“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”And here's how he described where he's headed with the NSA story the other day on twitter.
The more they lie, the more documents will be released showing they're lying.That, my friends, is what you call a negative feedback loop (accompanied - of course - by an ill-conceived threat).
Negative feedback occurs when the result of a process influences the operation of the process itself in such a way as to reduce changes.There's nowhere for Greenwald to go with these kinds of assumptions but down the wormhole. He'll keep assuming that everything anyone in government says is a lie that validates his assumption that they are lying.
In other words, it is the classic case of what Chris Mooney described as motivated reasoning.
...when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers. Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”—and is shot through with biases.This is clearly not going to end well for Mr. Greenwald. Perhaps he should have stuck to lawyering.