Greenwald details why fearful journalists refuse to question ‘instantly formed’ Paul Pelosi narrative

In a world where individuals can get de-platformed, de-banked, or flat-out canceled based on the whims of a temperamental mob, journalist Glenn Greenwald not only explained why his peers are afraid to ask questions regarding Paul Pelosi’s alleged attack–“it can ruin your career”–he went ahead and asked them anyway.

Hours after news broke that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband Paul had reportedly been assaulted with a hammer at their home in San Francisco, little was known about the suspect and investigators had not determined a motive, but that didn’t stop corporate media and progressive politicians from assigning one.

As they ran with the narrative that the alleged attacker, who supposedly asked “Where’s Nancy?”, was there in some kind of right-wing assassination attempt against the speaker, but had somehow allowed for Paul Pelosi to briefly step away from being burgled to call the police, Greenwald took to Twitter not to refute the story, but to assert that “basic journalism” demanded it be questioned.

“It’s very possible that the instantly formed media narrative — Paul Pelosi’s attacker was a MAGA fanatic who broke in to murder Nancy — will be proven true,” he offered to open his thread. “But right now there are so many glaring doubts and holes in that story that it just takes common sense to question this.”

The fault was not wholly thrust upon Democratic sympathizers in the media as Greenwald went on to lay equal blame on the consumers who merely accept whatever they are spoon-fed: “It’s genuinely alarming how conditioned so much of the US population is to equate skepticism toward the pronouncements of media corporations with mental illness: ‘If you don’t instantly accept what Wolf Blitzer and Andrea Mitchell claim, then you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist.'”

Though he couldn’t speak to the seemingly blanket acceptance from some, he could address the problem from the side of the media as he noted the very real danger to livelihoods that speaking out of turn presented.

“It’s so crucial to understand the dynamic dominating journalism. Few journalists have career security. Imagine you’re a young journalist at a big media corporation. You know if you ask three questions, Twitter will explode and it can ruin your career,” he wrote.

Greenwald provided an example of the kinds of questions that ought to be addressed by “The Megyn Kelly Show” executive producer Steve Krakauer: “Why wasn’t there signs of forced entry at Pelosi home? Who was 3rd person who opened door for police? Why was Pelosi holding hammer, and attack only happened after police arrived? Where is bodycam/security footage? Why isn’t the press asking these questions?”

“This happened often during Russiagate: I got texts/DMs/emails from younger journalists inside big media corporations thanking me for being skeptical. They couldn’t. One Twitter mob against them for questioning Dem narrative (see @DashaBurns or @BoKnowsNews) can be career-ending,” Greenwald went on in part, referencing the backlash that Dasha Burns had received for being transparent about her interview with Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman.

If there were any doubt about the pressures that can be applied by the mob, even Elon Musk, who considers himself a “free speech absolutist” and spent $44 billion purchasing Twitter to promote that ideal, deleted his reply to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling into question the narrative of the Pelosi story.

“Many journalists see the glaring questions and evidentiary holes in the Paul [Pelosi] narrative. But they also know how important that narrative is to Dems right before the mid-terms,” Greenwald explained. “So why stick their heads up, provoke a liberal Twitter mob, and be branded? That’s the climate.”

“Police investigating the Paul Pelosi attack continue to state they *do not know the motive.* Yet liberal ‘thought leaders’ like @HillaryClinton and @jimmykimmel have decreed that not only is the motive known to them, but only insane or malicious people would question them,” he added.

Circling back to his original concession, he wrote, “I don’t have theories to affirm about motives because I don’t try to convince the public to believe things for which there is no evidence yet. That’s called *basic journalism.* The preferred narrative may end up right but most of it is based on massaged-by-CNN anonymous claims.”

With that, he affirmed the import of unbiased journalism and offered the questions the media has seemingly remained all too willing to ignore: “I’d like to know: How someone broke into the home of one of the richest and most powerful families without setting off an alarm. How Paul Pelosi could call 9/11 in the middle of this. Who is the ‘unknown’ person who opened the door for the police? Where is the video?”

As an exclamation point to “The Emperor’s New Clothes” styled behavior of the media, Greenwald included a photo of the “hippie collective” residence that the suspect was reportedly staying at filled with leftist Easter eggs, and stated, “Also, this photograph seems worth examining:”

DONATE TO AMERICAN WIRE

If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to American Wire News to help us fight them.

Thank you for your donation!
Kevin Haggerty

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles