6 ms·
She 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 s
by eric_b 6y ago
She 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.
- Lammy 6y agoHow is it not censorship if I can't read Glenn's article right now because The Intercept refused to let him publish it?
- augustt 6y agoBecause they never said that and you can read it on his blog right now...
- Lammy 6y agoAha, it was just "will be published" when I read this. Thank goodness for the WWW, since when this happens to TV reporters they can't turn around and host their own TV station.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- solidasparagus 6y agoTheir statement on Greenwald publishing elsewhere was: "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." To me this is clearly saying: "that would suck but we can't stop you". Otherwise they would have told him not to publish it instead of just describing the ramifications of him doing it.
- Lammy 6y agoTo me it's clearly saying "that would make us look bad because it's a reasonable story". And here we are.
- jacobolus 6y agoOr perhaps “That would make us look bad because our founder is credulously slinging bullshit Russian disinformation without making any journalistic effort to validate the story, calling into question the credibility of past work we have published”
- confidantlake 6y agoA reasonable story would not make them look bad. An unreasonable one would.
- Lammy 6y agoMake them look bad for censoring a reasonable story.
- newbie789 6y agoGlenn Greenwald was able to post his article to substack in its unedited form and link it to his 1.5 million Twitter followers earlier today. From what I can tell, there was a disagreement about what The Intercept thought was appropriate for their platform and what he felt should be published under that banner. I'm not really interested in litigating who has the "correct" opinion or version of events, but I'm skeptical that the editors' stance of "If you'd like to publish this as is, we'd prefer that you use your other enormous and wide-reaching platform(s) rather than the one tied to our professional reputations" counts as true censorship. Millions of people read his story today.
- fredguth 6y agoAfter he resigned!
- refurb 6y agoGlenn Greenwald was able to post his article to substack in its unedited form and link it to his 1.5 million Twitter followers earlier today. Way to weasel out of that question. "Glenn was censored from publishing in his own publication!" "No he wasn't he tweeted it later." That's a non-answer.
- pelliphant 6y agowhy would any sane publication publish an unverified story that just before an election attacks the only candidate that isn't trying to dismantle democracy?
- CogentHedgehog 6y agoA lot of the commentators don't WANT sane publications. For this exact reason. They like that candidate and would rather burn sane journalism down then see him lose.
- Lammy 6y agoPlease don't try to speak for what I or other commenters "want". That's incredibly rude of you.
- CogentHedgehog 6y agoPeople that support political propaganda don't get a right to be offended by fact-checking in credible journalism. People that support fascist leaders don't get to complain about "censorship." Not now, not ever.
- refurb 6y agoHuh. I saw Glenn's response as pretty measured, except for the follow up after his first email where he gets a bit heated. I thought his point by point rebuttal was pretty effective - he basically said "if you think my allegations aren't tempered enough, then suggest how to temper them further, don't just remove them entirely". Again, it's the two-faced approach the media is taking. Rumor about Trump gets front page coverage, then someone asks about sources and you realize there are none. Try the same with Biden and you get "there is no story here. all disinformation". Why two standards for two different leaders?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- untog 6y agoI'd suggest reading the e-mail thread regarding the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... The editor in no way seems compromised to me. There's a lot of very clear, straightforward and polite feedback. I suspect what we're seeing in the statement is a great deal of frustration, which is perhaps not surprising.
- whimsicalism 6y agoJust because it's clear, straightforward, and polite doesn't mean that it is right or we should uncritically accept it. As an example, I've read many "clear, straightforward, and polite" illegal eviction letters sent by landlords in the past few months.
- untog 6y agoRather than deal with hypotheticals, why don't we talk about the actual e-mails in question?
- CogentHedgehog 6y agoIf anything, Greenwald comes off as compromised by his own political biases. The editor says fairly gently that there are concerns with poorly-supported claims and omitting key information -- such as the media reporting on corruption claims and the fact that media outlets have not been given access to the supposed hard drive of emails. This results in a meandering and potentially misleading article that leads readers to conclusions it does not actually support. They suggest a way to focus it more on core points which are well-substantiated and get a solid article out of it. They're not censoring his political views, if anything they're encouraging him to express them in an article indicting liberal media for going soft on Biden. They're trying to get a shorter, more tightly-focused article for publication. Which is to say, a more solid article. That sounds like an editor doing their job -- editing is supposed to be the art of removing words, after all! Greenwald sends first a polite reply, then a much less polite one that jumps to this vitriolic claim: > I want to note clearly, because I think it's so important for obvious reasons, that this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored -- i.e., told by others that I can't publish what I believe or think Followed by insinuations that they're suppressing the story due to their political biases. It sounds like Greenwald can't accept that there may be legitimate explanations for why the content isn't focused or solid enough. That's downright nasty and unprofessional.
- marrone12 6y agoA friend of mine works at the Intercept and has said that Glenn has been going off the rails for the past half a year and has alienated the entire staff at the Intercept, not just this specific editor. Apparently he's been planning to leave for a while, and from my friend's POV, this is Glenn's way of making himself the martyr and getting good publicity for himself and his patreon.
- rainonmoon 6y agoIt seems evident that the relationship has been incredibly tense in their emails over the story. It goes from "here's some suggested edits" to "you clearly don't want to work here"/"I'm quitting" in what feels like seconds.
- fredguth 6y agoWell. If so, they made it easy for him. TheIntercept is over. People seem to forget who Greenwald is and why he co-founded TheIntercept. He has more credibility than all these editors combined. Good luck for them.
- aaronbrethorst 6y agoI might start reading the intercept again now that greenwald has departed.
- pelliphant 6y agogreenwald had a lot of credibility for sure, and I have given him the benefit of the doubt several times, but he just eroding that credibility. I would say that there isn't much of it left now...
- zjaffee 6y agoYeah because he was left with no other choice, the total fuck up of the Reality Winner story massively hurt his reputation with intellegence community whistleblowers.