[deleted]
My Resignation from the Intercept
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#322> 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 proces…
The fact that this comment is "grayed" out makes me uncomfortable with where this discussion is going on HN. I think you made the most valid argument about this specific article of all the comments I have read here.
> 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
Even if when the actual article gets released and it's 100% factual and great, the "pre-article" we are reading here is just playing politics -- which is exactly what it claims to be fighting against.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#323The 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…
What do you make of the idea that independent journalists on the web being the future?
[deleted]
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#324I like how this link is being suppressed from the front page of HN as well. 309 points in 1 hour, and it's at #52 instead of a single digit ranking as you'd expect. In comparison, the current #1-#3 have 175-80 points in 2-3 hours.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you say with a straight face that the NY Times or WaPo has done that with liberals or Democratic candidates? Outside of tearing down Bernie Sanders I'd say it's a firm no. Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha... Even being "neutral" is apparently not enough. It's e…
> Prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/us/alan-dershowitz-martha ... Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team!
> Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team!
That article is dated a year and half prior to Trump’s impeachment. Dershowitz disagrees with Trump on policy matters on just about everything. What he doesn’t do is let his political disagreements pervert his legal opinions on constitutional matters. And hence he gets blacklisted for not joining the hate.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#326Go look at all the comments being downvoted. It's insane how many reasonable, common-sense arguments are being downvoted into oblivion. HN has a serious astroturfing problem and I can only imagine who's behind it.
They click on your username and downvote any other comments you've made too. It's a real shame. I was hoping HN was more adult than reddit.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#327Greenwald 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.
Do you have anything to support this accusation? I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to join the Russiagate bandwagon. In the end that was clearly the correct choice, but the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative.
I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It was a choice, and one he was allowed to make, but it was one of many options.
You say "the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative". Isn't that what I'm talking about? He founded the org. Do you think "the liberal media" got together and decided to censor him? Or do you think people just weren't buying what he was selling? I don't get how you can accuse the liberal media of anything in this situation... it's not like he works for MSNBC or CNN.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article. From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor to shut down stories they don't believe meet the standards they set for themselves. And for exercising that duty, they are leaving clicks, ad impressions, and probably a good amount of money on the table.
They published the Steele dossier with ZERO evidence. It's now been completely discredited as a Russian plant the Obama administration knew was from a Russian asset. The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak and it's been vouched for by Tony Bobulinski who definitely has close ties to the Biden family, yet it's not publishable? That's as partisan as it gets and dese…
I believe downvoters are likely responding to the factual inaccuracies in your post; not to mention the tone.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#329jesus... that article sounded like a child crying cause they didn't get their way.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The emails have literally been verified by people on the emails and further their authenticity has never been denied by the Biden campaign. To claim that they are fake or disinformation at this point is either an act of extreme ignorance or duplicitous intent.
[deleted]