lot of high profile contratrians, and receives a whole 17 likes for doing so. Several months later Greenwald accuses him of the thoughtcrime of "shaming Substack" and includes him on his list of people to heap scorn on. And Glenn wants you to believe it's other journalists that have developed an unhealthy obsession with hanging out on social media looking for targets...
To prove his point the author, a journalist, spends most of his article telling us a tale about a dubious thing a semi-public figure wrote on social media, claims she is "malicious, disgusting and sociopathic", suggests the only possible motivation for journalists like her investigating things which semi public figures say off the record is "to control, to coerce, to dominate, to repress"[1] and says his followers should feel "a particular obligation" to heap scorn on her and other targets of his ire.
My irony meter exploded.
[1]yes, this is the founder of The Intercept and prominent Wikileaks advocate Glenn Greenwald suggesting there's something wrong with "eavesdropping on private conversations" of influential billionaires by getting invited to their chatroom.