Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Journalist Chris Hedges on Media, Terror, Gaza, and More
Video Transcript
September 24, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google 


It's Friday, September 20. 

Tonight: As I often say on this show, one of the purposes of the twice-a-week After-Shows that we do for our Locals community is to hear suggestions from our viewers about topics we should cover and future guests we should invite. Without a doubt, the person whom our viewers have most frequently and vocally demanded that we speak to is the former New York Times reporter turned independent media powerhouse, Chris Hedges. Why haven't you put Chris Hedges on? When is Chris Hedges coming on? What can we do to help you get Chris Hedges on? And we've been helpfully hectored for months this way by our loyal viewers. 

The reality is that I am a long-time fan of Chris Hedges. I was reading his work even before I entered journalism, and we have been trying for months to find a time when he can come on. The stars finally aligned this week, and we sat down with him for a full hour just a couple of days ago, in a wide-ranging discussion about wars, past and present bipartisan foreign policy dogma, corporate media repression, state propaganda, the 2024 election, and so much more. There are really very few people in Western journalism who understand the Middle East better than him. A fluent speaker of Arabic, he covered multiple wars and conflicts in that region for years for The New York Times, including spending months, if not years in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Israel, as well as covering the wars in Kuwait and Yugoslavia in 2002 and 2003. However, he was forced out of The New York Times because he revolted against their attempts to dilute his reporting to make it align with the institutional ideology of the paper, and most of all, to try to control what he could say. While that may seem a risky move for any reporter to leave The New York Times as an established war correspondent, especially back in 2003, before the advent of exploding and far-reaching independent media, it turned out to be, unsurprisingly, the best possible move for him. Since that departure from The New York Times, both on independent news outlets and on his outstanding Substack page, Chris has broken major stories, providing some of the most informed and developed knowledge of U.S. policy in the Middle East and in general is completely free to express himself however he wants without the slightest fear of consequences. 

Independent media is not a panacea. Earlier this year, Hedges was let go by the ostensibly independent left-wing site, The Real News Network, apparently as a result of his insistence, relentlessly, vocally, and uncompromisingly criticizing Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democrats in the lead-up to the election. But we would be a lot less informed and challenged without Chris Hedges's ongoing ability to thrive thanks to independent media. We are thrilled to show you our discussion with him, not only because it temporarily will put a stop to the hectoring from our audience now that we've had him on, but mostly of all because his perspectives are so worth hearing. 


Interview: Chris Hedges


G. Greenwald: Chris Hedges, it's so great to have you on the show. I have to say that our audience has been hectoring us for months, if not longer, saying why isn't Chris Hayes on the show? Why isn't Chris Hedges coming on? And I kept saying it's not for lack of effort. We just haven't been able to align our schedules. And I'm so glad that finally, we were able to do so. And I'm thrilled to have you on. 

 

Chris Hedges: Well, thanks, Glenn. I'm happy to be here. 

 

G. Greenwald: Absolutely. So, there are a lot of substantive issues about U.S. foreign policy and domestic politics that I want to talk to you about but before I get to that, I want to talk about media and how media has changed and how it's enabled people like you to find an audience without being constrained by corporate media. Because if people ask me who are the journalists who have become most influential in independent media, you're definitely one of the 3 or 4 people I would instantly say are among the top. And the irony of that is that when I first got to know you and know your work, you were not in independent media. You were in the very opposite, sort of the belly of the beast, at The New York Times, right after the immediate aftermath of 9/11. For those people who don't know the story, because I think it's such a revealing story about how corporate media works and how it worked back then, talk about the reasons why you're not any longer with The New York Times. 

 

Chris Hedges: I would say there were two major reasons. I spent seven years in the Middle East, much of that time covering Gaza. I was based in Cairo. The Jerusalem bureau for The New York Times did not really cover Gaza, they made very little effort to cover Gaza. So, I would be sent from Cairo and live in Gaza for weeks at a time. I was very frustrated with the way The New York Times covered Palestine and the way they did it, which was different. I went on to cover the war in Yugoslavia, for instance, and it wasn't like this at all. So, if I was reporting on, let's say, an airstrike on a refugee camp, in Jabalia, or somewhere else, they would pepper the article with, you know, I may have been interviewing an eyewitness, but that immediately would be followed with a different account coming from the IDF out of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or somewhere. It had the effect of essentially neutralizing the story. By the end of the story, you could believe whatever you wanted to believe. And that was very difficult. 

Finally, in frustration, I used my vacation time to go to Gaza to write an article called “A Gaza Diary,” where I spent 10 days living in the refugee camp of Khan Yunis with a great cartoonist, Joe Sacco, who wrote “Palestine” and “Footnotes on Gaza,” and I said, I'm not going to interview any official, I'm not going to interview any PLO official, I'm not going to interview Hamas officials, I'm just going to write, day by day, what it's like in this refugee camp. That was an eruption at The Times when it was printed. And I was told although I'm an Arabic speaker, I think they only had two or three at the paper at the time, that I would never cover the Middle East again. So, that was the first blow. 

The second blow was the call to invade Iraq. I had spent a lot of time in Iraq. I had not only gone into Kuwait in the first Gulf War – I was not embedded, I was what they called a unilateral, which meant that I wasn't part of any military pool but I had grafted onto a Marine Corps unit, had gone into Kuwait with them and then stayed on in the Middle East for The New York Times, covering the destruction of the stockpiles and Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons, mostly in artillery shells. So, I covered all of that. I knew he might have had a tiny residue, but I knew he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I knew it was a lie. I knew the whole premise of invading Iraq, which of course had nothing to do with 9/11, was the fiasco it became certainly up until Gaza, you know, the greatest war crime. I mean, you have to go back to Vietnam or something. And I couldn't keep quiet about that. So, I spoke very publicly on big media programs, and that angered The New York Times, especially after I was booed off the commencement stage and I was given a formal written reprimand from the paper. Though under guild rules, you get the reprimand done in writing, I was called into the office of an assistant managing editor, Bill Schmidt, and given the reprimand, presented with the reprimand and then if I violated that reprimand, if I continued to speak about the war, then I, under guild rules, could be fired. I wasn't going to stop speaking about the war and that ended my career at The New York Times. 

 

G. Greenwald: The debate that is just eternal, that people on the left and right have, is over the bias of The New York Times. What is the ideological posture of The New York Times? Conservatives internally insist there is some left-liberal bias or whatever, and then you have people on the left or even liberals who insist that it has this kind of institutional conservative bias. For me, I've always thought that the ideology of The New York Times kind of allegiance to the foreign policy community, the U.S. Security State, and it's hard to, especially these days, place it on the left or the right. But I'm wondering and I think there are a lot of people who haven't lived through that history post 9/11, the Iraq war, or people who just did but decided to forget about it. In those instances where The New York Times was diverting your stories, basically negating the things you were reporting with IDF statements, giving them equal weight, and then, especially, with this idea that you somehow couldn't speak out against the Iraq war, even though many, many New York Times journalists were free to speak out in favor of it and were doing that, would you say that the reason was that the Sulzberger family, or The New York Times, just institutionally has this ideological bias in favor of Israel, in favor of wars? Or was it more just the kind of post-9/11, uber jingoism that prevailed where, you know, I would say the majority of people in corporate media decided that their patriotic duty was to align with the War on Terror or post-9/11 policies of the U.S. government? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
QUICK: Ask Questions for Today's Mailbag!

Glenn will be discussing the Israel-Iran conflict and a Trump Administration official who is in an awkward political predicament, so questions on other topics are more likely to be chosen.

Seymour Hersh said the US will commence action this weekend.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-i-have-been-told-is-coming-in

Cool Episode of ‘The Why Files’……

post photo preview
U.S. and Israel vs Iran: Repeating War on Iraq Scripts; Overwhelming Bipartisan Consensus for Israel's Wars
System Update #469

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

The war initiated by Israel against Iran last Thursday was dangerous from the start and has each day only become more dangerous. President Trump has boasted of his pre-war coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's already been using U.S. military assets to protect Israel. He's now even re-deploying aircraft carriers in the Pacific, where we're told they are guarding against America's greatest enemy – China – now to the Middle East, where Israel has demanded they go to support its war. 

Just a few minutes ago, President Trump ordered the 16 million people who live in Tehran to immediately evacuate a city where it's now 2 a.m. 

With Israel, as always, demanding more. Now, they want the U.S. planes and bombs to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities for them. The former Israeli defense minister went on CNN just an hour ago and told President Trump in the U.S. that it's our obligation to fight this war with them. And for them, President Trump has repeatedly opened the possibility of even greater U.S. involvement in the war. 

There are so many aspects of this new conflict worth covering and dissecting –and we will do so throughout the week – but tonight we want to focus on the amazing ease the U.S. government has in convincing its population to support whatever new war is presented to it. Over four years ago, intense war propaganda from the U.S. political class and media persuaded Americans to want to fund and arm the war in Ukraine – a war that is still dragging on with no favorable end in sight – and overnight huge numbers of people in the United States have suddenly become convinced without having ever said so previously that war with Iran is some sort of moral imperative as well as a strategic necessity for the survival of American citizens of the United States. 

No matter how debunked, discredited and disgraced that Iraq war narrative has become, as long as one just waits 20 or 25 years, then, apparently, that same script just works like magic all over again. You just haul it out, fearmongering, and huge numbers of people respond by saying, "Yes, let's go to war, let' kill people." 

We'll examine all of that, as well as the standard bipartisan unity in support of new American wars and especially wars involving Israel, you hear Democrats almost unanimously, either staying quiet or praising President Trump, with just a few exceptions from both parties. And we'll look at that as well. 

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

AD_4nXdXi3PHhIfI5UY5jue2s_VN_Dre1s5GH_qzxPS39EBWpyASwtOnszEASDMpdRuJzVlrD4idh5uDoPcdU38-w-kpHnSvAo9rtxSpcN4lW-sAiALyp2wxVRGqfHoLUqaYrKPxb_-HZMv3-aKzQLw90g?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

If you're an American citizen as an adult, you have seen the United States repeatedly go to war. Anyone 18 or over has seen the United States involved in all sorts of wars and that's after the Iraq war, which is now 22 years ago. Essentially, if you're American, it means forever, for a long, long time, for many decades, that you are a citizen of a country that's always at war. 

After World War II, there was a very visible and clear pattern, which is that the U.S. government convinces its citizens, enough of them, to support the war at the beginning. They deluge them with war propaganda, which is extremely strong, primal, tribal and enough Americans initially support the war to let the U.S. government politically go and drop bombs or finance some other country to go drop bombs for it. Then, after six months, a year, or two years, or four years, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war that they were convinced to support. Going back to the war in Vietnam, throughout the 1980s’ wars, the War on Terror in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, the financing of the war in Ukraine, Israel's destruction of Gaza, bombing Yemin and now this new war that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in, in lots of different ways and we're only on the fifth day.

You just see so many Americans on a dime the minute a new war is presented to them, with whatever pretext can be conjured, even if they're exactly the same pretext that most Americans lived through watching proved to be complete lies the last time it was used in 2003, even though it's exactly the same script, exactly the same pretext, coming from exactly the same people. You can get enough Americans to immediately stand up and start cheering for death and destruction and bombing. Not all, a very substantial minority oppose it, I think if the U.S. overtly gets even more involved in the war in Iran, obviously anything resembling ground troops entering Iran, but even perhaps prolonged bombing of Iran as well through U.S. jets and bombs, as President Trump has indicated and Israel has demanded, maybe some of that will erode, that support will erode. But all that's needed is enough support at the beginning of the war to let the government start it. And once the U.S. government enters the war, it doesn't matter anymore whether the people continue to support it; then it's just already done. All the normal arguments are assembled about why we can't stop, why we can't cut and run, why that would be appeasement, etc., etc. All the same scripts all the time, used over and over, and even though they get proven to be discredited, or unpersuasive, or full of lies, you just use the same ones each time. And that's how the United States stays as a country at war.

We've been hearing a lot of people saying, “Look, I'm happy that Israel is bombing Iran, as long as the U.S. has no involvement in the war, we don't enter it, we don't have to pay for it. As long as it's not our war, I'm fine with it.” But, of course, the entire Israeli military is funded by American taxpayers. Every time Israel has a new war, the weapons that it uses come from the United States, transferred to Israel. We pay for their wars, we arm their wars, we support diplomatically those wars and we use our military assets every single time and our intelligence apparatus to support and enable the war, as the United States is already doing. We already have multiple new U.S. military assets ordered to the region by President Trump. They're already active in protecting Israel from retaliation. President Trump openly said that he is considering the possibility of involving the U.S. even more directly in this war with Iran: "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. (ABC News. June 15, 2025.)

That all depends on what you mean by ‘involved.’ We're paying for the war, we're arming the war, we've deployed military assets that are actively now trying to shoot down missiles coming from Iran as retaliation for the Israelis launching a completely unprovoked attack on Iran, based on the claim that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons, just weeks away, something they've been saying for 30 years, as we've shown you many times, same thing that was said in 2002. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
U.S. Involvement in Israel's Iran Attack; the View from Tehran: Iranian Professor on Reactions to Strikes; CATO Analysts on Dangers and War Escalations

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXd1VoS9xg7si8ZviLBfSqd9c5_FMQdODz9RYxLWVBvtebHFOs0oWtttaWP_7qvL_VZdS0enruALLjYbkU-CdLQUDxNECHRbc5Y9OjrLuK-6y6Uq602-Q9fTzTYkN5_S0oVACoqvAhTWU86eCRc8vZU?key=lmRJixp6Jlz5wRA3fSBDAg

Today's most important news is obvious: Israel last night launched a major military assault on Iran, targeting residential buildings in Tehran, where military commanders and nuclear physicists live with their families, as well as bombing multiple nuclear facilities throughout the country. 

Triumphalist rhetoric flooded American and Israeli discourse almost immediately, until just a little bit ago, when a barrage of Iran's ballistic and hypersonic missiles began hitting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other major population centers. Escalation seems virtually inevitable at this point. The level of escalation – always the most dangerous question when a new war has started – is most certainly yet to be determined. 

Then there's the question of the role of the United States and President Trump in all of this. News reports from both the U.S. and Israeli media suggested this morning that Trump was working hand-in-hand with the Israelis to pretend that he was still optimistic about a diplomatic resolution with Tehran, but did so only as a ruse to convince the Iranians that Trump intended to restrain Israel and thus lure Iran into a false sense of security when, in fact, Trump was not only green-lighting the attack but actively working with the Israelis to launch it. President Trump's own statements today proudly boasting of the success of the attack, along with his own concrete actions such as ordering U.S. military assets into position to yet again defend Israel, strongly bolster those reports and clearly indicate a direct U.S. involvement in this war between Israel and Iran, a U.S. involvement that already exists and will almost certainly continue to grow over the next few days and perhaps few weeks and even months. 

We’ll speak to Professor Mohammad Marandi, who is in Tehran and has heard and witnessed a lot of what happened but also has some unique analysis from his role as an American Iranian scholar of foreign policy and to scholars Justin Logan and Jon Hoffman, from the Cato Institute, one of the very few think tanks in the United States, which has long counselled restraint and non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Federal Court Dismisses & Mocks Lawsuit Brought by Pro-Israel UPenn Student; Dave Portnoy, Crusader Against Cancel Culture, Demands No More Jokes About Jews; Trump's Push to Ban Flag Burning
System Update #466

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

In the first segment, we’ll talk about the victimhood narrative that holds that American Jews, in general, and Jewish students on college campuses in particular, are uniquely threatened, marginalized and endangered. One of the faces of this student victimhood narrative has become Eyal Yakoby, who is a vocal pro-Israel activist and a student at the University of Pennsylvania. 

In 2024, he was invited by House Republicans to stand next to House Speaker Mike Johnson and he proclaimed: I do not feel safe. He said it over and over. “I do not feel safe” has kind of become the motto for his adult life. Now, he seized on those opportunities by initiating a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania seeking damages for what he said was the school's failure to fulfill its duties to keep him safe. Mind you, he was never physically attacked, never physically menaced, never physically threatened, but nonetheless claimed that the school had failed to keep him safe and told the congress in the country that he did not feel safe. 

The federal judge who is presiding over his lawsuit, who just happens to be a Jewish judge, a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush, not only dismissed Yakoby's lawsuit as without any basis, but really viciously mocked it, depicting his claims as a little more than petulant entitled demands from a privileged Ivy League student who wants to not be exposed to any ideas or political activism that might upset him – sort of depicting him as the Princess in “The Princess and the Pea,” Andersen’s literary fairytale about a princess who's so sensitive to anything that might concern her, that she's even unable to sleep if there's a pea buried beneath the seventeenth mattress on which she sleeps. 

This judicial decision is worth examining not only for the schadenfreude of watching one of America's whiniest pro-Israel activists be exposed as a self-interested fraud that he is, but also for what it says about the broader narrative that has been so relentlessly pushed and so endlessly exploited from so many corners, insisting that the supreme victim group of the United States is, of all people, American Jews. 

Then: speaking of extreme entitlement, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy made quite a name for himself over many years by ranting against the evils of cancel culture, championing the virtues of free speech, and viciously mocking as snowflakes and as people who are far too sensitive anyone who takes offense at jokes, offensive jokes told by comedians. That is what made it so odd – yet so telling – when this weekend we watched the very same Dave Portnoy viciously berated one of his employees for disagreeing with Portnoy's insistence that while jokes about everyone and every group continue to be appropriate, there must now be one exception: namely, according to Portnoy, jokes about Portnoy's own group,  American Jews,  must now be suspended and deemed too dangerous to permit. 

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

AD_4nXeNPsWu8SYZVkQAs1AKBVzXSCqCNnJSXFRz97DnkaHGIxGix2Zh6YmbJTQCrmPrgX3vqBOePYDLHyYhwxRNyY7s7q2Ucj32uOVbkk6jWZgH6dWxrUKjcwab1q_D0yJ_S0Fv_z7W0ckJp94i_tscuw?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

There have been really a lot of radical and fundamental changes, first on the political culture and then in our legal landscape as a result of the attack on October 7, and particularly the desire of the United States – by both parties – to arm the Israelis, to fund the Israelis, to protect the Israelis as they went about and destroyed Gaza. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals