Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Resignation from the Intercept

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#111

Post by umvi »

SamBam wrote: post #33
DevKoala wrote: post #5

We are witnessing the biggest concerted censorship effort in the history of the USA. One for the history books, depending on who gets to write it in the future. Regardless of whether or not you believe on Tony Bubolinsky, you should at the very least have the opportunity to hear him and make up your own mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo

How is not publishing an unverifiable story "censorship"? That's what we trust real news organizations to do. And saying that they should at least publish the controversy is absurd -- first of all, the Times did publish the controversy days ago [1], and second of all, it basically allows the peddlers of these unverifiable stories to dictate the news. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...

Perhaps the argument here is that the censorship is not being applied equally to both sides of the political spectrum.

It's more than just this one example. It's basically all of the censorship efforts over the past few months aimed to slow or stop the spread of information (true or not) that might be damaging to Biden. Twitter and Facebook actively flag posts that "fact-checkers" deem to be misinformation. There was the recent high profile case of Hunter Biden stories being actively suppressed.

Can you point to recent examples of misinformed anti-Trump articles being fact-checked by Twitter/Facebook/major news sources? As far as I can tell, those "bombshells" always spread unimpeded like wildfire.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#112

Post by disown »

pfisch wrote: post #11
DevKoala wrote: post #5

We are witnessing the biggest concerted censorship effort in the history of the USA. One for the history books, depending on who gets to write it in the future. Regardless of whether or not you believe on Tony Bubolinsky, you should at the very least have the opportunity to hear him and make up your own mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo

In what sense? The media has always censored information that can't be verified. Nytimes doesn't publish articles about flat earth theory. Even Fox News actual News division refuses to run these Hunter Biden stories. Same thing with Seth Rich, or ideas about crisis actors. How is this different?

> In what sense? The media has always censored information that can't be verified.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have been involved in any wars in the past few decades.

> Nytimes doesn't publish articles about flat earth theory.

Of course not because lies about "flat earth" doesn't serve their interests. But lies/propaganda about "incubator babies"/nayirah testimony and yellowcake to start wars serves their interests.

Tons of unverified nonsense gets published. And tons of truth gets censored. Media, like the nytimes, are in the business of propaganda. They exist to sell wars and benefit the elite, not to peddle nonsense like "flat earth theory".

If a topic is important (nationally/geopolitically) and it's in a newspaper, you can be sure it's pretty much nonsense. The more respected the news agency, the more likely it is a lie.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#113

Post by whimsicalism »

nojito wrote: post #92
1980phipsi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would withhold any opinion that it is a "garbage story" until actually reading it...

If the entire editorial team and his peers rejected it, it seems pretty clear.

I will reserve judgement until reading the article. Greenwald has certainly had his share of garbage takes, but also can have a quite refreshingly honest perspective.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#114

Post by stumblers »

blhack wrote: post #27

Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…

I'll have to listen to the podcast, but I think you're way off in thinking this kind of story makes careers. Journalists take their credibility very seriously and this story doesn't have it, at least not yet if it ever will.

Going with a story that hasn't been vetted marks a serious journalist as a dupe for the rest of their lives.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#115

Post by starkd »

ivalm wrote: post #86
1980phipsi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would withhold any opinion that it is a "garbage story" until actually reading it...

It is about emails which have no headers, that are impossible to verify, that were “known to fbi” for a long time but didn’t produce any action (because likely fake), and that are specifically being pushed to change outcome of election despite, again, no real evidence of their veracity.

Those issues could be addressed in the article. In open debate. That's the way the first amendment works.

There are reasons to not think its purely garbage storage, as many have pointed out. Not to mention a business partner, and someone who was sentenced to jail who has released their gmail account to the public.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#116

Post by stefan_ »

blhack wrote: post #27

Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…

The system set up by people ignorant to its effects many many years ago has succeeded in making everything a choice between two factions. It's no longer just guaranteeing you forever get two parties, two candidates, you now also need to join a side individually.

It's silly watching from afar because as is highly likely, both choices are bad so embracing one of them so wholeheartedly just comes across as uninformed and plain mental. Not much more needs to be said on Trump but it also doesn't take a history diploma to know Biden wrote the 1994 "tough on crime, law and order" bill.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#117

Post by karl11 »

bachmeier wrote: post #20

"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…

You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their readership.

However, Greenwald's argument definitely should be how it works if a media organization cares about truth and open debate. In this case, it seems very hard to believe that a story -- written by a credible journalist, with a long track record, who literally founded the organization -- was garbage.

I think Glenn hoped to create a media entity that regarded truth as the measure of merit of a story vs. how well it promoted a cause and ads/subscriptions. Now that the experiment has failed so obviously, good for him for moving on.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#118

Post by andrewflnr »

agentdrtran wrote: post #65
blhack wrote: post #27

Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…

"Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat," There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense.

This is an oversimplification. There's a difference between rocking someone else's boat and rocking the one you're riding on.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#119

Post by int_19h »

ehsankia wrote: post #60
jtdev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leads you to believe that he was trying to spread misinformation? The suppression of criticism leveled against Joe Biden or any other individual in public service is a grave danger to democracy. I commend Mr. Greenwald for standing up to censorship.

Please entertain the possibility for a moment, whether you agree with it or not, that this story was indeed planted by a foreign nation for the specific purpose of manipulating our election. Do you then believe that it is responsible to willfully help spread it and blast it all over every social media site? Aren't you doing the foreign nation's bidding then? If you do agree there, then where would you draw the line f…

What matters is whether the story is true or not, not who planted it. If China digs out more on Trump taxes or business dealings, I'd want to see that, as well.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#120

Post by daveevad »

ehsankia wrote: post #60
jtdev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leads you to believe that he was trying to spread misinformation? The suppression of criticism leveled against Joe Biden or any other individual in public service is a grave danger to democracy. I commend Mr. Greenwald for standing up to censorship.

Please entertain the possibility for a moment, whether you agree with it or not, that this story was indeed planted by a foreign nation for the specific purpose of manipulating our election. Do you then believe that it is responsible to willfully help spread it and blast it all over every social media site? Aren't you doing the foreign nation's bidding then? If you do agree there, then where would you draw the line f…

The authenticity of the underlying evidence matters at least as much as the source.

No one has denied the underlying documents' authenticity to my knowledge.

Post reply on HN