6 ms·

My impression was the opposite. Greenwald went around slinging wild accusations of censorship and bias, and the Intercept's response was fairly measured in com

My 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 ago
How 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 ago
  Because they never said that and you can read it on his blog right now...
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Aha, 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 ago
  Their 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 ago
    To me it's clearly saying "that would make us look bad because it's a reasonable story". And here we are.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      Or 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 ago
      A reasonable story would not make them look bad. An unreasonable one would.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        Make them look bad for censoring a reasonable story.
- newbie789 6y ago
  Glenn 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 ago
    After he resigned!
  - refurb 6y ago
    Glenn 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.
    - newbie789 6y ago
      What question? Edit: >"Glenn was censored from publishing in his own publication!" This is neither a question or a quote from what I said.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Comment asked "how is it not censorship?" and you replied "he could post it to Twitter".
- pelliphant 6y ago
  why 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 ago
    A 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 ago
      Please don't try to speak for what I or other commenters "want". That's incredibly rude of you.
      - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
        People 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 ago
Huh. 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?

Lammy 6y ago

How 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 ago
Because they never said that and you can read it on his blog right now...
- Lammy 6y ago
  Aha, 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 ago
Their 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 ago
  To me it's clearly saying "that would make us look bad because it's a reasonable story". And here we are.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    Or 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 ago
    A reasonable story would not make them look bad. An unreasonable one would.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      Make them look bad for censoring a reasonable story.
newbie789 6y ago
Glenn 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 ago
  After he resigned!
- refurb 6y ago
  Glenn 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.
  - newbie789 6y ago
    What question? Edit: >"Glenn was censored from publishing in his own publication!" This is neither a question or a quote from what I said.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Comment asked "how is it not censorship?" and you replied "he could post it to Twitter".
pelliphant 6y ago
why 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 ago
  A 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 ago
    Please don't try to speak for what I or other commenters "want". That's incredibly rude of you.
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      People 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 ago

Huh. 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?