82 ms·

My Resignation from the Intercept

• henriquez 6y ago
  The response on HN to this is a disgrace.
  • syndacks 6y ago
    HN is largely a disgraceful place these days, except for content explicitly related to technology.
  • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    People are in a frenzy and they have social networks/living situations that reinforce their biases. It's sad but the elites of society (lots of the software community) think the rest are a scourge and incorrigible.
  • reducesuffering 6y ago
    This is an unfortunately sad low point for some on HN. Hopefully next year we can have a meta-conversation about this thread, where the post-election facts landed, and gain some insight into how media and the political climate got some people so off the rails.
  • jml7c5 6y ago
    There's a statement both sides can agree on! (They are, of course, agreeing to opposite understandings of the statement. But half a horse is better than no horse, so we will consider it a show of political unity.)
• ciarannolan 6y ago
  It sounds like they wouldn't let him publish an article about the Hunter Biden situation. Why not share details of what he wanted to publish and what they barred and let people make up their own minds? He says in this letter that he will publish it soon on Substack, but that sort of takes the wind out of the sails of his "liberals are censoring me" argument.
  • woeirua 6y ago
    It's published: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... My take: it's a garbage opinion piece that's peddling his own political views a little too hard. I think the Intercept is totally 100% justified in refusing to run it.
• lainga 6y ago
  Greenwald co-founded it; how did it get out of his control and lead to this situation?
  • trothamel 6y ago
    It reminds me of what happened with Steve Wozniak.
  • secondcoming 6y ago
    He was maybe more interested in being a journalist than running a business.
  • forgotmypw17 6y ago
    It happens all the time, more often than you may think. More often than not.
  • lwigo 6y ago
    Happens regularly. Another example is what happened to Chris Ott and some others at Pitchfork.
  • nickysielicki 6y ago
    I doubt that it did get out of his control. He probably has the authority to override his editor and publish it under The Intercept regardless of their comments, but he's choosing to respect the editorial process and protect the institution by not crossing that red line.
• gkoberger 6y ago
  Greenwald has really fascinated me the past decade. He was on track to being one of the most prolific reporters on the planet, and he has gone really down this weird victimhood "censorship" path. Sometimes it’s legitimate censorship. Other times, your editor is just insisting you don’t spread misinformation.
  • dkdk8283 6y ago
    Exerpt: > refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden
    • spamizbad 6y ago
      This is the news site that broke the Tara Reade rape allegation against Biden this spring. To me, this makes me think there's more to this story. You have no problem dropping a rape allegation story days after Biden is the presumptive nominee (with numerous follow-up articles), but apparently are "censoring" critical comments about Biden from GG's articles?
      • alexilliamson 6y ago
        I've been doom-scrolling through this cursed page of comments, and this is one of the few salient points I've read. Kudos.
    • karlkatzke 6y ago
      Keep in mind that this is Greenwald's perception. The story he's referring to has so many holes in it that it's more of a mesh than a woven cloth. Maybe a lace. There isn't much to it except criticism of Biden. Removing criticism of Biden just makes it threadbare and tawdry.
      • jtdev 6y ago
        Please elaborate on what you perceive to be holes in this story.
• olivermarks 6y ago
  Media mastheads seem to have shorter and short shelf lives before they are consumed by editorial censorship and commercial issues. Right now Taibbi on substack is terrific, his Rolling Stone articles a lot more constrained. I look forward to Greenwald being less restricted and to his Biden commentary and thoughts
• DevKoala 6y ago
  We are witnessing the biggest concerted censorship effort in the history of the USA. One for the history books, depending on who gets to write it in the future. Regardless of whether or not you believe on Tony Bubolinsky, you should at the very least have the opportunity to hear him and make up your own mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo
  • pfisch 6y ago
    In what sense? The media has always censored information that can't be verified. Nytimes doesn't publish articles about flat earth theory. Even Fox News actual News division refuses to run these Hunter Biden stories. Same thing with Seth Rich, or ideas about crisis actors. How is this different?
    • __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      This is information that is trivially verifiable and has been verified by numerous sources. There's already been leaks such as a video of Hunter Biden smoking crack while receiving a footjob (edit: if this seems crude, I'm mentioning it as something that makes it very clear that the info is real) so unless you think it's a deepfake - or that they hacked it from his iCloud account and made up the story about the laptop repair shop - then you cannot deny the veracity of the story. It's also been corroborated by people like the aforementioned Bobulinski. If this were truly a false story it would be trivial for the Biden campaign to deny the allegations. The reason this story is not being reported is not because it's not "verifiable"; even ignoring that it is verifiable, the media had no trouble publishing the unverified story of Trump's tax returns, the unverified and now completely debunked Russia collusion hoax (if you're not read up on it, please don't reflexively downvote - with what we know today it is now certain that it was actually a manufactured hoax and not just an innocent misunderstanding), etc. So there is absolutely a double standard at play and it's very plain to see if you go look for it, but if you just stick to CNN and other mainstream media you will literally never see the full story (or even a fraction of it).
      • 6y ago
• gfodor 6y ago
  The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement, if you want your media company to survive if its value proposition is providing journalism and the usual benefits that come with a free press. Unfortunately, not only is engagement the wrong metric, but it's also one which incentivizes the undermining of the actual metric you need to be optimizing. This results in a negative feedback loop, and the logical outcome is that all media companies who focus on the engagement KPI will, in the limit, become tabloids - pure entertainment, no trust. Since most outlets were already on their way to becoming politics-focused, what we're going to get are "tabloids for politics" - and that is what we see. It's just a matter of when the public accepts this transition has occurred, not if it is happening. Getting the public to accept this has proven challenging - despite the fact that many clearly see the "opposite side" media as tabloid-like, it's been hard for the same people to accept that their own chosen media sources, who tell them things they agree with, are no different in this regard. The resistance of course is due to all the usual human biases, but it's still strange when people can see it so obviously in the media they disagree with and not apply Occam's Razor to their own. This does mean that there's a huge opportunity if you assume trust is something people will pay for. Substack seems to provide early evidence that this is the case. Fortunately, I think the market will correct this error - and it's critical it does, because a free press is essential to ensuring our society continues without increasing oppression or war.
  • throwaway3699 6y ago
    What do you make of the idea that independent journalists on the web being the future?
    • whimsicalism 6y ago
      They are an alternative, but not a substitute for institutional journalism. News exists to give you an approximate representation of what is happening without having to invest too much effort in actual investigation. It is built on trust. If you have to build trust with each individual journalist you follow a la carte, then that makes the entry barrier to following the news much higher.
• m52go 6y ago
  What happens when Glenn fails to conform to Substack's standards? To my knowledge Substack hasn't censored yet, but it's inevitable. Glenn should just start his own site, in my opinion.
  • umvi 6y ago
    Hosted with whom? Some private company no doubt that could be pressured to censor if a big enough twitterstorm came along.
    • IshKebab 6y ago
      Ultimately you just need to own a domain. You have to get pretty damn extreme before domains are confiscated.
      • luckylion 6y ago
        Without Cloudflare & co, your domain will exist but your site won't be usable.
        • IshKebab 6y ago
          There are many many hosting providers. You are unlikely to get banned from all of them.
          • luckylion 6y ago
            A hosting provider without strong DDOS-protection does not make your site work, and they will quickly kick you out when their infrastructure suffers because of attacks against your site. CF & co can protect against DDOS primarily because they fight tooth and nail and weather the storm when a customer is attacked. Attackers know that they won't succeed, that's why they don't even try, and that's why CF doesn't have to deal with constant attacks against their clients. Your average hosting company will quickly fold against a large attack, and will then have to make a decision: suffer the attack, or kick you from their servers. It's obvious that they will kick you out. Keeping a website available against opponents with some money to spend gives you a handful of companies that you can rely on.
• bachmeier 6y ago
  "as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is right". As he well knows, all that matters is that the story runs, not whether it's shown to be false months after the election is over. Strange that he thinks his readers are that gullible. I want to be clear that I'm not claiming to know the truth as it relates to this story, only that this is the position of the editors, and that his argument is nonsense.
  • _pmf_ 6y ago
    > That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is right". Except if it's about Bad Orange Man, right?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • loceng 6y ago
    I'd like to see all of the critical statements and related content of Joe Biden that he wanted to include.
    • ncal 6y ago
      here's the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
  • 1980phipsi 6y ago
    I would withhold any opinion that it is a "garbage story" until actually reading it...
    • 6y ago
• secondcoming 6y ago
  Greenwald was on Joe Rogan recently. It was very interesting. Dude has 25 dogs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA (I assume that even linking to a JRE podcast is cause for mass downvoting on here)
• analogdreams 6y ago
  It is amazing how the left manages to continually cannibalize themselves like this. But hey, keep yelling about fascism from the other side of the aisle....
• blhack 6y ago
  Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable to me. This story seems like the type of thing that would normally make peoples' entire journalistic career, and yet the journalists, the people who are supposed to be a part of our protection and sense-making system are actively trying to suppress it. It's actually surreal to see this happening.
  • agentdrtran 6y ago
    "Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat," There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense.
    • nwienert 6y ago
      There’s two social groups, they don’t want to critique their social group.
      • whimsicalism 6y ago
        Many more than two social groups.
        • nwienert 6y ago
          Sure, pedantically.
          • justnotworthit 6y ago
            Alternatively, us & them = 2
• 1980phipsi 6y ago
  Is there anything worth reading by the Intercept excepting Greenwald?
  • codq 6y ago
    Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill are consistently fantastic.
    • 1980phipsi 6y ago
      Thanks.
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      I agree. "Deconstructed" is better since Mehdi moved somewhat on to greener pastures. Anyway, neither Grim nor Scahill seem to have disagreed much with Greenwald, that I can recall. He certainly enjoyed this episode of "Intercepted": https://theintercept.com/2019/03/27/the-day-after-mueller/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/27/the-day-after-mueller/
  • nightowl_games 6y ago
    I've been following Zaid Jilani. https://theintercept.com/staff/zaidjilani/ https://theintercept.com/staff/zaidjilani/
    • creaghpatr 6y ago
      Second Zaid Jilani.
    • 1980phipsi 6y ago
      I'll take a look, thanks.
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      I didn't see any articles at that link written in the last two years. I did find a more recent one by the same author elsewhere. [0] I'm not sure if I'm allowed to read anything at that site... [0] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-1619-project-is-wrong-on-the-1965-immigration-act/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-1619-pr...
• vehemenz 6y ago
  I wonder if his come-to-Jesus moment happened before, during, or after his recent podcast with Joe Rogan.
• tpmx 6y ago
  The first two of the three hours of him being a guest on Joe Rogan yesterday were brilliant. I've never heard someone so eloquently tear down the shiny facades of what passes as high-brow "journalism" these days.
  • Tokkemon 6y ago
    Or just a bitter man being kicked out of the club?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      Is it telling that you conceive of news outlets as clubs?
    • cblconfederate 6y ago
      Are you sure the Intercept will survive without him?
    • dwd 6y ago
      I think the Rogen interview opened his eyes up to the possibilities in the world of podcasting (more so than maybe talking with Matt Taibbi who's just getting started). I honestly think that interview gave him the courage to take the leap - and was not at all surprised to hear he resigned today.
  • jjj1232 6y ago
    Have you read manufacturing dissent? It’s a useful lens to read any mainstream news through.
  • happytoexplain 6y ago
    It's romantic, but blind, to paint examples of one's own opinion like this.
• tolbish 6y ago
  It would be so very, very interesting if Trump were to pardon Snowden.
  • __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    It's such a no-brainer since the national security apparatus (the FBI, NSA, etc) were used against Trump and his campaign very transparently. So you'd think he would want to strike a blow against them by pardoning Snowden. In reality, he doesn't seem to have a deep, principled understanding of the issues of the "national security" apparatus (commonly known as the "deep state"). So I'm not optimistic, although maybe he's just waiting until after the election. What Trump's administration is doing to Julian Assange is also quite evil (see Cassandra Fairbanks' reporting here - she's a very clear Trump supporter and yet is highly critical of his admin with respect to their treatment of Assange). It's not any more evil than what Biden or others would do, to be clear, so this isn't something unique to Trump, but we can certainly say that Trump has not shown any desire to try to do the right thing here.
    • tolbish 6y ago
      I am not saying he would pardon Snowden out of morality.
      • afiori 6y ago
        Something interesting that Snowden says is that he is not asking for a pardon, his condition for going back to the US is to drop the strict-liability qualification of his crime. It wouldn't be something easy on him, but a judicial precedent could be even better than a pardon.
    • SamBam 6y ago
      > It's such a no-brainer since the national security apparatus (the FBI, NSA, etc) were used against Trump and his campaign very transparently. A Republican-led senate investigation found that the intelligence community was not used against Trump, did not illegally spy on his campaign, and was fully-correct in following up on the Russia leads. [1] Do you have evidence that the Republican and Democratic senators did not? 1. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/513499-republicans-incriminate-trump-decimate-his-russia-hoax-narrative https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/513499-republicans-i...
• macspoofing 6y ago
  When William Roper argued that he'd "cut down every law in England" in order to get the Devil, Thomas More responded with: "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" ... This is where the entire mainstream center-left/left news establishment, along with the DNC, ended up after 2016. Trump broke people's brains. It's as simple as that.
  • Tokkemon 6y ago
    ... what?
    • macspoofing 6y ago
      Trump is responsible for destroying the convention of presidents acting 'presidential' through his words, and tweets. His policies are typical Republican policies. He hasn't jailed journalists or whistleblowers. His military engagements have been the most minimal since the Clinton-era. But again, his temperament is not presidential and that bucks the norm. That's on him. In this quote, Trump is the devil and the DNC and mainstream center-left/left news, in an effort to get the devil, have destroyed every institutional and journalistic norm. Their role is far more damaging then Trump tweeting idiotic and sometimes terrible things.
• lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Knowing Greenwald, what he describes as "censorship" is what a news editor would call "fact-checking."
  • Lendal 6y ago
    There are more reasons to junk a story than just fact-checking. It could be that the story has already been covered sufficiently. That there is nothing new it. That it is only of interest to a certain group of people who just want to wallow in that same story every day. He hasn't actually published the story yet so nobody knows for sure, but if it's about Hunter Biden then I think it's probably in this category.
    • lern_too_spel 6y ago
      I'm just going by Greenwald's past work where he has repeatedly stated things that are easily verified to be false.
• lherron 6y ago
  Funny that he marked the comment section subscriber-only. Regardless of the validity of the story, optics sure look like a ploy to kickstart his new SubStack with an engineered October surprise.
• 1cvmask 6y ago
  The revolution devours its own children
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• mudil 6y ago
  A phrase that comes to mind: Make Orwell Fiction Again!
• CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  Keep in mind we're just seeing Greenwald's side of this. It sure sounds like he's trying to paint it a way that makes him look good and the Intercept look bad. Lots of claims of "censorship" etc. I want to hear their side of it as well. My guess is that there's a lot more to this story. My guess is if all his peers thought the claims were not solid enough to publish, there is probably a reason for that -- not simply a desire to "censor" someone they've worked with for years. Remember also that the NY Post writer behind the original "Hunter Biden laptop" story refused to put their name behind the article, probably due to the flaws in the claims and evidence presented.
  • nickysielicki 6y ago
    > not simply a desire to "censor" someone they've worked with for years. This reads as though you're implying The Intercept existed independently of Greenwald. They didn't, he co-founded The Intercept. He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor. I think it speaks volumes about him as a journalist and his journalistic integrity that he setup The Intercept as an outlet where he and his co-founders don't rule with iron fists. His submissions aren't treated specially. It's not his mouthpiece.
    • happytoexplain 6y ago
      That's an incredibly low bar for praise.
      • nickysielicki 6y ago
        Only if you choose to be blind to the relationship between most "journalism" outlets, their owners, and the types of stories they publish. If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes, or that Murdoch influences what Fox writes, indirectly or directly, you're not looking hard enough.
        • Lammy 6y ago
          > If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes For example, "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours": https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie...
• gojomo 6y ago
  A bit reminiscent of when Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias was pressured to avoid expressing certain contentious positions by other Voxxers: https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1280937324340281346 https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/1280937324340281346
• cma 6y ago
  > These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. Whew, the Fox News editorial board can breathe a sigh of relief.
• modeless 6y ago
  There are lots of opinions about his censored story in this thread. But no actual links to it. Is it published yet? Or are we all just speculating here?
  • dx87 6y ago
    According to the post, his contract allows him to publish any story that The Intercept doesn't want to, but they are making threats preventing him from publishing it. > are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).
• nightowl_games 6y ago
  This breaks my heart for the world, but it increases my respect of Glenn. Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi are my only two journalists I really seek out and follow. Glenn especially. I was of the belief that The Intercept was a valid source solely because of Glenn. I believe Glenn. I will follow Glenn.
  • rat87 6y ago
    I don't know why Both of them seem to have bought into insane conspiracy theories about the actual Russian collision with the Trump campaign
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      A "conspiracy theory" is when one believes in hidden events without evidence. For example, the idea that Trump and Russia "colluded" [what would that even mean?], of which we've never seen any verifiable evidence. The most solid backing for that theory is anonymous leaks. The skepticism of Taibbi or Greenwald is the opposite of that.
    • raxxorrax 6y ago
      It isn't an insane conspiracy. Not even the deep state is one. It does exists in form of political networks in Washington. That isn't some malicious hydra, but on contrast to that the Russian collusion story is an actual conspiracy and hit job on political opponents. Get a tin foil hat if you fear Russians behind every tree, but the story got old pretty quickly.
• Nacdor 6y ago
  On the one hand, this is shocking because Glenn co-founded the Intercept as a response to the rampant partisan censorship happening at other media outlets. On the other hand, I had been reading The Intercept regularly since at least 2016 and there was a very noticeable lack of "independent" journalism as the years went by. At some point this year I stopped visiting their website because the worthwhile articles were few and far between, buried in a mountain of partisan rubbish. If founding your own company isn't enough to avoid censorship, then what is? Is there any hope left for truly independent journalism in this country?
  • ehsankia 6y ago
    Who knew that even when you fund a company, if you get qualified people with integrity, they'll stop you from peddling foreign nation misinformation even if you're the boss.
    • Nacdor 6y ago
      You seem to have insider info that the rest of us are not privy to. What misinformation was he attempting to spread?
      • ehsankia 6y ago
        The fact that Ukraine has been trying to spread these emails, coincidently around the same time Giuliani happened to be there, which ended up getting the president impeached. https://www.businessinsider.com/time-hunter-biden-emails-shopped-around-ukraine-last-year-5m-2020-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/time-hunter-biden-emails-sho...
        • Nacdor 6y ago
          Your own source contradicts you: > The two people said they could not confirm whether any of the material presented to them was the same as that which has been recently published in the U.S. Furthermore, they made no effort to determine the authenticity of the documents, so I find it odd that you assume they must be fake: > The two people who said they were approached with Hunter Biden’s alleged emails last year did not know whether any of them were real So you used two anonymous sources to support your erroneous conclusion, yet you don't believe all of the sources who have publicly come forward to say the documents are legitimate? Very interesting.
• gitpusher 6y ago
  So what exactly was this "Biden story" that he wanted to publish?
• LinuxBender 6y ago
  Somewhat Off Topic: Glen just did an interview on Joe Rogan [1]. I would suggest it may be worth watching for those interested in this. He discussed some of these issues. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA
  • Tokkemon 6y ago
    I'll pass giving that loser another view.
  • jessaustin 6y ago
    Lots of people will listen to or see this one. Rogan is very popular. https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-top-30-u-s-podcasts-according-to-the-podcast-consumer-tracker/ https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-top-30-u-s-podcasts-accor...
• chaganated 6y ago
  yoichi shimatsu made a compelling argument that "the intercept" is basically a honeypot for catching usgov whistleblowers. yoichi is a little out there, but given the track record--snowden, manning, winner--perhaps he's on the genius side of the line instead of the insanity side on this particular issue?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• blintz 6y ago
  > I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would Glenn Greenwald is advocating for an abdication of basic journalistic practice. The role of The Intercept is not simply to air Glenn Greenwald’s musings; it is not a blog. The entire point of an editorial process is to hold published materials to a high bar with regards to factual accuracy and quality. Responding to a disagreement about accuracy or fact-checking with your own editors by claiming they are ‘New York-based’ and ‘Biden is their preferred candidate’ is deeply unprofessional. If you disagree with an editor’s call, have an adult conversation; if you cannot see eye to eye, feel free to resign. If you want, you can even publish a piece about the disagreement - including details over what was alleged as true, and what information you believe editors incorrectly assumed or overlooked. The one thing you should never do is resort to simply calling your editors ‘angry libs’ and claim you are being ‘censored’. This does nothing to further a conversation, and it certainly disincentives anyone from honestly editing your work in the future.
  • vinhboy 6y ago
    The fact that this comment is "grayed" out makes me uncomfortable with where this discussion is going on HN. I think you made the most valid argument about this specific article of all the comments I have read here. > Responding to a disagreement about accuracy or fact-checking with your own editors by claiming they are ‘New York-based’ and ‘Biden is their preferred candidate’ is deeply unprofessional Even if when the actual article gets released and it's 100% factual and great, the "pre-article" we are reading here is just playing politics -- which is exactly what it claims to be fighting against.
  • roenxi 6y ago
    Although that is true, and the Biden story is pretty suspiciously timed and probably not as serious as it sounds (or fabricated). But it really is rather noticeable that the Biden story is being suppressed. Newspaper articles are being removed from twitter, journalists are resigning from their organisations. It is largely unclear that a similar story about speculation of a Trump-Ukraine story tied to Eric Trump would get this treatment. Years were spent on that Russia business that turned out to be largely baseless, and nobody was suppressing articles on Twitter for baseless speculation. That level of bias is well worth highlighting. This is material information for voters in future elections (after 2020). I wouldn't know about this story at all except for the backlash over the censorship being news. That is pretty impressive from an information-flow standpoint.
• Apocryphon 6y ago
  On first glance Intercept's editorial staff could be trying to avoid becoming like Wikileaks during the 2016 election. That is, going from a broadly anti-surveillance state, "information wants to be free" publication to one that unintentionally gets involved in partisan electioneering.
• mundo 6y ago
  It seems impossible to hold a strong opinion on this without reading the article, and in particular, seeing how it is sourced. The elephant in the room (which Greenwald barely acknowledges in this essay) is that many mainstream news organizations have concluded that the evidence for this story was too weak to publish, and some believe it was fabricated by Russian intelligence. If Greenwald has evidence to the contrary, great, the world wants to see it, and (claims of "censorship" notwithstanding) he will have no trouble getting the word out. If all he has is salacious hearsay, it's hard to fault his former editors.
  • __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    It is undeniably not fabricated Russian intelligence. We have: - e-mails which have been confirmed by the others on the e-mails - videos of hunter biden engaging in sexual activity while doing hard drugs - text messages between hunter and various family and associates - audio tapes of Hunter Biden's voice talking about his Chinese business partner disappearing - financial documents of the agreement between various parties (Hunter Biden, Bobulinski, and others) It is so obviously not "fabricated by Russian intelligence". By the way, the original claims of Trump being compromised by Russia have been proven absolutely false - something Greenwald himself has written about. Greenwald is incredibly critical of the democrat establishment for the entire Russia Hoax - and it is a hoax - and he is equally critical of their coverage of the laptop story which is at this point undeniable.
    • mundo 6y ago
      Oooh! What kind of sex? Which drugs? ...yes, that would be the salacious hearsay I was referring to. If there's evidence that Joe Biden did something corrupt, I'd like to see it, but without the rest of the chaff.
      • flavius29663 6y ago
        what do you mean by hearsay? There are videos and pictures of him doing this stuff: sex with what looks like prostitutes and hard drugs (you can find them too on the internet). Those don't make the emails real, and it might still be a disinfo attempt, but the sex and drugs part is real for sure. This should warrant some reporting on it's own.
• kev_da_dev 6y ago
  Go look at all the comments being downvoted. It's insane how many reasonable, common-sense arguments are being downvoted into oblivion. HN has a serious astroturfing problem and I can only imagine who's behind it.
  • throwaway2048 6y ago
    I see a lot of boilerplate handwringing about how this is the end of free speech and a reliable media, that kind of stuff gets posted over and over again in every article of this nature. Its not particularly interesting, or relevant, especially after being repeated ad nauseum.
    • disown 6y ago
      Really, most of the top comments are those defending censorship and those sneakily trying to undermine free speech and support the censorship of a journalist. > Its not particularly interesting, or relevant, especially after being repeated ad nauseum. Fighting for free speech is that offense to you huh? You wouldn't happen to be a journalist?
      • throwaway2048 6y ago
        "Go look at all the comments being downvoted." this is what I was referring to.
      • anoonmoose 6y ago
        It's mostly that I think your definition of "free speech" is absurd and so are your claims of censorship.
  • happytoexplain 6y ago
    I agree that there's a problem, though I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you aren't referring only to the comments on one "side" of this discussion. However, either way, there is also a lot of irrational political side-taking being downvoted, and frankly the state of things looks much better than the vast majority of communities.
• raverbashing 6y ago
  2c he'll be in a Trump/Republican aligned newspaper/media corp next week
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• a_band 6y ago
  Amazing the amount of people who are essentially reacting with "Greenwald was spreading foxnews disinfo" without even having read his article.
  • happytoexplain 6y ago
    How many people have asserted that they personally believe Greenwald was spreading disinformation and have also stated that they did not read his article?
    • a_band 6y ago
      His article hasn't been published. Unless they've somehow got access to it, there's no way to verify it.
    • a_band 6y ago
      Further context as to why the editors of the intercept seem to have been acting in an unprecedentedly partisan way here, from Greenwald: "...under my contract, and the practice of The Intercept over the last seven years, none of my articles is edited unless it presents the possibility of legal liability or complex original reporting, and not one of my articles in the last fifteen years — published with dozens of major media outlets around the world — has ever been retracted or even had appended to it a serious correction."
• joemaller1 6y ago
  > These are the raging battles over free expression and the right of dissent raging within every major cultural, political and journalistic institution. That’s the crisis that journalism, and more broadly values of liberalism, faces. Our discourse is becoming increasingly intolerant of dissenting views, and our culture is demanding more and more submission to prevailing orthodoxies imposed by self-anointed monopolists of Truth and Righteousness, backed up by armies of online enforcement mobs.
• jeffrallen 6y ago
  Hey Glen, less drama, more mamma. Good luck.
• hagmonk 6y ago
  In my mind, a media organization censoring a story that could aid Trump just days before the election is acting for the greater social good. I don't feel that optimizing for Greenwald's personal value system at this particular time would be the right tradeoff for America as a whole. Greenwald having the satisfaction of doing the right thing while the rest of us endure the rule of a strong man hell-bent on becoming America's Putin is not a fair trade. It sucks that we don't live in a society where "The Truth" - if it could only be exposed to sunlight - would stand taller and brighter than everything else around it. If Greenwald wants to cosplay Walter Cronkite, and who wouldn't, he has to understand the impossibility of that in our current context. Everything is turned into spin for the disinformation machine. Everything is distorted, filtered, weaponized, super concentrated, and targeted directly to those it will anger the most. Truth has no power and no legitimacy in this context. Have we not learned anything from watching Trump these past four years? We have to solve that problem before we can enjoy the benefits of truthful journalism. A problem for which we have to take some responsibility, since our technology is being abused to create this wretched hellscape. It sucks and it isn't the world in which I want to live. I have young children myself. They will grow up with no Walter Cronkite, no trusted source of information. They will grow up in a world where truth is disconnected from reality. It's broken, and we can't ignore that, no matter how much it hurts us personally.
  • raxxorrax 6y ago
    Your opinion is respectable compared to the excuses we hear elsewhere and I would agree. I think the hit on Bidens family members is beyond good taste, but I also think that journalism failed on a wide front in recent times.
• adfm 6y ago
  I can’t believe anybody is talking about plain text email without verified cryptographic signatures in 2020. The technology is over 30 years old at this point. Anybody telling you different is a fraud — guaranteed.
  • Miner49er 6y ago
    The email has been verified with DKIM, apparently: https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768?s=21 https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768?s=2...
• mc32 6y ago
  I think this is the main indictment: >"Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party)" It was originally supposed to allow dissent from the mainstream but now toes a particular strain of mainstream orthodoxy.
• joobus 6y ago
  And HN just removed this from appearing on the front page...
• dsugarman 6y ago
  I'm just going to state the obvious and I don't see it anywhere else here. There are a lot of posts here saying you have to trust his integrity over the editors due to all of his accolades. All of Glenn's accolades are from the reporting around Edward Snowden. I'm a big fan of that reporting and I think that story needed to be told but it was most strategically beneficial to Russia where Snowden eventually took sanctuary. This was also during Obama's presidency. Now, he seems to be very biased to the point of being a hack, pulls a stunt like this on the eve of an election, has continuously made an effort to discredit the Russian interference in our elections and comes to Trump's aid fairly frequently when it matters (as well as sometimes critiques him and his admin when it doesn't i.e. "he lies") I don't know what his motives are but it sure doesn't seem like it's about getting out the truth.
• padseeker 6y ago
  Glenn is complaining that he can't discuss a story that the Wall Street Journal also looked into and was unwilling to risk their reputation on a story lacking verifiable evidence. The Wall Street Journal is generally a credible but also right leaning news source. GG's politics are to the left on most of the democratic party, and was unhappy with Clinton and now also unhappy with Biden.
• mlamat 6y ago
  He is trying to lobby the Trump administration to pardon Snowden in the next three months. He said on Rogan's podcast that this is his main mission now.
• YeBanKo 6y ago
  The main issue I see: this story and stories like this generate interest. If it’s not published and discussed in depth on main stream media, then the only source available becomes some crazy right-wing conspiracy theory sites. So readers are forced to choose between no analysis or an analysis done by some nut-job.
• technoplato 6y ago
  Why was this removed from the front page? https://youtu.be/YCLkTYwN7VQ https://youtu.be/YCLkTYwN7VQ Edit: I'm a moron and it just dropped a bunch suddenly. Was not removed.
  • vaccinator 6y ago
    Sometimes they manually down-rank stories to take them out of sight, and sometimes the storry gets flagged so much. But it is #6 on the front page right now.
    • technoplato 6y ago
      So two thoughts here. Are they artificially inflated and then deflated to counter act “bot” behavior? OR are they organically inflated and then censored? I just wish I could be a fly on the wall and know. I just can’t believe this would be a damning enough piece to artificially inflate unless there’s a serious game of reverse psychology going on behind the scenes
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• parliament32 6y ago
  I like how this link is being suppressed from the front page of HN as well. 309 points in 1 hour, and it's at #52 instead of a single digit ranking as you'd expect. In comparison, the current #1-#3 have 175-80 points in 2-3 hours.
  • lostdog 6y ago
    Given the number of comments and downvoted comments, it almost certainly set off an automated flamewar detector.
• thrownaway954 6y ago
  jesus... that article sounded like a child crying cause they didn't get their way.
• nindalf 6y ago
  With respect to Greenwald, his view that publishing something is an unmitigated good and can be countered by other reporting is only true in theory, not in practice. Since he’s talking about publishing an article about a Democratic presidential candidate days before an election, let’s compare that to the last time this happened. Every media outlet starting from the NYT breathlessly repeated “but her emails”. Some of us knew it was a non story at the time, but it was impossible to compete with the front page of the NYT and 24 hour news networks. Literally everyone was focused on the god damn emails, very little on the policy proposals of each candidate. This had an impact on the election and it’s safe to say with hindsight, that it was a non story and shouldn’t have been covered. Perhaps Glenn Greenwald would call not covering it “suppression” and “censorship” but it was also the right thing to do.
  • adobecs3 6y ago
    Still more of a story than "Russia collusion"
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• dpifke 6y ago
  One thing I've wondered is at what point this becomes a campaign finance issue. Publications (and social networks) are free to only host speech they agree with. However, advertising in the same forum supposedly has value. If a company is promoting stories for a certain candidate or issue, and banning all stories/posts/accounts against, why does that not count as an in-kind donation, worth as much as the equivalent ads would cost? (Not arguing that this practice is illegal per se, but it seems like it should be acknowledged/reported.)
• AzzieElbab 6y ago
  I am willing to make a bet that 5 years from now every journalist I read/follow will end up on substack.
• anonymousiam 6y ago
  Objective journalism is dead. Glen Greenwald is not by any measure a Republican or a conservative, but he is a good objective journalist. It's a shame that a newspaper he co-founded will not print one of his stories because of their non-objective partisanship, but unfortunately this is all too common today.
• zzleeper 6y ago
  A year or so ago I was about to donate to the Interept and went to their website to do so. There, together with Bolsonaro investigations I was quite surprised that a lot of Greenwald's stance was quite pro Russia, anti democrats. Not sure in what parallel universe he lives where he thinks that one week before the election Trump needs his help with anti Biden op-eds. What is he thinking?
  • notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Greenwood has always been "pro-Russia" because of how Snowden was able to stay away in Russia from whatever date laid in wait for him in the US. People seem to forget why Greenwald and Poitras are famous in the first place. Why would he be for the party that tried to kill his source and which he had to stand up against to publish the stories that made him famous? Why would he be against the nation that shielded that source from life imprisonment (and possibly death)?
• burlesona 6y ago
  Honest question: is it just me or is it getting harder to determine what is factual and what is not? It seems like the US has begun to splinter such that there are two different sets of "facts" on many issues, but of course that is not how facts work. Nevertheless, when doing research and investigation is it often hard for me to pin down the truth behind any of the "facts" that are thrown at me, whether that's by the partisans, by the media, or just by random people on HN etc. Does anyone else feel this way?
  • kilroy123 6y ago
    It's certainly getting harder and I have this sinking feeling that's by design.
  • scsilver 6y ago
    If I was a foreign adversary of the US, I would be supporting this "balkanization" of the US
    • serial_dev 6y ago
      If I was part of the intelligence community, I would be supporting this "balkanization" of the US. I find that many in the US are quick to blame and suspect foreign adversaries behind everything where the intelligence community makes just as much sense (to me). Reminds me of Scott Adams recent Robot Reads News cartoon (couldn't find a link) where the gist of the joke was: "There is no evidence yet that Russia is behind the leaks. That is so Putin!"
  • pashamur 6y ago
    It's not accidental, that is actually the result of a well-known propaganda technique known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
  • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    It's the echo chamber and unoriginal thought. In a free society, people are free to speak about the world and how they see it. This is practically the job of a journalist: observe, record goings-on and ask insightful questions that generate understanding. But now people that don't cleave to the consensus opinions of the crowd are essentially discarded based on the post-modern view of dubious "lived experience", suspect motivation, etc.
• purple_ferret 6y ago
  Sounds like his major problem was having basically no involvement in the company because he's been in Brazil. The Intercept is only 6 years old and all the editors have been there since basically the beginning...
• tgerhard60 6y ago
  Greenwald is 2020's last-ditch Assange.
• r721 6y ago
  Erik Wemple, Washington Post media critic: >Intercept EIC Betsy Reed sent me this statement regarding the departure of @ggreenwald, saying there's a "fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship." https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 UPD https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
• subtypefiddler 6y ago
  The dichotomy between Greenwald's complaints (censorship of his article despite contractual guarantees, Reality Winner cover-up, what editors forced Lee Fang to do, lack of reporting of Assange hearing, and "lack of editorial standards when it comes to viewpoints or reporting that flatter the beliefs of its liberal base") and the editor in chief response in the NYT [0] (he is a "grown person throwing a tantrum") is frightening. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/glenn-greenwald-leaving-intercept.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/business/glenn-greenwald-...
  • hsod 6y ago
    what is frightening about it?
  • jml7c5 6y ago
    Did you read the e-mails Greenwald posted? He comes off as rather unhinged in his eagerness to claim censorship.
• AaronFriel 6y ago
  Erik Wemple (@ErikWemple on Twitter) was forwarded a response from from Intercept Editor in Chief Betsy Reed. (Source: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283) I've copied it below to the best of my ability. =============== Glenn Greenwald's decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus the preposterous charge that The Intercept's editors and reporters, with the lone noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims. The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies - all of the mdesigned to make him appear a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign's - the Trump campaign's - dubious claims and launder them as journalism. We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept. The defining feature of The Intercept's work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission - a mission that involved a collaborative editing process. We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors-- such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts and The Intercept record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself. ===============
• SamBam 6y ago
  The Intercept responds: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283
  • cblconfederate 6y ago
    I m sorry but what record of rigorous independent journalism, outside of glenn's contributions (including the ones about Brazil corruption)?
• GekkePrutser 6y ago
  Very sad to read this. Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists well known for his integrity. He's famous for the Snowden revelations of course. I don't doubt his story. I hope he will manage to start another organisation soon.
• moultano 6y ago
  Here's the response from the Intercept. https://static.theintercept.com/amp/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept.html https://static.theintercept.com/amp/glenn-greenwald-resigns-... > The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism. > We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.
• cblconfederate 6y ago
  Can i put another dimension without trying to be judgmental: it seems to me that the younger generations of journalists (and audiences) are a lot more censorious by nature. I don't know the causes of it but it's certainly very prevalent, and it seems all the 'dissenters' are a few decades older. There was for a while a prevalent narrative of "safety" or "safe spaces", but that has passed, and it seems that it has been replaced by a general tendency to hide ucomfortable problems "under the rug".
  • luckylion 6y ago
    Young people are usually more radical, especially when they are inexperienced and believe in some ideology. Maybe we're just witnessing a generational shift in power in media where it's not a 50 year old person taking over for somebody that retires, but a 35 year old person (because more digital skills?).
• donohoe 6y ago
  This tweet which includes a statement from Intercept EIC Betsy Reed , and it says it all: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283
• supercanuck 6y ago
  I feel like the response from the Intercept should be part of this thread: GLENN GREENWALD’S DECISION to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims. The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism. We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept. The defining feature of The Intercept’s work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington, D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission — a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process. We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept’s record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/?utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
• Tomte 6y ago
  I'm not surprised an editor wouldn't want to publish "The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories" That's childish at best, and more importantly, it's ineffective. With paragraphs like those you lose any reader who isn't an hyper-partisan social-media warrior.
• babesh 6y ago
  I put more initial weight into someone who published the Snowden disclosures than those who oppose him. But go read what he has to say and examine his sources. If what he says is true, then weigh less those opposing what he said else weigh them more. Don’t listen to all the voices here seeking to discredit him. They are playing defense. Just go to original sources and make up your own mind.
  • captain_price7 6y ago
    > Just go to original sources and make up your own mind. But that's not an easy thing to do, is it? Even if we can do this one time, that's not sustainable. We need to trust somebody, and that's unfortunately getting lot harder. Usually, I would put more trust on an established media organization like The Intercept over an individual, even though he's a co-founder. But after seeing (what I perceive to be) media's blatant disregard for journalistic standards, specially in last 4 years, I'm not so sure anymore.
    • babesh 6y ago
      I put more trust in him. He has shown more reason to trust him given the Snowden disclosures.
• albertop 6y ago
  Anyone who believes that the media is interested in the TRUTH should read the old classic: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691134802/liberty-and-the-news https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691134802/li... The media exists primarily for its own purposes and agendas and only incidentally to promote the honest interplay of facts and ideas.
• csa 6y ago
  Whether he realizes it or not, Greenwald is a foreign intelligence officer’s dream. Regardless of the actual authenticity of the Hunter emails, stuff like this is fairly easy to plant. So even if Greenwald got it right this time (maybe, maybe not), I can assure you that he will get it very wrong at least once in the future by the hands of a foreign intelligence officer (assuming he still has an audience). Folks who aggressively advocate for the verification of authenticity of documents, especially digital documents, have a very good reason for taking the stance that they do.
  • captain_price7 6y ago
    > Folks who aggressively advocate for the verification of authenticity of documents, especially digital documents, have a very good reason for taking the stance that they do. And who are those folks? Liberal media? Didn't they publish that embarrassingly fake accusation against Brett Kavanaugh that he gang-raped Julie Swetnick? Didn't they claim mutliple times to find "decisive proof" that Trump (himself) colluded with Russians, only to be humiliated again by Mueller report? It seems that the media's standard for "verification of authenticity" depends a lot on who, or what party is getting accused.
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      "The walls are closing in!"
  • Udik 6y ago
    > Folks who aggressively advocate for the verification of authenticity of documents [..] have a very good reason for taking the stance that they do. This is for me the key quote of his reply to the editors: "Repeatedly over the past several months, I've brought to Betsy's attention false claims that were published by The Intercept [..] This rigorous editorial process emerges only when an article deviates from rather than recites the political preferences of The Intercept and/or the standard liberal view on political controversies." In other words, verification is obsessive when the story doesn't support the political side of the newspaper. When it does, any amount of sloppiness is fine.
• devy 6y ago
  Why as the co-founder of the organization, Glenn Greenwald don't have the rights to publish articles and have to yield to The Intercept's New York editorial board? This is baffling to me.
  • jessaustin 6y ago
    IIRC the money wasn't his, but rather Pierre Omidyar's.
    • devy 6y ago
      Yes, you are correct, Pierre Omidyar bankrolled First Look Media and is the founder on their about page. [1] Glenn Greenwald is just a "co-founding editor". And his profile hasn't been removed yet. Editor-in-chief currently is Betsy Reed. So she's blocking Glenn from publishing Biden report? [1]: https://theintercept.com/about/#contact-us https://theintercept.com/about/#contact-us
• xster 6y ago
  I'm surprised this didn't happen 5 years ago when the original group with Lee Fang and Glenn Greenwald were having open feuds on Twitter with the later corporate hires from NYT and WP who clearly held different views on journalism on just about every topic than Greenwald.
• AzzieElbab 6y ago
  I find it fascinating that we would never be talking about allegations against the Bidens family on the hacker news if not for the heavy handed censorship from newspaper editors and tech.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• specialist 6y ago
  Aggrieved left leaning pundit throws tantrum, self exiles. So cliche. So performant. Glenn Greenwald, Mark Crispin Miller, Greg Palast, Keith Olbermann, Harlan Ellison, Bill Maher... just from the top of my head. I love their work but omg they must be terrible to work with. Greenwald can't even get along inside the org that he cofounded. I've worked with similar artists, purists, ultimatists. It's exhausting. Harlan Ellison biopic "Dreams with Sharp Teeth" captures it perfectly. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1018887/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1018887/ Contrast Glennwald with others who figure out the working artist schtick. Bill Maher did a new thing on cable. Rachel Maddow somehow plays the corporate media game. Even Chris Hedges, the world's biggest Eeyore (or Marvin the Robot from HGTG), gets paid. Some leftists figured out the podcast game. Pod Save America, Young Turks, "bread tube". Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias launched a new masthead (vox.com). Seriously impressive. And contrast the left and right ecosystems. Rightists have time proven playbook. Merch, weird advertisers, tours and events, stable sources of funding. If Limbaugh and Alex Jones and Shapiro can find patrons to seed their endeavors, and customers to buy their wares, surely leftists can suck it up too.
• golemiprague 6y ago
  I don't understand what is the big deal, it is a publication, they can have their editorial line and unlike Twitter or Facebook they will also have to bear the consequences if they publish something problematic. The problem is with platforms which benefit from both worlds. They are considered as utilities when it comes to bear the consequences of what they publish but as a publication when it comes to their ability to decide what they publish and what not. I think that there should be a distinction between a forum like HN, which should be able to curate their content without being considered a publication because it deals with a specific subject and community, to a general platform like facebook or twitter which should be considered as a utility not different to a phone or electric company.
• ismail 6y ago
  The original draft has been posted. have submitted at the link below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24935216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24935216
• yasp 6y ago
  Greenwald's follow up posts: Article in question https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... Emails with editors https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
• hiisukun 6y ago
  Here is a link to the article (draft) that is discussed in the resignation post, and posted an hour or so later: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... And here is the content of emails with the editors, discussing the alleged censorship: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
  • jMyles 6y ago
    Reading the full article really puts me firmly on Greenwald's side of this thing. Given the controversy, I expected it to the inflammatory. Instead, this is solid, restrained reporting on the simple facts of the matter, along with completely fair critiques of the way those facts have been handled by other media.
    • fatbird 6y ago
      And what about reading the email exchange with the editors where they provide feedback?
      • captain_price7 6y ago
        Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable, but then so did the counter arguments of Glenn. Hard to take sides. But that response from another editor Betsy was garbage- she threw around words like "offensive" and "unacceptable" and didn't even bother to explain her position.
        • jMyles 6y ago
          > Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable Reasonable, yes. But sufficient to warrant the sweeping changes for which he asks? His best (and, to my reading, only very solid) point is that Greenwald's article didn't make plain that the full archive is apparently only possessed by two media outlets, who have (in an act of their own tendency to act against the public interest, to be sure) not yet provided it elsewhere. His assertion that the other media who have juggled these questions have done so with dispassion and exhaustion ("doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting. There are other pieces I can point to...") is a view with glasses so rose-colored as to be a political fiction in 2020 America. Moreover, Greenwald's response is substantially more sophisticated and convincing.
• olivermarks 6y ago
  the biden article https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
• angry_octet 6y ago
  Excellent. His more recent delusional ranting really harmed the reputation of The Intercept.
• ConcernedCoder 6y ago
  If the entire issue boils down to the fact that left-leaning media outlets have finally dropped-down to the same dishonerable level as the right-leaning media outlets, and stooped to supressing anything that doesn't jibe with the world view/propaganda that they respectively push, then what's the problem -- seems like the playing field just got a little more even for everyone.
• hnmullany 6y ago
  He definitely needs a copy editor. Some of those sentences are clumsy af.
• StreamBright 6y ago
  Jimmy is funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfn83YmKSKc&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfn83YmKSKc&ab_channel=TheJi...
• hluska 6y ago
  Honestly HN, what in the fuck?? The comments here have run the gamut from conspiracy to arguing there’s a purge coming against the media. If this is the state of ‘hacking’, I’m cancelling my internet access.
  • rodgerd 6y ago
    HN is overrun with Trumpalos.
    • skinkestek 6y ago
      More like HN has started waking up. Many of us don't like Trump at all, we are just sick and tired of media lies. My lawn sign, if I had one would be "any reasonable person".
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    Yeah, this whole discussion is a train wreck. I'm kind of fearful for the US right now, this illogical polarization is off the charts. This article really struck home for me, it's what I've been observing for a while now: Study: Republicans and Democrats hate the other side more than they love their own side https://phys.org/news/2020-10-republicans-democrats-side.html https://phys.org/news/2020-10-republicans-democrats-side.htm...
• PenisBanana 6y ago
  Viva Glen Greenwald
• say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
  Has Greenwald done much journalism since Snowden's revelations? I stopped following him a long time ago as he was using his platform to advocate his own social justice agenda.
  • jessaustin 6y ago
    Somehow you must have missed the most important work that Intercept ever did: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-archive-operation-car-wash/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-archive-operation...
• dkarl 6y ago
  Greenwald posted some emails he says are from his editor at the Intercept. [0] Reading the emails, his editor sounds pretty reasonable. And I think it's ironic that a journalist would cite ethics as his reason for being so hell-bent on publishing an article that does nothing but repeat and amplify unsubstantiated suspicions about a candidate a few days before the election. Greenwald's point-by-point attempt at rebutting his editor supports the editor's perspective, in my opinion. He describes the lack of evidence in a way that conspiratorially suggests that the evidence exists, and his takedown of the bigger media outlets consists of noting that they investigated and ran articles that failed to produce any damning evidence... which is exactly what his article would do, except his article would frame the lack of evidence as evidence of a bigger conspiracy. I think his faith that there's a story there is exactly what you need in an investigative journalist, and I think stopping him from publishing anyway when he doesn't find it is exactly what he needs in an editor. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
• NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Serious question, the laptop story... The quote was data recovery from 3 laptops for 85$ ( Apple). Is that even possible? The quote for 1 laptop for data restore is at minimum 300$/laptop from everywhere I can see. It's one of the reasons I consider it misinformation by default. Another reason would be that the FBI already warned for Russian disinformation about the Hunter Biden emails since Burisma got hacked way back in January 2020 ( and they warned the White House in 2019)
• ajarmst 6y ago
  Greenwald has done important, admirable work. As has The Intercept. Unfortunately my estimation of both has catastrophically declined. The Intercept outed an important source (Reality Winner) with comically incompetent OpSec, which is unforgivable given their niche. Greenwald was once an important critic from the Left of the Obama Administration---which got a pass on a lot of things (<cough> drones <cough>) that Republicans wouldn't have. Unfortunately (and for some complex and sometimes understandable reasons) he moved away from trenchant criticism and into a sort of foaming unhinged rage at former members of that ådministration. At times, he rivals Infowars performances, except I don't think Glen is just playing a role. He's demonstrably unable to report in a professional manner on Biden, and non-propagandist outlets (are there any left?) are right to decline to publish the article---as is demonstrated by an even casual look at his Twitter feed when Obama, Clinton or Biden are mentioned. Greenwald has some justification for his resentment, but that doesn't make him a credible source.
• stjohnswarts 6y ago
  These are the same garbage attacks that succeeded when the FBI directory came out and said "there -might- be something in the emails" and quietly report a bit after "yeah nothing there" but the electorate who are easily persuaded by headlines were firmly of the idea that Hillary was a "benghazi traitor". The general public is woefully apt to have confirmation bias or just decide an important thing on a whim because they saw a headline.
• dwd 6y ago
  Joe Rogan strikes again... Glenn was on his podcast yesterday and looks like that discussion was the tipping point to convince him that yes, he can do this alone, and he doesn't need the backing of a media organisation to do his work and put his ideas out there. For anyone who hasn't listened to it yet, he was quite scathing of the rest of the mainstream media and the unfiltered aspect of Joe's podcasts gives a bit of insight as to where his thinking was at.
• green_rooster 6y ago
  The e-mail exchange that Greenwald just published is very damaging to his case. His editors make some reasonable editorial suggestions about the focus of his piece and he immediately screams censorship, impugns their integrity and threatens to resign. I think it's extremely likely that he has been planning to move to an independent venture for a while and was just looking for the most attention-grabbing means of doing so.
  • crocodiletears 6y ago
    I missed this. Do you have a link?
    • jml7c5 6y ago
      I believe the links was added a little while after the initial post. Here it is: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... I'm surprised Greenwald is using these as evidence of censorship, given the opening line of the memo directly contradicts his claim: "there is some I agree with and some I disagree with but am comfortable publishing." [emph added]
  • vvG94KbDUtRa 6y ago
    His immediate over the top reaction makes it a bit hard to take him seriously
• mikeruhl 6y ago
  meanwhile, we are watching Trump's entire family profit from DTJ's presidency. Why doesn't Greenwald write a story about that? His article is basically, "well no one confirmed none of the deals happened! So there's still a chance!" Come on man, we're watching this unfold in real time in the current administration. Clean your own house.
  • jessaustin 6y ago
    It would have been nice if the impeachments had focused on real crimes like that, rather than obvious BS.
  • afiori 6y ago
    Well, the point of the article is that Greenwald was trying to write about how an (ex)(vice)president was using his influence to enrich his family...
• roody15 6y ago
  We live in dark times.. We rapidly racing to become Chine 2.0
• mikestew 6y ago
  Now that WSJ is included in Apple News+, the NYT has a month after the election to clean their shit up, or I dump a decade-long subscription. And by "clean their shit up", I want news on my front page, not political discussion. And by news I mean "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast", not "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast While Trump Plays Golf". Though I shall stay far, far away from that crazy train WSJ calls an "opinion page".
  • CamperBob2 6y ago
    Trump bragged incessantly that, unlike Obama, he wouldn't have time to play golf if elected President. Instead, he's spent about twice as much time on the links as Obama did, including during various crises that would demand a normal president's full attention. If they didn't report how the President was responding to a given crisis, you'd criticize them for that. So I don't see how they can win here. They keep pounding the "Orange Man Bad!" drum because yes, in, fact, Orange Man is Bad, and people need to know that. It may not be news, but it's fit to print.
    • flyinglizard 6y ago
      You just fell into the same trap. It is tiring to read news from a Trump-centric context. I cancelled my NYT subscription last week because I feel I’m taken for ride over their politics.
      • bccdee 6y ago
        It's not "their" politics, it's just politics. What politicians do matters. Politics matters. "I don't want to hear about how our country is being run because 'politics'" is a really weird attitude to take towards a news outlet. This IS the news. Why do you think it's weird for it to get covered?
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
  • michaelmrose 6y ago
• content_sesh 6y ago
  I'd like to take a moment to remember my favorite Greenwald story, where he was skeptical of Russian interference in the 2016 election. A whistleblower then provided The Intercept with a document from the NSA proving otherwise. The Intercept then turned around sent the NSA the letter, asking them to verify it and clumsily burning their source in the dumbest possible way. It's unfortunate that Glenn's tactic of screaming "DEBATE ME!" at his editors didn't work, and wish Glenn well as he joins the ranks of the other accursed shills, banished from their homelands and forced haunt Twitter whining about cancel culture or whatever.
• sxyuan 6y ago
  Rather than focusing too much on the he-said she-said of this post and the response from the Intercept, I think it's more interesting to read Glenn's article for yourself, along with the email exchange that precipitated the resignation. Article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... Emails: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... To me, the article seemed rather light on evidence and heavy on speculation. The first email from the editorial staff seemed reasonable, if perhaps a little heavy-handed. It certainly did not seem to warrant Glenn's immediate escalation - his reply reads like an ultimatum: > But if the Intercept's position is that it won't publish any article by me that suggests that there are valid questions about whether Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing, then I think we should agree that the Intercept's position is that it is unwilling to publish the article I want to publish about the Democratic front-runner. Under my contract, if TI decides it does not want to publish something I want to publish, then I have the right to publish it elsewhere, which is a right I would exercise with this article. Another excerpt that stood out, this one from Glenn's follow-up email (the 3rd in the chain): > ...this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored... and it's happening less than a week before a presidential election. So, he first equates the editorial request to censorship, then emphasizes the closeness of the election in order to justify why that editorial concern should be bypassed. His entire attitude seems to be that since he doesn't write anything factually incorrect, any attempt to influence or challenge the things his writing tries to imply is equivalent to censorship. A misguided attitude, if not downright disingenuous, IMO. But you can read and decide for yourself.
  • vinhboy 6y ago
    Sad that this will never get as much views as the original complaint by Greenwald. He played his hand well. Reading the "article", all you see as evidence from him is "Biden did not dispute this"... that's his evidence. This is the final nail in the coffin for me. Greenwald is officially a wacko.
• ykevinator 6y ago
  I'm enjoying the fox newsies clutching their pearls. As if refusing to publish gossip is the end of the world
• doonesbury 6y ago
  I read the article and in and of itself it's adequate. However, as an editor here are some of changed I'd implement esp. in context: - no more headlines like "what nobody (read power structure) will tell you .. the real story behind..." which sours information by building mistrust. People are wrong, don't know, sometimes right but the entire msm is not people lying to you and you (readers) are not chumps. Let's do better. - the constant bitching, whining, sniveling by media group 1 about media groups 2, 3, 4... Look you gotta something to say, say it. You can argue the other side got it wrong. Say it. And leave it there. What I don't want to read is third grader stuff: Biden wears a hair piece and. NPR and CNN know it but but wont say anything. Whining about claimed tribes and tribe favoritism isn't a journalist's task. It has the side effect seen in article of making the writer small, powerless, and unequal to the task. The last issue I believe has its roots (maybe not chronological firs but in impact) to rush Limbaugh who successfully got am into politics by claiming mainstream media plays favorites. Fox later did the same on TV.
• deeeeplearning 6y ago
  Worth pointing out that The Intercept has posted a scathing rebuttal. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
• deeeeplearning 6y ago
  Inb4 Greenwald takes a job with Trump Campaign as Head of PR lmao how incredibly transparent.
• cinquemb 6y ago
  Wow, I thought he would have left this limited hangout a long time ago… not surprising since most of the snowden "leaks" remained behind closed doors…
• shoulderfake 6y ago
  I'm just perplexed by the idea that he gave up that much control of the publication he founded that senior editors are able to dictate what he can and can't publish, on his own publication. You cant be giving up that kinda control.
• born_a_skeptic 6y ago
  Wow.. Why isn't this #1? 743 points...
• purpleidea 6y ago
  How come this link with 749+ points and 5hours, is near the bottom of the HN page of lesser rated (and older) articles???
  • MrStonedOne 6y ago
    Hackernews down rate articles with lots of comments until overrided by mods
• reilly3000 6y ago
  https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. FYI this sob story has some precedent: In 2014: "I absolutely refuse to be exiled from my own country for the crime of doing journalism and I'm going to force the issue just on principle. And I think going back for a ceremony like the Polk Awards or other forms of journalistic awards would be a really good symbolic test of having to put the government in the position of having to arrest journalists who are coming back to the US to receive awards for the journalism they have done." He wasn't arrested. He wasn't even menaced by authorities. The dude has a serious persecution complex.
  • Lammy 6y ago
    What is "the issue" he's referencing?
  • pvarangot 6y ago
    Did you read his story? It's good, it's serious and it calls out the democrats about some real bullshit like inventing a fake Russian intelligence operation to not respond to allegations that come from the emails. I don't care if a journalist has a paranoid delusion as long as they are doing good writing and due diligence, and Glenn's story has both. He's not the most stable individual and he has made mistakes in the past, but he's a journalist he writes and we read and make our minds. I'm not going to doubt him because he's a "freak".
    • mundo 6y ago
      I read it, but did not see any new reporting. It makes a bold claim in the lede - "a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories" and offers no specific evidence for it. It seems like Greenwald's gist is that circumstantial evidence is enough proof - that this story is so obviously important that not covering it prominently is <i>prima facie</i> evidence of bias. That's a reasonable opinion, but that's all it is, and if you didn't already believe it, I don't think there's anything here to change your mind. Personally, I don't see the bombshell part. All I see here is that most journalists want Biden to win, and sometimes politicians' kids get sinecures they don't deserve. I knew both of those things last year. The whole debacle like an obvious attempt to smear Biden Sr with salacious stuff that his kid did, and the only reason it's getting this much attention is that, unlike Trump, Biden doesn't have any other scandals to talk about.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
  The day keeps getting better and better. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-...
• ska 6y ago
  Without comment, here is The Intercept's reply: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
• emmelaich 6y ago
  For those arguing caution before an election :- you cannot both argue that AND argue that the story is very unconvincing.
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    Ummm, yes you can. The story is unconvincing because it is unsubstantiated and of suspicious provenance, both VERY subtle points with less than week before an election.
• chiph 6y ago
  I hate to see this, as I've been following Glenn since the Snowden affair and remember the start of The Intercept. But what strikes me is that this is the difference between being a founder, and being an owner. An owner, of even a (non-trivial) minority percentage, would have had a very different relationship with the editors and would have had significant influence on the publication's policies.
• facet1ous 6y ago
  I read through Glenn's draft after seeing the outrage on this thread and... it reads like a generic opinion piece. I think he makes some good points and some dumb ones, but that's besides the point in all honesty - most of the article is him just complaining about the state of the media, making accusations of double-standards, and full of inflammatory language. There's little investigative journalism, no interviews with backing sources, no new facts laid out, just complaining about supposed wrong-doings and coverups. Some of which can be easily refuted. Look I don't read The Intercept, but this is not newsroom material. I'm not journalist or have any kind of editing experience, but I wouldn't even run this in a school newspaper if I was put in charge. This is editorial material, pure and simple. The fact that he's complaining about censorship is eye-rolling. I think it's pretty clear that most people here don't understand that the op-ed page and newsroom are different organizations, run by different people, and have different standards, even though they appear on the same newspaper. it's scary that these lines are being blurred more and more by the day. But honestly, what's really probably going on is that Glenn Greenwald is tired of The Intercept and wants move full-time to his substack page. To do that he's bootstrapping his audience on his new site by manufacturing outrage. I would think most people should see through this...
  • zaroth 6y ago
    It is an op-ed and was supposed to be published by the Intercept as an op-ed... The NY Times reports; > In a phone interview, Mr. Greenwald said he had received emails from Intercept editors outlining what the publication would allow and not allow in his article. “My arrangement with The Intercept since it began is my opinion pieces are not edited by anyone,” he said.
    • joe_the_user 6y ago
      Sure and as an op-ed, the journal itself makes a decision whether it wants to front that opinion. The journal has stopped being close to Mr. Greenwald's perspective. Sure, maybe they changed the rules on him since it had become their publication. But that's a King Lear story, not a journalism story. "You broke your promise that I'd have unlimited publication rights" is a sad story of broken promises but it's not a story of journalistic decline.
• RickJWagner 6y ago
  Truly there is a problem with spin-free news today. I'm not sure what the solution will be. But we'd better think of something fast, before people lose all faith in the news.
• steakscience 6y ago
  It's hard to tell if Greenwald was actually censored, or if the rest of the editorial team thought the Biden emails were nonsense and therefore not fit to print. To me, it looks like the latter.
• strangeattractr 6y ago
  I actually don't have very much respect for Glenn Greenwald. Whilst I largely agree with his views on free speech, he has repeatedly shown himself to be a petty and narcissistic man who seems to be unable to have a healthy disagreement with anyone. Once he decides someone is an enemy he seems to lose his head - his attacks on Sam Harris, who I'm by no means an acolyte of, saw him repeatedly seek to discredit Harris not through argument but by claiming Harris was "radicalising" people to adopt extreme right-wing views. I've seen a few people in this thread refer to his reputation to affirm his account. This is a very dangerous way to evaluate the veracity of conflicting claims. Particularly when part of his reputation is built atop Snowden's choosing of him rather than anything he uncovered himself. Having read the piece and the emails I don't think this justifies the hysteria, I've had far more aggressive email exchanges at work that didn't blow up this badly. I can see why the editors felt revisions were needed, the title was clickbaity and it read more like an angry blog post with facts interlaced with strangely personal attacks e.g. by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories That is certainly not what I would consider dispassionate and impartial analysis. He has a problem with this person having in the past called him a 'cold war grifter'. He seems to consider any suggestions that Russia may be using internet disinformation to sow discord in the US ridiculous and conspiratorial. Which I find as naive as all the democrats who dismiss all negative stories as Russian disinformation. If the NSA had the opportunity to undermine Russia for geopolitical advantage it would, I have no doubt the GRU/FSB would seek to capitalise on this opportunity. However, I do think he has some valid general points re: Biden's refusal to engage, as well as the criticisms of the blatantly partisan news media - that includes his sources. I just don't think that particular piece is a good exploration of it. Disclaimer: I'm not an American and I have no particular affinity for Biden or Trump.
• monkeydreams 6y ago
  GLENN GREENWALD: "Your Honor, I can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the defendant killed Mr Smith. And I will do it with a single question. I am so certain of the defendant's guilt, I move that the court adjourn so that your Honor can begin deliberating on the sentence." JUDGE: "Mr Greenwald, we need to establish the facts of the matter first." GLENN GREENWALD: "That will be a breeze your Honor. A fleeting diversion from the matter at hand. I can prove the defendant's guilt with... One. Simple. Question. Like that! snaps fingers. But, more importantly, I think that forty to life is commensurate with the crime." JUDGE: "The evidence, Mister Greenwald. I believe you said you had a question about evidence?" GLENN GREENWALD: "Of course, your Honor. Of course. And let me just say I have the victim's children in the court today, to see justice done. You wouldn't want to not do justice in front of the victim's children would you, your Honor? Look, little Timmy is waving." (Glenn waves toward the rear of the court). JUDGE: "That appears.. Adjusts glasses and peers intently That appears to be a waving tube man, similar to the one outside the Carpet Salesroom down the block..." GLENN GREENWALD: (Hurriedly) "Be that as it may, your Honor, to the matter of sentenc-" JUDGE:"It even says Carpet Warehouse on the sleeve." GLENN GREENWALD: "I... uh..." JUDGE:"Mr Greenwald. MISTER GREENWALD! (Bangs gavel) Did you steal this homonculus from the Carpet Warehouse?" GLENN GREENWALD: (rushes up and snatches gavel) "Bailiff, remove Timmy Victim from the court." JUDGE: (Stares silently at Greenwald coldly for a heartbeat) "I believe you had a question for the defendant?" GLENN GREENWALD: "Yes, one that will-" JUDGE: "And your entire case of guilt is based on this one question which will prove the case (He consults his notes) 'Like that!'?" (Snaps fingers) GLENN GREENWALD: "Yes, I uh-" JUDGE: "The question, Mr Greenwald." GLENN GREENWALD:"I... Uh... did you-" JUDGE: "Address the defendant, Mr Greenwald. I am not on trial here." GLENN GREENWALD: "Defendant. Did you... on the night in question... did you kill the victim?" DEFENDANT: (Leans forward, lips close to the microphone) "No." GLENN GREENWALD: "Well fuck. I'm all outta ideas."
• georgewfraser 6y ago
  The DKIM headers from the emails have been verified, so they are real: https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768?s=21 https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768?s=2...
• malwarebytess 6y ago
  I think with this The Intercept has lost all its credibility as the outlet that will publish stories others will not. It's clear that Hunter Biden's data was compromised. The data that I have seen is definitely real and definitely his. The provenance of this data is unclear. It's also a common technique to compromise data and doctor a couple of documents to slip in among-st the real ones. My opinion is that it's some kind of a cloud service hack given the type of information that was compromised (video, photos, sms logs, emails.) I have seen scant little coverage of this in the mainstream, or even alternative, media. Why can't they address what is verifiable in this story and add a codicil that some of it may be false?
• ilikehurdles 6y ago
  Someone pretty familiar with Greenwald posted a pretty thorough, point-by-point takedown of the piece he wanted The Intercept to publish, and ended up publishing himself: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1321923054499495938?s=20 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1321923054499495938?s=... Frankly, if you read his original piece, it's exhaustingly shoddy. To say he needs an editor is putting it lightly.
  • adjkant 6y ago
    It's sad I had to scour Twitter and replies here to find this on the third page. The irony of HN upvoting comments that do the same op-ed ranting on their own issues and haven't seem to have thought critically about the article in question or the emails Greenwald himself leaked (which paints the publishing story quite differently from his version of it) is wild but not unexpected.
  • nickysielicki 6y ago
    I can’t believe that you genuinely would consider these tweets to be a “thorough point-by-point takedown” of the article. If anything, her counter arguments were so weak that I’m even more strongly in support of Greenwald than before. For example, at one point she implies that we should not trust the emails (and further, that it is incorrect to claim that emails have been leaked), because they are pictures of emails instead of text files. What?
    • ilikehurdles 6y ago
      The first point? Ask Greenwald, he’s helped get actual emails from whistleblowers into publication a few times. I mean the blind computer repair shop owner on the opposite side of the country from where Hunter lives allegedly had 3 laptops in his possession that he offered to do data recovery on for the low total of $75, before digging into the data and handing it to Giuliani and friends. Why would these laptops only have PDF reproductions of some email rather than any originals with any headers intact? Surely they must have the real things in there. Tell him to open outlook.
• markhahn 6y ago
  I like an underdog, but Greenwald is not behaving reasonably. If you read the article that the Intercept refused to publish, it's pretty awful. He's not skeptical about his own story, and surely that is the prime commandment of responsible journalism.
• DevKoala 6y ago
  There has been an active investigation on Hunter Biden and associates since 2019, confirmed hours ago by the FBI: https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-investigating-hunter-biden-money-222323906.html https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-investigating-hunter-biden-money-... Also, the email in which the Burisma advisor thanks Hunter Biden for the introduction to Joe has been verified through the metadata which matches the private key on Google’s servers. https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email/ https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-auth...
• gcanyon 6y ago
  Greenwald’s article is flawed from the very first sentence: “Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop,” as if the very provenance of the laptop isn’t a hilariously unproven detail. It seems this situation says more about Greenwald than the Intercept.
• sorval 6y ago
  Well, there goes the intercept.
• gorgoiler 6y ago
  The emails are interesting. I’m surprised Greenwald’s editors give such detailed written feedback instead of, say, over the phone. The language used offers some scope for compromise, but in general it’s pretty forthright. In my experience the back and forth of an email chain thread will only further entrench positions rather than engender persuasiveness. We all know this, right? It’s nothing new and it happens all the time on HN comments too. What’s odd — and maybe I show here how little I know about the people management side of running a commercial journalism org — is that the editor’s critique happens in writing.
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    Do you do code reviews over the phone? In a professional setting, why would feedback of this nature not be in a written format? Editor feedback is often very detailed ... why would you have a phone call to say "you used your instead of you're on line 40".
    • gorgoiler 6y ago
      If a consequence of the review were to be the E9 / founder resigning — and resigning publicly and noisily — then yes: I’d do it over the phone.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• DogOfTheGaps 6y ago
  Per New York Post reporters, the "Hunter Biden" story is total garbage: https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-skepticism-in-publishing-hunter-biden-stories-report-2020-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-skepticism-in-... I find it strange that people expect "mainstream" press outlets to run with the story. This is not a story of media with an agenda. They did some basic fact checking and found it to be false. Pretty simple.
• quetzthecoatl 6y ago
  American media's uniformity and compilance to carefully constructed narratives was scary enough as it was. Now the small principled minority who looked beyond that and went for truth are getting ostracized and punished for their principled stands.
• lki876 6y ago
  Spreading information: news. Trying to affect peoples views and behavior: propaganda.
• secretsatan 6y ago
  Didn't Fox news reject it too? (Apart from the twat who's turning himself orange)"
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• dang 6y ago
  All: don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments in this thread. That's what the More link at the bottom points to. Or click here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=4 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24933054&p=4
• varjag 6y ago
  It's most perplexing why Greenwald is being treated as some kind of liberal why he is clearly a conservative nutjob. Supporting Iraq war, going on to Tucker Carlson show, excusing Trump on every possible angle. Is it all just because of grooming the Snowden case?
• fareesh 6y ago
  There seems to be a premise in the USA that if Russia has a hand in true information coming to light, the bigger story is about Russia's hand in it, and not the information itself. This narrative has been seen a lot, and often times it is invoked as the default narrative whenever things are being claimed in a particular political direction. I would like to question this at a fundamental level. At what point does the information itself become pertinent? Shouldn't the information itself, if true, always be the focus of the story? If the information is unverified, shouldn't there be some attempt to verify it? If it cannot be verified - then it's probably best to dismiss it, but if people involved in the situation start coming forward to verify the context of the information, shouldn't it merit further investigation? There is this guy - Tony Bobulinski. He's a navy veteran from a family of veterans and he's pretty much coming forward to say that the emails are all true. In his absence, it's ambiguous, but now that's come forward, why is there still hesitation to take this story seriously? Frankly I find it difficult to believe that there is no coordinated media attempt to silence this story because at a personal level many of them want to cover up anything that makes one candidate look bad.
  • jackthezipper 6y ago
    >There seems to be a premise in the USA that if Russia has a hand in true information coming to light, the bigger story is about Russia's hand in it, and not the information itself. You're absolutely right, and it is frustrating to no end.
    • reducesuffering 6y ago
      Imagine all politicians have at least a bit of dirt in secret, documented in some email, text, or photo, on a computer somewhere. Also suppose each politician has varying degrees of dirt, from minor mistakes, not in bad faith, to full on treason. Then suppose there's an adversary capable of hacking any of the politicians' aforementioned secret media. This adversary can now pick and choose which politician they release damaging evidence of. They don't need to release all of it, implicating the politician with the most severe grievances. Just the one the adversary decides they disfavor. In this case, your argument is saying "let's focus on this small mistake, because that's all the info we have." I'm not advocating that in the real world, the bigger story is about who's releasing the info, rather than the info itself. However, there are issues when not taking both into account.
• SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  No Greenwald - no Intercept. It will be forgotten within year, as soon as Glenn opens a new thing.
• a5withtrrs 6y ago
  Lots of people here weighing in with their 2c about the authenticity of the data, but why is everyone arguing about this? Sure, we the technologically savvy people have the means to verify the digital authenticity of these files/emails/documents. But we don't have access to them (and likely won't). So we can't actually claim one way or the other for sure until we do.
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    "We have VERY damaging information about the presidential candidate surfacing days before the election in outlandish circumstances but it's not available for forensic review/got lost in the mail." Yes, we can't be 100% sure that these things are fake but it strains credulity to believe them.
• ezekiel68 6y ago
  It shocks, and disgusts me to see clearly intelligent people rallying around a guy who wants to publish unverified and irrelevant drivel as an October Surprise. Defenders here are quoting Tucker Carlson for God's sake -- whose defense team in court persuasively argued that no reasonable person should expect to hear the truth from his show. Comments are barely falling short of singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" while breathlessly decrying the existential threat this tempest in a teacup poses to our nation. We in the US are not voting for Hunter Biden and no business meetings in the Ukraine or China took place. Hence, attempting to legitimize this nothingburger is disinformation when it is perpetrated in the closing weeks of a US Presidential election. Fear, uncertainty, doubt all wrapped up in a puff of smoke. Something something before the truth has a chance to lace up its boots, and all that. The cynical streak in me has to wonder if this isn't simply some kind of clickbait market-share grab by The Intercept.
  • tigershark 6y ago
    It’s even more shocking that HN allows such blatant misinformation and conservative propaganda. I would never have thought that this website was at the level of a tabloid like the New York Post. At least we know for sure that all allegations against Biden are just total bullshit given that even Fox News decided to not publish them and they were published only by a cesspool tabloid that writes articles on how miley Cyrus was chased by aliens.
• cryptica 6y ago
  It seems that many contrarian journalists have been getting fired recently. For example, journalists from Truthdig were fired recently as well. This is coordinated criminal activity. Those who control the media have crossed over into criminal territory and the people already know it. They are foolish to think they can get away with this.
• icare_1er 6y ago
  The censorship applied by the GAFA and the MSM is frightening, especially when comparing to how the fake dossier of Trump's golden shower was passed around in 2016, while these revelations on Biden's corruptness are censored. Google was also caught red-handed in 2016, suppressing searches on Hillary's health. But yes, the problem is that Trump is KGB agent and that Putin hacks Twitter lol
• joveian 6y ago
  Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, I'll point out this mid-2019 article about Hunter Biden in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-bi...
• teekert 6y ago
  With this "2 party system" (which it is not but ok) you get this kind of behaviour, even people that love freedom of expression, hate Trump even more and being pro/con 1 party is essentially the same as being con/pro the other. It's not a nice system, you need more parties my US friends.
• rurban 6y ago
  This was an interesting thread for meta information. Before the very first 150 comments you could immediately see who the spooks on HN were and who not. But since this somewhat useful info is now buried in over 1300 comments, you can only see who is merely influenced by the spooks and their media meddling and who not.
• talkingtab 6y ago
  A good example of the principle of distraction. Let us not talk or discuss Covid. Let us not discuss the number of people who have lost their jobs. Let us not discuss the suppression of voting. Let us not discuss that the USA now needs a Pro Democracy movement. Instead, in the guise of freedom of the press, let us discuss some issue, which whether true or not, of substance or not, will cause us to focus in a way that is divisive. I can as easily claim without proof that Donald Trump intends to flee to Russia if not re-elected. And what about my freedom to express my opinion? OMG. Oh yes, and I am resigning my from job in protest! Virtuous Victims Unite! My apologies for the sarcasm, but this country has serious issues. [edited for spelling]
• ryeguy_24 6y ago
  Can someone summarize the evidence found against Biden/son?
• sfg 6y ago
  I am not interested in what Mr Greenwald wrote, but I want the decision about reading it to be made between myself and Mr Greenwald. Once the Intercept went beyond not publishing his content themselves to demanding he not publish it anywhere they were engaged in attempting to prevent myself and Mr Greenwald from making that choice. Down with the Intercept.
• valuearb 6y ago
  Peter Maas request for edits was reasoned and fair. Greenwald is off his rocker on this. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
• MichaelMoser123 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk Glenn Greenwald on fox news (starting with 4:00) My summary: During the last four years the left lost its scepticism towards the secret service, this as the CIA has tried to topple Trump. Now they are in the same boat (in his words 'full union with') the CIA/security state. Snowden was motivated by his anger at the interference of the NSA in internal affairs (who are all supposed to deal in foreign affairs only), now the whole lot is deep within internal matters and 'telling Americans what to think'. He says the whole thing is very dangerous - as the CIA guys are professional disinformation specialists with an authoritarian mindset, and they are likely to gain a lot of influence.
• neilpointer 6y ago
  Greenwald is chiefly concerned with making sure that we all know this story might have legs. And Biden might be a bit corrupt. In fact he might have engaged in behavior that's almost identical in scope and corruption as the sitting President. He also wants you to know that he doesn't like innuendo and insinuation, despite that being all that the currently known facts about Hunter's laptop supports. He also wants us to know that the US media is biased towards Biden, but he's definitely not biased towards Biden despite this style of corruption being demonstrated by both candidates for President. Does Greenwald have any similar exposes of Trump's alleged crimes? It's the same thing in 2016. At worst, Hillary Clinton's crimes were precisely the same as the Bush admin using a private email server to conduct official business. Implicit in all of this is a glaring bias of "we all know that Republicans do bad stuff but I expect better of Democrats so they're the _real_ bad actors here." How bout this? It's unethical to help destroy Biden's shot at the Presidency even if he may have engaged in unethical behavior, simply because Trump is unethical in all of these same ways _and more_. Dispassionately pursuing the facts of this story serves more harm than good and that's an uncomfortable truth if you value objective journalism. Glenn seems to be unwilling to accept that the US media learned the lesson of 2016 which is that they got played once and they don't want to get played again.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• SZJX 6y ago
  The current US political landscape is a clear illustration of people willfully ignoring one simple truth in the world: There is no absolute "justice" or "evil". Of course for two sides in a conflict, each side will claim that justice is on their side and that they're fighting against evil, just like how the crusaders and the jihadists each claimed that their god is the true god, while both committing atrocities and acts of benevolence. Turned out they were not that different from each other after all. The lazy mainstream narrative of "justice's triumph against evil" that people have been fed since the childhood could be doing much harm, while cultures that have recently suffered defeat in major conflicts and are forced to endure the humiliation/repatriation and take very hard looks at their past, have a much more nuanced understanding of it. One piece of work that has left a permanent impression on me is the highly rated Japanese visual novel Soukou Akki Muramasa (https://vndb.org/v2016 https://vndb.org/v2016) which explored this theme incredibly well (Unfortunately there's no English translation yet). In painting Trump (or another example, China) as simply "evil" and reducing everything via essentialism, people themselves are becoming just like what they claim to be fighting against. If you want the truth, you should never be too attached to any sort of ideological extreme. It could blind you and mislead you. Of course, I understand that the very job of mainstream media in any country is to feed its populace a certain narrative, otherwise the media would not be doing their job. And it's apparent that "justice vs. evil" is a mode of thinking that human beings are somehow wired to perform, otherwise how can they easily justify going to war and killing "the others" without batting an eye throughout the millennia? However, for the situation to get so heated and tunnel-sighted even for a lot of highly educated people in the 21st century who are supposed to have independent and critical thinking, not to mention for an "alternative" media outlet whose founding goal was to do the exact opposite of this sort of groupthink, this really isn't a good look. (Another somewhat tangential comment is an observation that some Europeans make about America's identity politics: How can you achieve the goal of "everybody being treated equally" while each "group" emphasizes their own identity and fights the other group(s)? This in itself is already a paradox. In Europe the idea (at least ideally) is that "if you're here you're part of us. We're all the same", e.g. the French population census never has a "ethnicity" part in it. Of course, I understand that things are really complex in the US due to the history of slavery where in the beginning the only purpose for certain ethnic groups to be there is to serve the other group, so the historic baggage and structure is somewhat intractable, while countries like Germany and Sweden who didn't manage to end up with a lot of colonies ironically can now accept different ethnicities (mostly economic migrants) somehow more easily without this historical structure in place.)
• ashishb 6y ago
  Is there a newspaper free of political opinions? I want to what's going on in the world in terms of politics, sports, science and society. It is a bit tiring to be reminded again and again why certain politician is a nazi or a certain politician wants to turn whole country communist.