5 ms·

> 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.

> 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 ago
That's an incredibly low bar for praise.
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  Only 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 ago
  Unfortunately 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 ago
So 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
  Ironically, 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
      He quit rather then override them. That is respect.
      - ska 6y ago
        It 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 ago
        Or it could be respect. Are you going through life assuming the worst of everybody? Or this is only for a subset of Americans?

happytoexplain 6y ago

That's an incredibly low bar for praise.

nickysielicki 6y ago
Only 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 ago
Unfortunately 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 ago

So 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 ago
No, 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 ago
Ironically, 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 ago
No, 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 ago
    He quit rather then override them. That is respect.
    - ska 6y ago
      It 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 ago
        Or it could be respect. Are you going through life assuming the worst of everybody? Or this is only for a subset of Americans?