6 ms·

If nothing else, it shows the value of having an actual editor. I'm assuming Glenn's writing has always been this ridiculous, but that decent editors were preve

If nothing else, it shows the value of having an actual editor. I'm assuming Glenn's writing has always been this ridiculous, but that decent editors were preventing his worst instincts and tendencies from actually making it into the published version.

tootie 6y ago
He literally quit The Intercept because he was furious that someone tried to give him edits. He said that he founded the site with the explicit agreement that no one would be allowed to edit his words. EDIT: Resignation letter here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int... "The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week" You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway20875 6y ago
  >You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden. Photos of drug fueled sex romps with prostitutes by the president's son are newsworthy. Same goes for his investments and work in foreign countries. The lack of investigative journalism into Hunter Biden is the product of something far worse than what Greenwald is covering. This has zero to do with the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy - this is powerful people that are doing things that the proles cannot, while being shielded by the same people tasked with holding them accountable.
  - NearAP 6y ago
    The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. The argument was - if your article is saying/implying that the then former VP was complicit in a financial scheme to benefit him after publicly saying he wasn't, then you should show proof and not innuendos (leave innuendos to tabloids). Or if you are saying journalists are choosing to ignore the story, then show how
    - throwaway20875 6y ago
      >The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).
      - tootie 6y ago
        Everything about that story smelled like an OP. That's irrelevant though. If Russian intelligence planted the story in the media but it was substantiated, it would still be newsworthy. As it stands, the story is completely unsubstantiated. So Greenwald trying to treat a fact-free rumor as critical to his reporting is pretty shitty journalism and he really didn't appreciate being called out on it.
        throwaway20875 6y ago
        You're right, it was all made up. Greenwald is wrong, and a bad person. Hunter is misunderstood and a good boy. I will do better to avoid believing Russian propaganda that serves to undermine our glorious leaders.
      - NearAP 6y ago
        That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. Finally, Greenwald published his resignation letter. Intercept also published their letter to him. It was never about news worthiness. It was a debate on ‘what’ the content was as I mentioned in my earlier response
        throwaway20875 6y ago
        >That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed? And then comes the double standards - "allegedly hacked" - Trump's tax returns and his wife's phone conversations were published and not suppressed shortly before the story on HB broke. And to be clear, because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction here will be to default to team politics, Trump's tax returns absolutely deserved to be published. Whatever your stripe of politics, you're eventually (and painfully) going to realize that you're being systematically fed a wave of lies. WMDs (no one jailed), GFC (no recovery, no one jailed), Guantanamo (still open), drone strikes in 75+ countries (still going), NSA spying (still going), Snowden (still innocent, still a political refugee), Epstein (didn't kill himself). Crickets from the media, zero accountability. Wake up.

tootie 6y ago

He literally quit The Intercept because he was furious that someone tried to give him edits. He said that he founded the site with the explicit agreement that no one would be allowed to edit his words. EDIT: Resignation letter here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int... "The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week" You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway20875 6y ago
>You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden. Photos of drug fueled sex romps with prostitutes by the president's son are newsworthy. Same goes for his investments and work in foreign countries. The lack of investigative journalism into Hunter Biden is the product of something far worse than what Greenwald is covering. This has zero to do with the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy - this is powerful people that are doing things that the proles cannot, while being shielded by the same people tasked with holding them accountable.
- NearAP 6y ago
  The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. The argument was - if your article is saying/implying that the then former VP was complicit in a financial scheme to benefit him after publicly saying he wasn't, then you should show proof and not innuendos (leave innuendos to tabloids). Or if you are saying journalists are choosing to ignore the story, then show how
  - throwaway20875 6y ago
    >The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).
    - tootie 6y ago
      Everything about that story smelled like an OP. That's irrelevant though. If Russian intelligence planted the story in the media but it was substantiated, it would still be newsworthy. As it stands, the story is completely unsubstantiated. So Greenwald trying to treat a fact-free rumor as critical to his reporting is pretty shitty journalism and he really didn't appreciate being called out on it.
      - throwaway20875 6y ago
        You're right, it was all made up. Greenwald is wrong, and a bad person. Hunter is misunderstood and a good boy. I will do better to avoid believing Russian propaganda that serves to undermine our glorious leaders.
    - NearAP 6y ago
      That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. Finally, Greenwald published his resignation letter. Intercept also published their letter to him. It was never about news worthiness. It was a debate on ‘what’ the content was as I mentioned in my earlier response
      - throwaway20875 6y ago
        >That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed? And then comes the double standards - "allegedly hacked" - Trump's tax returns and his wife's phone conversations were published and not suppressed shortly before the story on HB broke. And to be clear, because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction here will be to default to team politics, Trump's tax returns absolutely deserved to be published. Whatever your stripe of politics, you're eventually (and painfully) going to realize that you're being systematically fed a wave of lies. WMDs (no one jailed), GFC (no recovery, no one jailed), Guantanamo (still open), drone strikes in 75+ countries (still going), NSA spying (still going), Snowden (still innocent, still a political refugee), Epstein (didn't kill himself). Crickets from the media, zero accountability. Wake up.