My Resignation from the Intercept • Hacker News Board

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#171

Post by blintz » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

> 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, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would

Glenn Greenwald is advocating for an abdication of basic journalistic practice. The role of The Intercept is not simply to air Glenn Greenwald’s musings; it is not a blog. The entire point of an editorial process is to hold published materials to a high bar with regards to factual accuracy and quality.

Responding to a disagreement about accuracy or fact-checking with your own editors by claiming they are ‘New York-based’ and ‘Biden is their preferred candidate’ is deeply unprofessional. If you disagree with an editor’s call, have an adult conversation; if you cannot see eye to eye, feel free to resign. If you want, you can even publish a piece about the disagreement - including details over what was alleged as true, and what information you believe editors incorrectly assumed or overlooked.

The one thing you should never do is resort to simply calling your editors ‘angry libs’ and claim you are being ‘censored’. This does nothing to further a conversation, and it certainly disincentives anyone from honestly editing your work in the future.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#172

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #97

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and there is tons of evidence to suggest it’s illegitimately sourced by agents directly directed by Trump, from sources with active incentives to try to damage Biden. It is responsible to decline to run this story. It only serves to feed conspiracy theories and dr…

> Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Oh please. Let's try to keep the "post-truth" ethos on the Right, rather than adopting it ourselves, mmkay?

Absolutely not. Your comment is absolutely not describing the world.

This story has been completely debunked. I welcome real facts suggesting otherwise, but there truly aren’t any. This story is not being cut because of Evil Democrat Socialites. It’s cut because it truly, really, actually is debunked by well-regarded professional journalists at many other trusted outlets.

Greenwald has spent the last four years on a bizarre war path against the Democratic establishment. This is just more of the same.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#173

Post by SamBam » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

RspecMAuthortah wrote: post #36

gkoberger wrote: post #3

Greenwald has really fascinated me the past decade. He was on track to being one of the most prolific reporters on the planet, and he has gone really down this weird victimhood "censorship" path. Sometimes it’s legitimate censorship. Other times, your editor is just insisting you don’t spread misinformation.

who defines what is misinformation and by what standard? it seems any opinion that doesn't conform to mainstream ideologies are now labeled as misinformation. the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.

Misinformation is factually-incorrect information that is spread to push an agenda.

That's no so hard.

A news organization has a responsibility to find out if the news they are reporting is factually correct, and if it's important.

If they can't verify the facts, then they may just publish the people's claims, but again, the matter of importance comes in -- is the fact that someone is making the claim important? If someone in power says a lie about COVID, that may still be worth reporting, because the fact that a person in power misled is, itself, important. But if some rando political operatives push an unverifiable story, the fact that they are claiming it isn't itself a story, unless the facts are true.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#174

Post by Apocryphon » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

On first glance Intercept's editorial staff could be trying to avoid becoming like Wikileaks during the 2016 election. That is, going from a broadly anti-surveillance state, "information wants to be free" publication to one that unintentionally gets involved in partisan electioneering.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#175

Post by rllearneratwork » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

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…

his track record is good enough proof for any editor to know that story is NOT a garbage. I guess this is WHY they actually censored it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#176

Post by meowface » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

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 assuming it's a garbage story and that it's intended to influence the election based on absolutely nothing. Why not make counter-arguments to the actual piece, when it comes out?

I'd argue that all of the rampant censorship about any conceivable questioning or criticism of Biden is the thing that history is likely going to look back on in a few months, and perhaps years, as unethical and irresponsible journalistic conduct.

I disagree with some of Greenwald's stances, but he and Matt Taibbi seem to be the only actual journalists left in the country, that I'm aware of. It's mind-boggling.

I strongly dislike Trump as president and as a person, I think he's probably the worst president we've had from a domestic perspective, and I couldn't disagree more with him and his party's agenda, but as of the past few days I almost want to see him win due to all of this recent censorship tipping the scales. Almost like an Oedipus-style prophecy ironically fulfilled by the attempt to prevent it. I don't actually want him to win, but I want these people to have this blow up in their face.

The cover-up is probably a lot worse than the allegations (which don't seem that damaging, going by the leaked emails, but I'm curious to see Greenwald's analysis), and I bet this is turning many more people further from media outlets and closer to Trump or at least further from the left. Even if he loses the election, I think the past few weeks have shown he might have already won. Not due to anything he did, but solely due to an entirely avoidable shooting of oneself in the foot. This could have ripple effects that last longer than the next 4 years.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#177

Post by gfodor » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

HNthrow22 wrote: post #75

gfodor wrote: post #6

The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement, if you want your media company to survive if its value proposition is providing journalism and the usual benefits that come with a free press. Unfortunately, not only is engagement the wrong metric, but it's also one which incentivizes the undermining of the actual metric you need to…

> The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement KPI for whose benefit? Shareholders or the 'public good'? Why would a for-profit entity optimize for the public good over profits? Fox news is crushing all their competitors optimizing for engagement. Who is winning optimizing for trust?

It goes back to what a company's value proposition is. Media companies certainly benefit from optimizing this KPI, but it means they are now going to become entertainment companies. This isn't necessarily "bad" from the standpoint of the media companies or their shareholders, but insofar as the people who make up those organizations still want the company's value proposition to their customers to be providing journalism, the company has failed. Given the culture of journalism being a mission-oriented pursuit, it's fair to assume that many people will feel remorse at these changes occurring within these organizations, even if those organizations become very valuable entertainment companies.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#178

Post by ghaff » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #125

ehsankia wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There was a time when journalists cared about the truth, and what the truth requires is the disclosure of facts and objectivity. The proper way to publish this is to describe the evidence, and the reasons as to why the evidence may be falsified, and do continual reporting as the story develops to keep the public informed how likely or not the information is false. The alternative of suppressing it based upon supposit…

That is not generally how journalism operates. Remember "Rathergate"? Would it have made the slightest bit of difference if CBS had inserted the disclaimer that "Of course we can't be 100% sure these docs are legit but we'll keep investigating."?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#179

Post by brians » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

nimbius wrote: post #101

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…

>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 right". Occhams razor: Glen Greenwald is one of the most respected journalists on the planet. the man is a modern day Cronkite. his character is beyond the pale when it comes to accurate journalism so it begs the question: What is G…

How come Marcy Wheeler and others have so many criticisms of the accuracy and sourcing of his journalism?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#180

Post by mundo » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

It seems impossible to hold a strong opinion on this without reading the article, and in particular, seeing how it is sourced.

The elephant in the room (which Greenwald barely acknowledges in this essay) is that many mainstream news organizations have concluded that the evidence for this story was too weak to publish, and some believe it was fabricated by Russian intelligence. If Greenwald has evidence to the contrary, great, the world wants to see it, and (claims of "censorship" notwithstanding) he will have no trouble getting the word out. If all he has is salacious hearsay, it's hard to fault his former editors.