12 ms·

Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article. From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor t

by clint 6y ago

Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article. From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor to shut down stories they don't believe meet the standards they set for themselves. And for exercising that duty, they are leaving clicks, ad impressions, and probably a good amount of money on the table.

meowface 6y ago
They're free to make that choice if that's their true assessment of it. But when Greenwald publishes his piece, if it actually is not in fact a garbage piece, they're going to look extremely bad and biased.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  You would think that if that were the case, he would publish it alongside this letter. Edit; he did: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
  - meowface 6y ago
    He said he'll be publishing it on his blog very soon. He may have submitted an incomplete draft to The Intercept for review, and is still finishing it up.
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      That's a good point. I just wish he provided more detail to let people decide for themselves.
    - trothamel 6y ago
      This proved correct, and he just posted the draft. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
      - meowface 6y ago
        [removed]
        KittenInABox 6y ago
        According to the response by the Intercept he's actually flipping out against basic edit suggestions as censorship. [0]. https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283/photo/1 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283/ph... Seems like a temper tantrum to me, even if the journalism is legitimate. It could very well be these claims are clickbait for the journalist to strike out on his own without the publisher.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        > According to the response by the Intercept he's actually flipping out against basic edit suggestions as censorship Source? Your link doesn't say anything about basic edit suggestions. Looking at the emails [0], this appears to be strong editorializing (much of it far from clearcut) for what (I believe) is an opinion piece. [0]: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        KittenInABox 6y ago
        I'm reading the emails and they seem to be perfectly reasonable edit suggestions (I'm a person that's familiar with the editing process)- it points out that the article is attempting to accomplish too much with evidence that is actually vague and suggests increased focus to critique that liberal media isn't holding Biden's feet to the fire. Asking for an article to be narrowed down in scope is a perfectly good suggestion as an editorial board, especially in news articles where too much stuff can make the article ineffective. Furthermore, the editor is nothing less than professional/polite, while the response is full of wild accusations like "What's happening here is obvious: you know that you can't explicitly say you don't want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days." It looks like a tantrum to me.
- m0zg 6y ago
  Which, by the way, is almost certain. Greenwald is not known for publishing "garbage pieces". He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does. He was censored for the same reason why NYPost, one of the oldest and largest US newspapers, has been censored on Twitter for the past 2 weeks (still is) - the story is real, and it's getting in the way of regime change by the Deep State.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > Greenwald is not known for publishing "garbage pieces". Reputation trails actions. Overall Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist with strong rhetorical chops who lucked into a couple good stories. But he's spent the past few years squandering that social capital on a mix of conspiracy and irrelevance, and this may be his bankruptcy. > He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does. This means absolutely nothing. If anything lawyers aren't especially known as paragons of truth! (And that's fine for a lawyer where the adversarial system holds, but can make you a bit shit as a journalist.)
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I think the point is that a self-interested/amoral person would be unlikely to leave a career as a lawyer to become a journalist. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by this. some people value influence more than money.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      > Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist Sure, bud. Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is all of a sudden "average", just because he dared to ask questions and expose near-airtight censorship by mass media and Big Tech. https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-legendary-progressive-journalist-resigns-over-censorship-biden-criticism-1543317 https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-legendary-progressi...
      - morelisp 6y ago
        OK - and the NYT has won six Pulitzers this year. Every news organization that choose not to run the story has a dozen. Your seemingly single criterion for trust still doesn't give the weight to Greenwald. Mediocre people win prizes, and smart people do dumb things. Greenwald is not a reliable person to carry the entire institution of journalism on his shoulders as you keep insisting he does. (Newsweek, by the way, has been owned and operated by Olivet / David Jang's Community cult for several years now. It has no connection to the previous magazine of the same name.)
hajile 6y ago
They published the Steele dossier with ZERO evidence. It's now been completely discredited as a Russian plant the Obama administration knew was from a Russian asset. The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak and it's been vouched for by Tony Bobulinski who definitely has close ties to the Biden family, yet it's not publishable? That's as partisan as it gets and deserves to be called out. EDIT: Do the downvoters have a reason other than ideology, tribalism, and conspiracy theories?
- archagon 6y ago
  Horseshit. Last I checked, most things in that dossier turned out to be true.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    Can you share the sources which convinced you of the report's veracity? Those sources which I have seen mostly or totally debunked it so it would be interesting to see what made your sources come to a different conclusion. [edit] I must say it is both amazing as well as abhorring to see a post asking for sources to a statement which goes counter the current narrative to be downvoted (currently at -4) as if the question is somehow offensive. Wake up, folks, the truth shall set you free. Seeking for it is not a crime, at least not yet. [/edit]
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      Wikpedia has a whole section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_corroboration_status_of_specific_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_co...
      - nailer 6y ago
        Wikipedia also had a section on the russiagate conspiracy which states: > The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
Fellshard 6y ago
Not if they expect that they would be effectively cut off from most major distribution channels for doing so.
malandrew 6y ago
> From my position Your position is the same as everyone here: You haven't read the story and have no information whatsoever to claim that they are being good editors or not. Until we have a story to look at, it's anyone's guess if he's being a good journalist or they are being a good editor.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by clint 6y ago

meowface 6y ago

They're free to make that choice if that's their true assessment of it. But when Greenwald publishes his piece, if it actually is not in fact a garbage piece, they're going to look extremely bad and biased.

ciarannolan 6y ago
You would think that if that were the case, he would publish it alongside this letter. Edit; he did: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
- meowface 6y ago
  He said he'll be publishing it on his blog very soon. He may have submitted an incomplete draft to The Intercept for review, and is still finishing it up.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    That's a good point. I just wish he provided more detail to let people decide for themselves.
  - trothamel 6y ago
    This proved correct, and he just posted the draft. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
    - meowface 6y ago
      [removed]
      - KittenInABox 6y ago
        According to the response by the Intercept he's actually flipping out against basic edit suggestions as censorship. [0]. https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283/photo/1 https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283/ph... Seems like a temper tantrum to me, even if the journalism is legitimate. It could very well be these claims are clickbait for the journalist to strike out on his own without the publisher.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        > According to the response by the Intercept he's actually flipping out against basic edit suggestions as censorship Source? Your link doesn't say anything about basic edit suggestions. Looking at the emails [0], this appears to be strong editorializing (much of it far from clearcut) for what (I believe) is an opinion piece. [0]: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        KittenInABox 6y ago
        I'm reading the emails and they seem to be perfectly reasonable edit suggestions (I'm a person that's familiar with the editing process)- it points out that the article is attempting to accomplish too much with evidence that is actually vague and suggests increased focus to critique that liberal media isn't holding Biden's feet to the fire. Asking for an article to be narrowed down in scope is a perfectly good suggestion as an editorial board, especially in news articles where too much stuff can make the article ineffective. Furthermore, the editor is nothing less than professional/polite, while the response is full of wild accusations like "What's happening here is obvious: you know that you can't explicitly say you don't want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days." It looks like a tantrum to me.
m0zg 6y ago
Which, by the way, is almost certain. Greenwald is not known for publishing "garbage pieces". He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does. He was censored for the same reason why NYPost, one of the oldest and largest US newspapers, has been censored on Twitter for the past 2 weeks (still is) - the story is real, and it's getting in the way of regime change by the Deep State.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > Greenwald is not known for publishing "garbage pieces". Reputation trails actions. Overall Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist with strong rhetorical chops who lucked into a couple good stories. But he's spent the past few years squandering that social capital on a mix of conspiracy and irrelevance, and this may be his bankruptcy. > He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does. This means absolutely nothing. If anything lawyers aren't especially known as paragons of truth! (And that's fine for a lawyer where the adversarial system holds, but can make you a bit shit as a journalist.)
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I think the point is that a self-interested/amoral person would be unlikely to leave a career as a lawyer to become a journalist. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by this. some people value influence more than money.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist Sure, bud. Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is all of a sudden "average", just because he dared to ask questions and expose near-airtight censorship by mass media and Big Tech. https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-legendary-progressive-journalist-resigns-over-censorship-biden-criticism-1543317 https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-legendary-progressi...
    - morelisp 6y ago
      OK - and the NYT has won six Pulitzers this year. Every news organization that choose not to run the story has a dozen. Your seemingly single criterion for trust still doesn't give the weight to Greenwald. Mediocre people win prizes, and smart people do dumb things. Greenwald is not a reliable person to carry the entire institution of journalism on his shoulders as you keep insisting he does. (Newsweek, by the way, has been owned and operated by Olivet / David Jang's Community cult for several years now. It has no connection to the previous magazine of the same name.)

hajile 6y ago

They published the Steele dossier with ZERO evidence. It's now been completely discredited as a Russian plant the Obama administration knew was from a Russian asset. The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak and it's been vouched for by Tony Bobulinski who definitely has close ties to the Biden family, yet it's not publishable? That's as partisan as it gets and deserves to be called out. EDIT: Do the downvoters have a reason other than ideology, tribalism, and conspiracy theories?

archagon 6y ago
Horseshit. Last I checked, most things in that dossier turned out to be true.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Can you share the sources which convinced you of the report's veracity? Those sources which I have seen mostly or totally debunked it so it would be interesting to see what made your sources come to a different conclusion. [edit] I must say it is both amazing as well as abhorring to see a post asking for sources to a statement which goes counter the current narrative to be downvoted (currently at -4) as if the question is somehow offensive. Wake up, folks, the truth shall set you free. Seeking for it is not a crime, at least not yet. [/edit]
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Wikpedia has a whole section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_corroboration_status_of_specific_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_co...
    - nailer 6y ago
      Wikipedia also had a section on the russiagate conspiracy which states: > The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

Fellshard 6y ago

Not if they expect that they would be effectively cut off from most major distribution channels for doing so.

malandrew 6y ago

> From my position Your position is the same as everyone here: You haven't read the story and have no information whatsoever to claim that they are being good editors or not. Until we have a story to look at, it's anyone's guess if he's being a good journalist or they are being a good editor.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]