11 ms·
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
by 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 agoExerpt: > refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden
- spamizbad 6y agoThis 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 agoI'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 agoKeep 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 agoPlease elaborate on what you perceive to be holes in this story.
- karlkatzke 6y agoThis is the Hunter Biden laptop story. The theory here is that Hunter Biden, for some reason, flew 3,000 miles away from his home to drop off some devices with unencrypted sensitive data for repair and data recovery at a place where the owner couldn't identify him positively because he's blind, and then just forgot them. The shop's surveillance camera footage for the time period in question got wiped clean even though there's footage from before and after. And instead of just deleting the data and moving on with life, the owner held on to it for a year (no one does this) and then somehow (we still don't know how) it ended up in the hands of Rudi Giuliani. And we can't see it except for a couple of screenshots from imessage, but we're told it's damning. It got mailed to Tucker Carlson but somehow got lost in the mail. Here's the interview with the shop owner: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter... This is classic KGB/FSB misinformation. It's right out of the playbook.
- jtdev 6y agoYou just used a collection of logical fallacies to poke holes in the story while avoiding the question of Joe Biden being corrupt and indebted to foreign adversaries. Why did Hunter Biden get +$50,000/mo. salary from a Ukranian energy company that Joe Biden had dealings with during his time as VPOTUS? Why did Hunter Biden get $1 billion windfall from China just days after visiting Beijing with his influential father?
- karlkatzke 6y agoWhy do Donald Trump's children have top secret clearances that they're ineligible for and work in the White House with him? Why does Donald Trump owe foreign banks nearly a billion dollars? Why did two banks forgive millions of dollars of loans against Donald Trump and then have bankers directly responsible for forgiving the loans receive positions within his administration? Why hasn't Donald Trump divested himself of his holdings in his companies as required to by the Emoluments clause? Why has the federal government paid Trump properties over a billion dollars for secret service and other agents to stay there? Until you can answer all of those questions with reasonable explanations that aren't "because he can" then I don't want to hear another word out of you about Hunter Biden -- who has had no role in the Obama/Biden administration and will have no role in the Biden/Harris administration.
- secondcoming 6y agoPerhaps his story fills in some of those holes? We'll see when he publishes it on his own.
- Raidion 6y agoWithout knowing what's in there, it's really hard to make a call on that information alone. This could be anything from "Hey, the source for this information is notoriously unreliable and doesn't meet our standards" to "He can't publish this because then Trump might win and that's not worth the cost". One is a very valid reason to refuse to publish something, for the other, the ends don't justify the means and he's right to be upset.
- jjeaff 6y agoWas that the specific mandate? Nothing critical of Joe? Or was it that all the sections in the article critical of Joe were unsubstantiated.
- ehsankia 6y agoThis right here is a masterclass on how you can still technically be saying "facts", but by cherry picking and bending words make it seem very different from what it actually was. This kind of deception honestly makes everything this person says worthless to me.
- kev009 6y agoSetting boundaries on what one will and wont do isn't victimhood. He doesn't owe the world his output under any terms but his own.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kev_da_dev 6y ago"victimhood"? I find it hard to believe this comment is anything but gaslighting. Did you actually read his resignation? The editors are refusing to publish a story unless he removes all sections critical of Joe Biden. How in the world is this playing the victim card? The conversation regarding censorship is getting disgusting at this point. Censorship should be the main focus of ANY and EVERY journalist, full stop. The profession cannot coexist in a world with censorship. It undermines every single thing about honest, transparent reporting.
- ojnabieoot 6y agoThe idea that the Intercept has a blanket prohibition on criticism of Joe Biden is transparently ridiculous. https://theintercept.com/2020/09/02/biden-foreign-policy-war/ https://theintercept.com/2020/09/02/biden-foreign-policy-war... https://theintercept.com/2020/09/01/biden-economic-policy-us-economy/ https://theintercept.com/2020/09/01/biden-economic-policy-us... https://theintercept.com/2020/08/13/biden-latino-deportation-moratorium-platform/ https://theintercept.com/2020/08/13/biden-latino-deportation... https://theintercept.com/2020/08/07/joe-biden-climate-policy-advisers/ https://theintercept.com/2020/08/07/joe-biden-climate-policy... What Glenn’s whiny rant leaves out is that it wasn’t just the Intercept that refused to run the Hunter/Ukraine/China BS: reporters at the NY Post and Wall Street Journal both refused to put their names on the story. The NY Post had to use a producer on Tucker Carlson’s show, while the WSJ ran the story as an op-ed since the reporters again refused to tarnish their reputation (they also ran a story from the actual reporters rebutting the allegations) Editorial judgment and criticism is part of free speech. It is not just about broadcasting the president’s re-election propaganda as loudly as you can. And the idea that Glenn Greenwald can be trusted rests entirely on his 2007-2015 work, and ignores how disgraceful, craven, and just plain pathetic he became in 2016. Anyone who appears on Tucker Carlson’s show simply should not be trusted.
- collegecamp293 6y agoThis is wrong. The WSJ did report as The Editorial Board (means all of them). https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bidens-and-tony-bobulinski-11603927190 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bidens-and-tony-bobulinski-...
- jtdev 6y agoWhat leads you to believe that he was trying to spread misinformation? The suppression of criticism leveled against Joe Biden or any other individual in public service is a grave danger to democracy. I commend Mr. Greenwald for standing up to censorship.
- ehsankia 6y agoPlease entertain the possibility for a moment, whether you agree with it or not, that this story was indeed planted by a foreign nation for the specific purpose of manipulating our election. Do you then believe that it is responsible to willfully help spread it and blast it all over every social media site? Aren't you doing the foreign nation's bidding then? If you do agree there, then where would you draw the line for blocking such information being spread? Is the fact that the reporter at the singular publication in all the the US willing to report on it didn't want their name on it worry you? The fact that the only evidence comes from some random Trump supporting repairman in some random state not worry you? The fact that unreliable (self-exposing to 15yo) people such as Giuliani are attached to the story not worry you? What about our own intelligence services saying that foreign nations have been trying to use said person to manipulate our election?
- jtdev 6y agoThis argument can be made for nearly every piece of political journalism... you're only supporting this suppression because it helps your preferred candidate.
- irencecara 6y agoNo, we're supporting having facts before trying to smear someone the week before an election, by someone with an obvious axe to grind.
- uzakov 6y agoDo you personally believe people should be able to decide for themselves things in their life, make opinions based on different information provided?
- RspecMAuthortah 6y agowho defines what is misinformation and by what standard? it seems any opinion that doesn't conform to mainstream ideologies are now labeled as misinformation. the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoBy way of example, his description of PRISM was factually incorrect to the point of making the people who read his articles more misinformed than people who hadn't. There is nothing ideological in what is a statement of fact and what is not, and Greenwald gets in trouble on that basic point.
- RspecMAuthortah 6y agoOK so if journalists have to get 100% of what they say accurate then 99% of what we see reported today are "factually incorrect" and there won't be anyone left in the profession. Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoGreenwald's description wasn't 99% accurate. It was barely 5% accurate. The only thing accurate in it was that some program called PRISM exists. Every statement he made about what it does was wrong, which he could have avoided if he merely talked to someone computer literate or used his status as a journalist to call the people involved. The NY Times, CNET, and pretty much the rest of mainstream media got it correct and correctly identified PRISM as a non-story while focusing on phone metadata, which was questionably legal post-Carpenter. > Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation. I didn't say that more opinion leads to misinformation. I said nothing about opinion at all.
- dylan604 6y agoif that meant that we had to force the slate clean and start over with proper journalistic standards, i'd kind of be okay with that. if it also means that we could eliminate network talking heads opinion shows from being listed under a News banner, i'd be even more okay with it.
- Nacdor 6y agoDo you have anything to support this accusation? I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to join the Russiagate bandwagon. In the end that was clearly the correct choice, but the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative.
- adobecs3 6y agoIf it's againat Biden it's misinformation and if you don't agree you are alt right. Conpiracy theorist. Also Russia collusion has been proven.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoIt's scary I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 6y agoTucker Carlson just announced on Twitter that he has lost critical documents relating to the alleged wrongdoings of Hunter Biden. This was moments before Glenn Greenwald's resignation.
- Nacdor 6y agoI'm not familiar with this conspiracy theory, can you explain how they're connected?
- threatofrain 6y agoIt means evidence backing up Greenwald's controversial position was still not checked out. The fact that the centerpiece of a story could be "lost" before it was even studied would show that Greenwald was jumping the gun. He has no access to the evidence but he is making very preliminary bets.
- a_band 6y ago"Misinformation" now seems to mean anything that threatens partisan objectives. Given Greewald's track record, I would give him a long leash.
- burtmacklin 6y agoor how about stuff that just can't be, you know, VERIFIED? Unless you take Tucker Carlson at his word and that this proof did exist, he just lost it. Oops. Greenwald seems to have gone way off the deep end, what the heck happened???
- fredguth 6y agoThe Biden campaign nor Hunter Biden have never discredit the material. The fact that I really do want Biden to win does not make Glenn’s piece factually incorrect. I prefer Biden despite this shady story. Still, I commend Glenn for taking a very hard decision for the sake of his integrity.
- pgeorgi 6y agoBy "discrediting" it, the only thing you do is ensure that it'll make it another 24 hours in the media circus (and then there will be another claim that you have to refute or face claims that "but this time they didn't refute it!!!"). That game can be repeated ad nauseam, never leaving you off the hook and keeping the subject matter at the front of minds of everybody. So maybe they never discredited it because they stopped jumping through every hoop that their opponents (Trump or otherwise) hold up for them?
- jorgenveisdal 6y agoAbsolutely. In lock-step with Bari Weiss
- zo1 6y agoWe will never know how much of his "prolific" career was actively stunted by him being censored by both editors and an overall "feel-good"/left-wing bias in society and the news-industry. With enough people being brave enough to stand up like this, we will finally start noticing truly how many people and their opinions have been silenced. Every additional brave person lets others see that they are not alone, that their opinions are reasonable and not hateful or fringe or unaccepted, and that they can once again speak freely in an open society.
- jdhn 6y agoWho determined it was misinformation? Nobody on the Biden campaign has said that the emails are false. The media has just decided that it's "Russian misinformation", which is increasingly looking more like a justification for not investigating valid news that may paint their preferred candidate in a badl ight.
- cblconfederate 6y agoI don't know ... The Intercept is practically dead without him regardless. It's not like they managed to rise above him
- jMyles 6y agoThe actual article in question was published about 90 minutes after this one, here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... I think you'll be surprised by it. There's nothing about it that is fairly characterized as misinformation.
- spoopyskelly 6y ago> your editor is just insisting you don’t spread misinformation. The misinformation they don't like.