3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by blintz 6y ago

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.