3 ms·
How is it not censorship if I can't read Glenn's article right now because The Intercept refused to let him publish it?
by 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 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.