4 ms·

This is why many professional journalist were peeved with Greenwald when he presented the exact same experience all journalists face every day as a normal part

This is why many professional journalist were peeved with Greenwald when he presented the exact same experience all journalists face every day as a normal part of their job as censorship. That's one version, but another way to interpret it is left-leaning journalist outfits made the 2016 mistake of focusing too much on Julian Assange and the emails fiasco around election time. In their minds, that cost Hillary the election, and they didn't want to do the same thing again with Biden and his son's laptop. And seeing as how virtually no left-leaning publication reported on it, this seems the more likely version of events.

pron 5y ago
I'm only talking about the reaction to how Greenwald presented the events that led to his departure. What happened to him is called editing, and is a mundane experience for journalists (even though it is, at times, aggravating, and occasionally causes journalists to switch jobs). There was nothing out of the ordinary about it (although it might have been out of the ordinary for Greenwald at The Intercept). Bias is not just normal; it is unavoidable. Greenwald himself is biased. Professionally and ethically speaking, the only question is whether that editing action deliberately tried to manipulate the truth. From the correspondence it is perfectly clear that it did not -- the editor told him to tone down the rhetoric and/or remove things he did not actually know (or could support) -- and so it was also a pretty professional act of editing. What you're describing might well be the reason for the editorial caution they exercised in this case, but it certainly did not exceed the boundaries of ordinary, professional editing.
- gebruikersnaam 5y ago
  There's also some evidence Greenwald had been planning to leave The Intercept before this collision [1]. The outrage over 'censoring' a clearly bullshit story seems pretty convenient. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa...
kesselvon 5y ago
Right wing media stopped talking about it immediately after it had no value to swing the election, which is telling as to how credible the accusations were.

pron 5y ago

I'm only talking about the reaction to how Greenwald presented the events that led to his departure. What happened to him is called editing, and is a mundane experience for journalists (even though it is, at times, aggravating, and occasionally causes journalists to switch jobs). There was nothing out of the ordinary about it (although it might have been out of the ordinary for Greenwald at The Intercept). Bias is not just normal; it is unavoidable. Greenwald himself is biased. Professionally and ethically speaking, the only question is whether that editing action deliberately tried to manipulate the truth. From the correspondence it is perfectly clear that it did not -- the editor told him to tone down the rhetoric and/or remove things he did not actually know (or could support) -- and so it was also a pretty professional act of editing. What you're describing might well be the reason for the editorial caution they exercised in this case, but it certainly did not exceed the boundaries of ordinary, professional editing.

gebruikersnaam 5y ago
There's also some evidence Greenwald had been planning to leave The Intercept before this collision [1]. The outrage over 'censoring' a clearly bullshit story seems pretty convenient. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa...

kesselvon 5y ago

Right wing media stopped talking about it immediately after it had no value to swing the election, which is telling as to how credible the accusations were.