Earlier this week the New York Times' Paul Krugman chided the media not just for being too soft on presidential candidate Donald Trump, but for being way too tough on Hillary Clinton. This bothered The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald, who wrote a piece condemning the recent trend of liberal pundits critiquing the coverage of the election race.

As Mediaite reports, Greenwald, in a piece for The Intercept, dismissed the idea that Krugman's stance is somehow “brave," saying “Thankfully, it appears that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his intrepid, highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton.”

Greenwald went on to complain that Krugman’s words feed into this trend of liberals being quick to dismiss or discredit any critical reporting of Hillary:

[A]ggressive investigative journalism against Trump is not enough for Democratic partisans whose voice is dominant in U.S. media discourse. They also want a cessation of any news coverage that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton. Most, of course, won’t say this explicitly (though some do), but — as the wildly adored Krugman column from yesterday reflects — they will just reflexively dismiss any such coverage as illegitimate and invalid.

He linked to the following tweet:

“It would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate the urgency of this journalism.”

As Mediaite notes, Greenwald repeatedly stresses that he is no fan of Trump, only that Trump’s awfulness doesn’t negate Clinton’s.