Last Wednesday’s Democracy Now posed a superficially vexing question to the two Pulitzer Prize winning journalists it had invited to appear on the program.
How could they have reached radically different conclusions on the recently released Mueller report?
One of these, David Cay Johnston, was not shy about offering his explanation.
The discrepancy was due to a basic difference in journalistic approach: Johnston, he claimed, was “not driven here at all by emotion. . . I deal in facts that I can prove and verify.” Johnston was distinguishing himself from the other invitee, Pulitzer winner Glenn Greenwald, who, Johnston inferred, deals in the realm of speculation and irrationality.