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 m

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.