Greenwald posted some emails he says are from his editor at the Intercept. [0] Reading the emails, his editor sounds pretty reasonable. And I think it's ironi

Greenwald posted some emails he says are from his editor at the Intercept. [0] Reading the emails, his editor sounds pretty reasonable. And I think it's ironic that a journalist would cite ethics as his reason for being so hell-bent on publishing an article that does nothing but repeat and amplify unsubstantiated suspicions about a candidate a few days before the election. Greenwald's point-by-point attempt at rebutting his editor supports the editor's perspective, in my opinion. He describes the lack of evidence in a way that conspiratorially suggests that the evidence exists, and his takedown of the bigger media outlets consists of noting that they investigated and ran articles that failed to produce any damning evidence... which is exactly what his article would do, except his article would frame the lack of evidence as evidence of a bigger conspiracy. I think his faith that there's a story there is exactly what you need in an investigative journalist, and I think stopping him from publishing anyway when he doesn't find it is exactly what he needs in an editor. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...