no. He used to do right-to-reply, no longer does.

He used to do two-source rule, no longer does.

He used to provide contextual clarity, no longer does.

He used to disclose conflict of interests, no longer does.

He used to provide citations and audit trails for his work, no longer does.

Every single rule from the society of professional journalists he's thrown out the window. Here he is pushing conspiracy drivel with a bunch of emdashes: https://substack.com/home/post/p-222186026

I mean look at this: "After the first round of voting, it is true that a Lula victory was unlikely. And last night’s outcome was a surprise even when viewed through the prism of traditional polling and analytical metrics."

No it's not. There's plenty of actual journalism on this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/nov/05/unsung-heroes-...

Yet here he is in the article doing stolen election bullshit: "What I do think is vital to note, however, is that there were election irregularities in the vote last night, and they illustrate one of the worst legacies of Lula’s last four years."

Oh really Glen? Do you have direct knowledge sources? Documents as evidence? Anyone willing to go on record? Journalism doesn't involve wildly unfounded conspiracies. Keep that on TLC.

And look at this:

"The court last night approved a request from Lula’s campaign to extend by two hours the close of Brazil’s voting."

Once again, this isn't journalism. Both candidates requested it. https://valorinternational.globo.com/politics/news/2026/10/2...

Then the losing candidate called it nonsense even though he requested it and he got what he requested. But Glen is more than happy to play along with this obvious deception in an AI-written partisan hackery that he ostensibly charges people for reading.

I could go on, but this is unequivocally not journalism.

Compare that to the place he left covering the same event: https://theintercept.com/2026/10/27/flavio-bolsonaro-trump-v...

See how they follow all those rules and he does not anymore?