4 ms·

He didn’t work for any of those outlets. He quit the company he founded, the intercept, who was indeed censoring.

CaptainZapp 6y ago
> He quit the company he founded, the intercept, who was indeed censoring. That is, at the very least, debatable Greenwald had the liberty at The Intercept to publish his opinion pieces without any editorial interference. The piece he yelled BLOODY MURDER! about and resigned in a hissy fit was decidedly not an opinion piece, but sourced from The New York Post - The Biden laptop story -, which was so bad, that the original writers at the Post refused to have their bylines printed. When The Intercept insisted that this apparently factual piece gets editorial treatment (a process applied by every halfway serious press product) he yelled CENSORSHIP! and resigned. No question that Greenwald did good work in the past. But I, for one, can't take his hysterics, which he now spouts for years, serious any more.
- juanani 6y ago
  I think everyone turned on him because he spoke the nastiest of truths at the most inconvenient time (week before elections). And lo and behold our political apparatus swiped their power back, and did not allow anyone to question anything. Even a top journalist with years of good work can be smeared in front of the public unquestioningly. And that doesn't mean squat since orange man baaad - exactly what the media ingrained in the masses(yes you included) for the past four years. Nation of free thinkers can't focus for shit.
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  >decidedly not an opinion piece, but sourced from The New York Post Sorry if I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting that an opinion piece ceases to be an opinion piece if it references and includes details from news reporting?
drewrv 6y ago
I know he didn’t work there, you’re missing my point: editorial control is not censorship. It’s not censorship when my PR fails code review, it means it needs more work. Similarly for journalists, editors exist to hold them to high standards and if those standards aren’t met it’s not censorship, it’s just part of the job. All newsrooms have safeguards in place to ensure what they publish is credible, and policies for handling mistakes and corrections when stuff slips through the cracks. The fact that Greenwald threw a tantrum when held to standards that most working journalists are (and should be) held to does not make him a brave truth teller. It means his credibility is suspect. Pretending for a moment that there was a terrible editor who was conspiring to squash a well-sourced story, a competent and ethical journalist could simply bring the story elsewhere to get published or pass along their findings to another journalist at a different publication. What a charlatan and a hack would do is raise a big stink, cry wolf, and direct their audience to a substack where people can pay money to hear more, free from any pesky fact checkers.
- YaSamPoSebe 6y ago
  I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

> He quit the company he founded, the intercept, who was indeed censoring. That is, at the very least, debatable Greenwald had the liberty at The Intercept to publish his opinion pieces without any editorial interference. The piece he yelled BLOODY MURDER! about and resigned in a hissy fit was decidedly not an opinion piece, but sourced from The New York Post - The Biden laptop story -, which was so bad, that the original writers at the Post refused to have their bylines printed. When The Intercept insisted that this apparently factual piece gets editorial treatment (a process applied by every halfway serious press product) he yelled CENSORSHIP! and resigned. No question that Greenwald did good work in the past. But I, for one, can't take his hysterics, which he now spouts for years, serious any more.

juanani 6y ago
I think everyone turned on him because he spoke the nastiest of truths at the most inconvenient time (week before elections). And lo and behold our political apparatus swiped their power back, and did not allow anyone to question anything. Even a top journalist with years of good work can be smeared in front of the public unquestioningly. And that doesn't mean squat since orange man baaad - exactly what the media ingrained in the masses(yes you included) for the past four years. Nation of free thinkers can't focus for shit.
finnthehuman 6y ago
>decidedly not an opinion piece, but sourced from The New York Post Sorry if I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting that an opinion piece ceases to be an opinion piece if it references and includes details from news reporting?

drewrv 6y ago

I know he didn’t work there, you’re missing my point: editorial control is not censorship. It’s not censorship when my PR fails code review, it means it needs more work. Similarly for journalists, editors exist to hold them to high standards and if those standards aren’t met it’s not censorship, it’s just part of the job. All newsrooms have safeguards in place to ensure what they publish is credible, and policies for handling mistakes and corrections when stuff slips through the cracks. The fact that Greenwald threw a tantrum when held to standards that most working journalists are (and should be) held to does not make him a brave truth teller. It means his credibility is suspect. Pretending for a moment that there was a terrible editor who was conspiring to squash a well-sourced story, a competent and ethical journalist could simply bring the story elsewhere to get published or pass along their findings to another journalist at a different publication. What a charlatan and a hack would do is raise a big stink, cry wolf, and direct their audience to a substack where people can pay money to hear more, free from any pesky fact checkers.

YaSamPoSebe 6y ago
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.