17 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThat's an incredibly low bar for praise.
- nickysielicki 6y agoOnly 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...
- pvarangot 6y agoUnfortunately for investigative journalism the bar is low. It's like being the trash-man or cleaning the sewers of the information pipes. No one wants to do it. And of the few that do it have most interests and publish lies or predigested material spoon fed to them by their boss.
- warkdarrior 6y agoSo your argument is that Greenwald's latest submission should be treated specially because he founded The Intercept as a media outlet where his submissions aren't treated specially?
- nickysielicki 6y agoNo, my argument is that he had the choice to override his editors, and that his choice to instead resign instead of corrupting the editorial process is noble.
- fredguth 6y agoIronically, he co-founded TheIntercept by fear of being censored by editors in big media. TheIntercept sells Greenwald’s reputation to fund the editors who are politely censoring him. His resignation speaks volume of his integrity.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor. He may or may not have some contractual guarantee of independence, but his own statement of the situation indicates that he and his cofounders deliberately chose not to have the authority and responsibility that goes with running the show but to leave that to others so that they could keep being reporters.
- mcphage 6y ago> He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor. > His submissions aren't treated specially. It's not his mouthpiece. These two statements are contradictory.
- nickysielicki 6y agoNo, they are not. I am saying that while he is in a superior position at an organizational level, and thus has the authority to seize any responsibility he would like, he is noble for respecting the responsibilities he has delegated to his editors and not doing so.
- mcphage 6y ago> he is noble for respecting the responsibilities he has delegated to his editors and not doing so. He quit rather than allow them to perform those responsibilities. That's not respect.
- MrStonedOne 6y agoHe quit rather then override them. That is respect.
- ska 6y agoIt could be respect, or it could just be the realization that he could not take such actions without them coming to light, and that would likely be the death of his reputation as a serious journalists. I think they got it right when they set up the intercept. A journalist without an editor is hard to distinguish from a blogger. Part of the editors job is to say no. Sometimes, "not yet, this isn't ready". Sometimes "no, this isn't good enough". I suppose sometimes also "no, we aren't that publication" which is more problematic. You can never really be your own editor.
- cambalache 6y agoOr it could be respect. Are you going through life assuming the worst of everybody? Or this is only for a subset of Americans?
- technoplato 6y agoThis is definitely true, but why is this post removed from the front page? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24934192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24934192 Edit: I'm a moron and it just dropped a bunch suddenly. Was not removed.
- uncoder0 6y agoFrom what I have observed anything even tangentially related the Biden stories gets to the front page quickly and sometimes it sticks there for a few minutes then gets flagged enough to start dropping down the ranks. This one lasted a lot longer on the front page than most have.
- technoplato 6y agoSo 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
- CogentHedgehog 6y agoI'd bet on bot-busting or possibly something that de-ranks stuff with political keywords close to the election to avoid spam and noise. Human moderation and content curation is a lot rarer than people think online. Primarily because it takes a lot of labor and and response times tend to be slow compared to how fast things go viral.
- r721 6y agoBetsy Reed's statement: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
- eric_b 6y agoShe attacks him personally without ever refuting any of his points. She hand waves that they will correct the record "in time." Her response is riddled with sensationalist language. I'm gonna go with Greenwald's version of events on this one. This person seems fully compromised.
- hsod 6y agoGreenwald's version is basically attacking all his co-workers as democratic partisans and contains no actual evidence, so I'm not sure what line you're drawing here
- CogentHedgehog 6y agoMy impression was the opposite. Greenwald went around slinging wild accusations of censorship and bias, and the Intercept's response was fairly measured in comparison. They even included an acknowledgement of respect for his work.
- theknocker 6y ago"It sure sounds like he's trying to paint it a way that makes him look good and the Intercept look bad." omg you caught him!
- fredguth 6y agoI don’t believe you have read even Greenwald’s side. If you read, you will understand his opinion even if you disagree with it.
- tootie 6y agoGreenwald published the letters he received from The Intercept and their edits seem thoroughly reasonable. Greenwald's counterargument is that he never has had to accept edits before and he'd rather quit than listen to anyone else.