4 ms·
In this thread I am seeing both "this story is already running non-stop on Fox, there's no censorship", and "if the editors didn't censor this, it would poison
by haberman 6y ago
In this thread I am seeing both "this story is already running non-stop on Fox, there's no censorship", and "if the editors didn't censor this, it would poison the election, and that's too big of a risk."
- happytoexplain 6y agoIgnoring the mischaracterization of the two points, what are you trying to say? That those two thoughts are not allowed to exist in the same "group" of people, for some definition of "group"?
- haberman 6y agoThe rationale for censorship of Greenwald's article is unconvincing, as that rationale is contradicted even by other people who agree with the censorship. As the story is already running elsewhere, it is unconvincing that there is a pressing need for this particular outlet to suppress it.
- bikezen 6y agoIf other outlets want to put their reputations on the line for something you can't vet, do you want to jump into the mud with them? The intercept decided no, seems pretty simple.
- mjlawson 6y agoThat isn't the rationale that the editors used to make copy suggestions - that's the rationale that Greenwald is projecting onto them. I suggest reading the email thread he posted on his blog - it does not make him look very good.
- disown 6y agoNot only do they justify censorship, there is a suspicious amount of comments trying to minimize or delegitimize greenwald in a sneaky boilerplate response: "I used to think he was a good journalist", "I used to respect his journalism 5 years ago", etc. And of course trying to tie greenwald to russia. The exact same thing you see on assange related post. The sad thing is a lot of these commenters are journalists or work in the news industry. Sad thing to see. Not to mention the downvote brigading.