7 ms·

Greenwald is permanently wearing some kind of Democrat-hatred goggles that render everything he creates spastic and aligned with fascists purely to take the pis

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Greenwald is permanently wearing some kind of Democrat-hatred goggles that render everything he creates spastic and aligned with fascists purely to take the piss because he’s bitter. I don’t think he could even see eye to eye with himself in the mirror at this point, he such an incoherent mess of poorly constructed anti-Democrat gripes. I would trust Poitras’s take on this way, way more than Greenwald’s.

cwyers 6y ago
Yeah, I think Greenwald has blinders about Winner because what she leaked doesn't fit his narratives about the Dems and Russia. I wouldn't link his quitting because they tried to edit his Hunter Biden takes with Poitras' very legitimate outrage over not protecting a source.
xnyan 6y ago
I can't get in greenwald's head but if I had to make a judgement, I agree with you. The intercept decided not to publish greenwald's piece because the sourcing was too thin (in their opinion and mine, I get it if others don't agree), and he took it personally. I've reacted badly to this kind of thing too, so I get it I guess, but it still makes him a bitter man who can't handle the hit to his ego.
- harry8 6y ago
  The intercept can decline to publish, that's their right. Greenwald had a contract where if they did decline a piece he could publish elswhere, that was his contractual right. He insisted on it as a founder so that he could not be silenced by an editorial board. Great. They don't want it, he publishes elsewhere life goes on. But that didn't happen. They wanted to supress it. They tried to stop Greenwald from publishing it everywhere. He thinks the editors of the interecept did this because they had preferences on who should win the then upcoming US presidential election. I'm inclined to agree with him when you look at the correspondance. It's all been published by Greenwald at substack. His approach and his responnse all look extremely reasonable to me. > but it still makes him a bitter man who can't handle the hit to his ego. Can't disagree with that take on it enough. Makes him look like he has principles that he stands up for, to me. Indeed precisely that reputation is what got him the scoops and all those Journalism awards like say, the Pulitzer Prize.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    The Intercept definitely did not try to suppress anything. Greenwald’s accusation that it amounted to censorship was beyond ridiculous. He wanted to publish a hatchet job against a Democrat, based on shoddy, unverified claims and mediocre, unverified physical evidence. The Intercept instead wanted to uphold bare minimum journalistic integrity and even offered to publish the piece if Greenwald would edit out the extremist rhetoric, claims of widespread liberal bias in professional news rooms, and unsubstantiated speculation against Hunter Biden that was purely playing into the hands of a fascist Republican administration. Instead of adhering to these basic Journalism 101 bare minimum requirements, Greenwald decided to throw a tantrum and call it censorship, when really it is plain as day to any fair-minded outsider that there was utterly zero censorship towards Greenwald, the Hunter Biden story was crap and major news rooms were right to ignore it, and The Intercept did nothing wrong in that particular scenario.
    - harry8 6y ago
      > The Intercept definitely did not try to suppress anything. I'm a little surprised by that response. It's so easy to check. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." --Betsy Reed So that is stating very clearly: No we won't publish it. No you can't publish it elsewhere. Now the rest is kind of separate but relevant. For what it's worth now that the election is done, nobody actually disputes the content of those emails and that they are genuine. Do they? I've missed that if so. I don't think the Bidens ever suggested they were forged, which would have killed the story pretty quick. But that is an /entirely/ separate discussion. Hatchet job? Well that's an opinion and I don't think so at all. I think Hunter Biden's conduct was always going to be an issue for Joe and that it will be again. There's not a lot of doubt in /my/ mind that Hunter Biden has been paid large sums for something that isn't the honest, fair value work he has done. Maybe he took the money that was paid for the sake of that appearance and that's all he did? If his last name was Johnson and his father was a moderately successful professional he's not getting those jobs and that money. It STINKS. And you can hate trump and still have that stench penetrate your preference for "not Trump." Make of the story Greenwald wrote what you will. There's been plenty of opportunity to falsify it and discredit it. Maybe that's still coming? I want to see it if so. It's certainly something we should know about if so. Something is not right there. The idea that it should not be published is, well, not something I'd agree with any more than I'd agree that the NYT should not have published Trump's tax returns. In my view Glenn has integrity. That means something. I don't doubt he would have written a similar story if the facts related to any powerful politician. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, anyone. Do you?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cwyers 6y ago

Yeah, I think Greenwald has blinders about Winner because what she leaked doesn't fit his narratives about the Dems and Russia. I wouldn't link his quitting because they tried to edit his Hunter Biden takes with Poitras' very legitimate outrage over not protecting a source.

xnyan 6y ago

I can't get in greenwald's head but if I had to make a judgement, I agree with you. The intercept decided not to publish greenwald's piece because the sourcing was too thin (in their opinion and mine, I get it if others don't agree), and he took it personally. I've reacted badly to this kind of thing too, so I get it I guess, but it still makes him a bitter man who can't handle the hit to his ego.

harry8 6y ago
The intercept can decline to publish, that's their right. Greenwald had a contract where if they did decline a piece he could publish elswhere, that was his contractual right. He insisted on it as a founder so that he could not be silenced by an editorial board. Great. They don't want it, he publishes elsewhere life goes on. But that didn't happen. They wanted to supress it. They tried to stop Greenwald from publishing it everywhere. He thinks the editors of the interecept did this because they had preferences on who should win the then upcoming US presidential election. I'm inclined to agree with him when you look at the correspondance. It's all been published by Greenwald at substack. His approach and his responnse all look extremely reasonable to me. > but it still makes him a bitter man who can't handle the hit to his ego. Can't disagree with that take on it enough. Makes him look like he has principles that he stands up for, to me. Indeed precisely that reputation is what got him the scoops and all those Journalism awards like say, the Pulitzer Prize.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  The Intercept definitely did not try to suppress anything. Greenwald’s accusation that it amounted to censorship was beyond ridiculous. He wanted to publish a hatchet job against a Democrat, based on shoddy, unverified claims and mediocre, unverified physical evidence. The Intercept instead wanted to uphold bare minimum journalistic integrity and even offered to publish the piece if Greenwald would edit out the extremist rhetoric, claims of widespread liberal bias in professional news rooms, and unsubstantiated speculation against Hunter Biden that was purely playing into the hands of a fascist Republican administration. Instead of adhering to these basic Journalism 101 bare minimum requirements, Greenwald decided to throw a tantrum and call it censorship, when really it is plain as day to any fair-minded outsider that there was utterly zero censorship towards Greenwald, the Hunter Biden story was crap and major news rooms were right to ignore it, and The Intercept did nothing wrong in that particular scenario.
  - harry8 6y ago
    > The Intercept definitely did not try to suppress anything. I'm a little surprised by that response. It's so easy to check. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." --Betsy Reed So that is stating very clearly: No we won't publish it. No you can't publish it elsewhere. Now the rest is kind of separate but relevant. For what it's worth now that the election is done, nobody actually disputes the content of those emails and that they are genuine. Do they? I've missed that if so. I don't think the Bidens ever suggested they were forged, which would have killed the story pretty quick. But that is an /entirely/ separate discussion. Hatchet job? Well that's an opinion and I don't think so at all. I think Hunter Biden's conduct was always going to be an issue for Joe and that it will be again. There's not a lot of doubt in /my/ mind that Hunter Biden has been paid large sums for something that isn't the honest, fair value work he has done. Maybe he took the money that was paid for the sake of that appearance and that's all he did? If his last name was Johnson and his father was a moderately successful professional he's not getting those jobs and that money. It STINKS. And you can hate trump and still have that stench penetrate your preference for "not Trump." Make of the story Greenwald wrote what you will. There's been plenty of opportunity to falsify it and discredit it. Maybe that's still coming? I want to see it if so. It's certainly something we should know about if so. Something is not right there. The idea that it should not be published is, well, not something I'd agree with any more than I'd agree that the NYT should not have published Trump's tax returns. In my view Glenn has integrity. That means something. I don't doubt he would have written a similar story if the facts related to any powerful politician. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, anyone. Do you?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]