5 ms·

This isn’t entirely on topic with this thread, but I’ve been shocked by HN’s base reaction to this article. Calling reasonable edits censorship is akin to calli

by hluska 6y ago

This isn’t entirely on topic with this thread, but I’ve been shocked by HN’s base reaction to this article. Calling reasonable edits censorship is akin to calling a code review censorship, yet who among us doesn’t participate in code reviews??? Greenwald was not censored, rather he refused to be edited. That’s not journalism, that’s a personality cult. “Journalism” only works when journalists and editors work together - journalists go off, get excited and follow a story; editors keep them connected to publishable truth and article sized bits of context. Speaking as a former publisher who has edited my share of complex pieces, Greenwald’s original article was poor. He had, I believe 2k words to tell a story, but he chose the wrong 2k words.

testrun 6y ago
Wrong according to whom?
neilsense 6y ago
Not sure how your team is doing code-reviews, but they shouldn't be changing the message of the PR, rather just help clean it up.
- tmotwu 6y ago
  It's misleading to say the editor was asking to change the message. The opposite: it's clear to me Greenwald did not clearly communicate the intended narrative of his piece, so the editors thought the article lacked focus. It's like telling Greenwald, hey you added functionality that was not originally part of the design doc. That's fine and all but now test coverage is diminished. Heres a few tests to consider so you could strengthen the robustness of the code. To say editors were overstepping their bounds is silly. Greenwald went on a morning show yesterday morning. He admits his journalistic philosophy is unconventional; he started off as a blog and was recruited into media. That's fine. I build a few side projects in my free time and I love it because there's so much freedom on how to structure your code. Greenwald feels the same way about writing his pieces, so he will feel right at home in the blogger universe.
  - neilsense 6y ago
    If you read the Matt Taibbi piece about the resignation, there is additional email/slack evidence that shows he both described the piece accurately and he was raising concerns about the process.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    The emails are pretty clear, e.g. this part "Overall I think this piece can work best if it is significantly narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy" The changes requested are "significant". "I do think you should treat the origin story of the hard drive – that it came from the Delaware repair store – with a bit more skepticism. It’s true that nothing has emerged yet to significantly undermine it, but it remains a very strange story surrounded by many unanswered questions." That is a clear request to change the message, whilst admitting there is not much grounds on which to make the request - not mere wordsmithing.
    - tmotwu 6y ago
      "narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy" My post addresses this at the start, which is why I construed the analogy as such to reflect the editor's requests. Greenwald's article is fine. But I don't think the editorial followups are unprecedented or objectionable from the perspective of your typical run of the mill engineering practices. If Greenwald is uncomfortable with collaborating with editors, he may return to his life as an independent journalist, as he has done so.
    - hluska 6y ago
      This is a good comment though I'll disagree with your last sentence. I don't think that the hard drive's genesis story is all that out of bounds for this article - the story is absolutely wacky and served as grounds for some highly qualified people to call this a disinformation campaign. From there, Greenwald could have taken the other editor's suggestion and included coverage on how few media outlets have the hard drive and how they are using that to justify not covering the story. At that point, you've got some interesting conclusions: 1.) The Biden family has never denied much of anything. 2.) Hunter Biden does not look very good and his future business dealings should face much more scrutiny, particularly if his father wins the election. 3.) If this is a Russian disinformation campaign, it's not a very good one (back to point #1). 4.) What does all of this say about the state of the media? 1 - 3 are a story yet all we hear are crickets. Is that because the career of journalism is so fucked up that it's hard to get good writers to cover a subject unless they can find an exclusive angle? Is this because the business model of journalism is such that if you can't guarantee millions and millions of page views, you can't justify allocating resources towards actual investigative journalism?? Or is this pure bias???
whamlastxmas 6y ago
It's a bit rich to claim he wasn't censored when it was demanded, in violation of his contract, to also not run the story anywhere else. I strongly disagree that the edits were reasonable and I find it to be a huge red flag in your stance that you completely dismiss this.
- mk4p 6y ago
  How is that censorship if he signed a contract saying he wouldn't publish for any other outlet? Haven't you worked for companies that disallow you from working for anyone else without prior approval?
  - tarboreus 6y ago
    It's actually the opposite. His contract specifically allowed him to publish in other places if they didn't let him go ahead.
- jml7c5 6y ago
  Is there any evidence that they actually stopped him from running it elsewhere, or that they actually refused to publish it? The start of the editor's memo specifically states that they are "comfortable with publishing". And he did publish it elsewhere (on Substack). So both claims are weak. It seems like he was looking for an excuse to bail from The Intercept, and this was it.
nkurz 6y ago
While certainly Greenwald's article could have been improved, this was an opinion piece and it seems clear that his editors wanted not just greater clarity but a different opinion. Using the code review analogy, the editors wanted not just cleaner code, but an entirely different result. As the author of the spec (his own opinion) Greenwald felt this was unwarranted. Had they restricted themselves to helping him better express his preexisting opinion, I don't think he would have "refused to be edited". How do you feel about Matt Taibbi's defense of Greenwald's actions? While "censor" might not be the right word, Taibbi seems to agree with Greenwald that the editors' pushback went far beyond editing for clarity: Finally, when an editor lays out “suggestions” about things that might “help” a piece “be even stronger,” it’s a signal both parties understand about what elements have to be put in before the editor will send the thing through. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resigna... (I've seen your comments in the other threads, and appreciate your insight)
- hluska 6y ago
  Matt Taibbi's article is complicated, but I'd like to draw attention to one paragraph: > In the last few weeks I’ve heard from multiple well-known journalists going through struggles in their newsrooms, with pressure to avoid certain themes in campaign coverage often central to their worries. There are many reporters out there — most of them quite personally hostile to Donald Trump — who are grating under what they perceive as relentless pressure to publish material favorable to the Democratic Party cause. Greenwald’s story mirrors some of these stories, but his is more striking than some others on a few levels. This is absolutely chilling. That aside and back to the original article, let me deal with two pieces of feedback from the editor that would have improved the article: 1.) Talk about the laptop genesis story in the context of what Giuliani and others were doing in the Ukraine. The laptop story is pretty wacky and deserves some actual coverage just to add context. 2.) Talk about how few media outlets have access to the hard drive and how that is one of the excuses given for less widespread coverage. From here, I think Greenwald could have moved to these points: 1.) The Biden family has never denied the authenticity of any of these materials. Is that because there are so many materials that they don't want to get into the game of confirming some and denying others? Or is it because this is all true? 2.) This certainly does not make Hunter Biden look good and all of his future business dealings call for far greater scrutiny, particularly if his father wins the election. Granted, it makes Hunter Biden look so poor that his odds of getting hired to slang french fries are pretty low, but still...if he gets hired to slang french fries, watch the subsidies for the potato farmers. 3.) If this is a Russian disinformation campaign, they sure don't have the A team working on it. And we go back to #1. 4.) What does it say about the state of journalism that nobody will cover the emails unless they have entire copies of the hard drive?? Has the career of journalism become so utterly fucked up that journalists aren't willing to cover something unless they can find their own career making exclusive angle?? Are news organizations so toxic that if they can't justify getting their front end team working on a fancy scrolling background, they'll kill investigative journalism???
insickness 6y ago
Why was it poor? What about it was inaccurate? Just because you don't agree with the message, doesn't make it poor.

by hluska 6y ago

testrun 6y ago

Wrong according to whom?

neilsense 6y ago

Not sure how your team is doing code-reviews, but they shouldn't be changing the message of the PR, rather just help clean it up.

tmotwu 6y ago
It's misleading to say the editor was asking to change the message. The opposite: it's clear to me Greenwald did not clearly communicate the intended narrative of his piece, so the editors thought the article lacked focus. It's like telling Greenwald, hey you added functionality that was not originally part of the design doc. That's fine and all but now test coverage is diminished. Heres a few tests to consider so you could strengthen the robustness of the code. To say editors were overstepping their bounds is silly. Greenwald went on a morning show yesterday morning. He admits his journalistic philosophy is unconventional; he started off as a blog and was recruited into media. That's fine. I build a few side projects in my free time and I love it because there's so much freedom on how to structure your code. Greenwald feels the same way about writing his pieces, so he will feel right at home in the blogger universe.
- neilsense 6y ago
  If you read the Matt Taibbi piece about the resignation, there is additional email/slack evidence that shows he both described the piece accurately and he was raising concerns about the process.
- thu2111 6y ago
  The emails are pretty clear, e.g. this part "Overall I think this piece can work best if it is significantly narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy" The changes requested are "significant". "I do think you should treat the origin story of the hard drive – that it came from the Delaware repair store – with a bit more skepticism. It’s true that nothing has emerged yet to significantly undermine it, but it remains a very strange story surrounded by many unanswered questions." That is a clear request to change the message, whilst admitting there is not much grounds on which to make the request - not mere wordsmithing.
  - tmotwu 6y ago
    "narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy" My post addresses this at the start, which is why I construed the analogy as such to reflect the editor's requests. Greenwald's article is fine. But I don't think the editorial followups are unprecedented or objectionable from the perspective of your typical run of the mill engineering practices. If Greenwald is uncomfortable with collaborating with editors, he may return to his life as an independent journalist, as he has done so.
  - hluska 6y ago
    This is a good comment though I'll disagree with your last sentence. I don't think that the hard drive's genesis story is all that out of bounds for this article - the story is absolutely wacky and served as grounds for some highly qualified people to call this a disinformation campaign. From there, Greenwald could have taken the other editor's suggestion and included coverage on how few media outlets have the hard drive and how they are using that to justify not covering the story. At that point, you've got some interesting conclusions: 1.) The Biden family has never denied much of anything. 2.) Hunter Biden does not look very good and his future business dealings should face much more scrutiny, particularly if his father wins the election. 3.) If this is a Russian disinformation campaign, it's not a very good one (back to point #1). 4.) What does all of this say about the state of the media? 1 - 3 are a story yet all we hear are crickets. Is that because the career of journalism is so fucked up that it's hard to get good writers to cover a subject unless they can find an exclusive angle? Is this because the business model of journalism is such that if you can't guarantee millions and millions of page views, you can't justify allocating resources towards actual investigative journalism?? Or is this pure bias???

whamlastxmas 6y ago

It's a bit rich to claim he wasn't censored when it was demanded, in violation of his contract, to also not run the story anywhere else. I strongly disagree that the edits were reasonable and I find it to be a huge red flag in your stance that you completely dismiss this.

mk4p 6y ago
How is that censorship if he signed a contract saying he wouldn't publish for any other outlet? Haven't you worked for companies that disallow you from working for anyone else without prior approval?
- tarboreus 6y ago
  It's actually the opposite. His contract specifically allowed him to publish in other places if they didn't let him go ahead.
jml7c5 6y ago
Is there any evidence that they actually stopped him from running it elsewhere, or that they actually refused to publish it? The start of the editor's memo specifically states that they are "comfortable with publishing". And he did publish it elsewhere (on Substack). So both claims are weak. It seems like he was looking for an excuse to bail from The Intercept, and this was it.

nkurz 6y ago

While certainly Greenwald's article could have been improved, this was an opinion piece and it seems clear that his editors wanted not just greater clarity but a different opinion. Using the code review analogy, the editors wanted not just cleaner code, but an entirely different result. As the author of the spec (his own opinion) Greenwald felt this was unwarranted. Had they restricted themselves to helping him better express his preexisting opinion, I don't think he would have "refused to be edited". How do you feel about Matt Taibbi's defense of Greenwald's actions? While "censor" might not be the right word, Taibbi seems to agree with Greenwald that the editors' pushback went far beyond editing for clarity: Finally, when an editor lays out “suggestions” about things that might “help” a piece “be even stronger,” it’s a signal both parties understand about what elements have to be put in before the editor will send the thing through. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation https://taibbi.substack.com/p/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resigna... (I've seen your comments in the other threads, and appreciate your insight)

hluska 6y ago
Matt Taibbi's article is complicated, but I'd like to draw attention to one paragraph: > In the last few weeks I’ve heard from multiple well-known journalists going through struggles in their newsrooms, with pressure to avoid certain themes in campaign coverage often central to their worries. There are many reporters out there — most of them quite personally hostile to Donald Trump — who are grating under what they perceive as relentless pressure to publish material favorable to the Democratic Party cause. Greenwald’s story mirrors some of these stories, but his is more striking than some others on a few levels. This is absolutely chilling. That aside and back to the original article, let me deal with two pieces of feedback from the editor that would have improved the article: 1.) Talk about the laptop genesis story in the context of what Giuliani and others were doing in the Ukraine. The laptop story is pretty wacky and deserves some actual coverage just to add context. 2.) Talk about how few media outlets have access to the hard drive and how that is one of the excuses given for less widespread coverage. From here, I think Greenwald could have moved to these points: 1.) The Biden family has never denied the authenticity of any of these materials. Is that because there are so many materials that they don't want to get into the game of confirming some and denying others? Or is it because this is all true? 2.) This certainly does not make Hunter Biden look good and all of his future business dealings call for far greater scrutiny, particularly if his father wins the election. Granted, it makes Hunter Biden look so poor that his odds of getting hired to slang french fries are pretty low, but still...if he gets hired to slang french fries, watch the subsidies for the potato farmers. 3.) If this is a Russian disinformation campaign, they sure don't have the A team working on it. And we go back to #1. 4.) What does it say about the state of journalism that nobody will cover the emails unless they have entire copies of the hard drive?? Has the career of journalism become so utterly fucked up that journalists aren't willing to cover something unless they can find their own career making exclusive angle?? Are news organizations so toxic that if they can't justify getting their front end team working on a fancy scrolling background, they'll kill investigative journalism???

insickness 6y ago

Why was it poor? What about it was inaccurate? Just because you don't agree with the message, doesn't make it poor.