3 ms·

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 h

by 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?
- user982 6y ago
  > 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? I've read Greenwald since his pre-Snowden Salon days. Yes, I absolutely doubt that he would have written such an article against Trump. As can be seen on his Twitter, he will occasionally post something mildly critical of Trump so that he can later point to it repeatedly as cover, with the rest of his US political energies devoted to ignoring and downplaying the administration's actions while attacking Democrats and liberals.
  - harry8 6y ago
    That's a massive call right there. What you're backing it with seems very thin to me. I do doubt he'd bother writing a story everyone else is already reporting and writing. I have approaching zero doubt in the same circumstances concerning a story that suggests corruption that nobody else was writing that he would do it about Don jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared Kushner or anyone in that orbit. I also believe he looks at Trump's Republicans and Biden's Democrats and finds them equally revolting. You and I can disagree with him on that if we choose to. The anti-Trump stories you mention that he points to? Yeah, not many others writing about Trump write those stories as a focus that I saw. Maybe you saw it differently? I don't want to use him as a repub-dem scoreboard or as my sole source of news so I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact even if he were an ardent Trump Republican supporter or ardent Democrat, (which I think is nonsense for what that's worth), I'd still want to read his stuff. And for me that is what makes him interesting. He does not fit the "He's a dem/repub" so... But there do seem to be a lot of people who want to shoe-horn him into that line of thinking. Separate to that the other thing I really like about Glenn is that it is easy to knowledgably disagree with him, (and I frequently, possibly even usually do). He makes that easy by, in my view, having the best mastery of that, (in terms of newspaper traditions) extremely modern writing technique, using the hyperlink. When he draws an inference from facts he links the source. I frequently follow that and look at it and think to myself that his inference is one possibility but I'm not especially sold on it. My own views are made more robust, altered somewhat or even changed by having been exposed to his writing even when I disagree with him. I really like that. In my view his integrity, devotion to principle, willingness to support his argument with evidence and disdain for following the zeitgeist simply because it exists make him someone I want to read. Just take each story on it's own. If it interests you follow the links he has and look at other reporting on it so you can make up your own mind and you might find like I do Glenn's stuff is worth your time.

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?

user982 6y ago
> 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? I've read Greenwald since his pre-Snowden Salon days. Yes, I absolutely doubt that he would have written such an article against Trump. As can be seen on his Twitter, he will occasionally post something mildly critical of Trump so that he can later point to it repeatedly as cover, with the rest of his US political energies devoted to ignoring and downplaying the administration's actions while attacking Democrats and liberals.
- harry8 6y ago
  That's a massive call right there. What you're backing it with seems very thin to me. I do doubt he'd bother writing a story everyone else is already reporting and writing. I have approaching zero doubt in the same circumstances concerning a story that suggests corruption that nobody else was writing that he would do it about Don jr, Eric, Ivanka, Jared Kushner or anyone in that orbit. I also believe he looks at Trump's Republicans and Biden's Democrats and finds them equally revolting. You and I can disagree with him on that if we choose to. The anti-Trump stories you mention that he points to? Yeah, not many others writing about Trump write those stories as a focus that I saw. Maybe you saw it differently? I don't want to use him as a repub-dem scoreboard or as my sole source of news so I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact even if he were an ardent Trump Republican supporter or ardent Democrat, (which I think is nonsense for what that's worth), I'd still want to read his stuff. And for me that is what makes him interesting. He does not fit the "He's a dem/repub" so... But there do seem to be a lot of people who want to shoe-horn him into that line of thinking. Separate to that the other thing I really like about Glenn is that it is easy to knowledgably disagree with him, (and I frequently, possibly even usually do). He makes that easy by, in my view, having the best mastery of that, (in terms of newspaper traditions) extremely modern writing technique, using the hyperlink. When he draws an inference from facts he links the source. I frequently follow that and look at it and think to myself that his inference is one possibility but I'm not especially sold on it. My own views are made more robust, altered somewhat or even changed by having been exposed to his writing even when I disagree with him. I really like that. In my view his integrity, devotion to principle, willingness to support his argument with evidence and disdain for following the zeitgeist simply because it exists make him someone I want to read. Just take each story on it's own. If it interests you follow the links he has and look at other reporting on it so you can make up your own mind and you might find like I do Glenn's stuff is worth your time.