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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#581

Post by jMyles »

hiisukun wrote: post #463

Here is a link to the article (draft) that is discussed in the resignation post, and posted an hour or so later: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... And here is the content of emails with the editors, discussing the alleged censorship: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

Reading the full article really puts me firmly on Greenwald's side of this thing.

Given the controversy, I expected it to the inflammatory.

Instead, this is solid, restrained reporting on the simple facts of the matter, along with completely fair critiques of the way those facts have been handled by other media.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#582

Post by cmiles74 »

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…

In this case it may actually be how it works. When Glenn Greenwood co-founded The Intercept, he wrote some degree of editorial freedom into his contract.

"The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression."

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#583

Post by fiblye »

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #312
ivalm wrote: post #86

Earlier 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.

A few elections back, there was a the “swift boat” controversy with John Kerry. Out of nowhere a bunch of people who worked with Kerry claimed his military experience was fraudulent in some way and the media ate it up, being one of the major factors that costed him the election.

Later on, and with more digging, people who were near him at the time confirmed that the controversy was all a sham. The people who previously claimed Kerry lied all suddenly claimed they misremembered, or gently admitted that they lied. There were just enough bits and pieces of facts to build a story, and BS was used to glue it all together.

I think people are seeing a repeat of that. Some things may be true, but a lot of overly convenient information is coming out to bind it together that’s hard to absolutely verify and will likely collapse under scrutiny.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#584

Post by jMyles »

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.

The actual article in question was published about 90 minutes after this one, here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

I think you'll be surprised by it. There's nothing about it that is fairly characterized as misinformation.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#586

Post by jojobas »

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…

He was an editor with contractually guaranteed editorial freedom.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#587

Post by [deleted] »

eric_b wrote: post #431
r721 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betsy Reed's statement: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...

She attacks him personally without ever refuting any of his points. She hand waves that they will correct the record "in time." Her response is riddled with sensationalist language. I'm gonna go with Greenwald's version of events on this one. This person seems fully compromised.

[deleted]

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#588

Post by [deleted] »

burlesona wrote: post #373

Honest question: is it just me or is it getting harder to determine what is factual and what is not? It seems like the US has begun to splinter such that there are two different sets of "facts" on many issues, but of course that is not how facts work. Nevertheless, when doing research and investigation is it often hard for me to pin down the truth behind any of the "facts" that are thrown at me, whether that's by the…

[deleted]

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#589

Post by dragonwriter »

koolba wrote: post #252
agentdrtran wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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

While at least notionally a Democrat (and one who claims to be a liberal one) Dershowitz is to the right of even the mainstream of the dominant corporatist neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party. And sometimes quite far to the Right, such as his eager advocacy for (not defense of something already being done, but advocacy for a new and novel policy) a systematic and public policy of specific collective punishment by Israel against the Palestinian population in violation of international humanitarian law, or his proposal for "torture warrants" in the early 2000s.

> say they're being socially blacklisted for not taking part in a pile on against Trump

Dershowitz has been one of the right-wing's favorite "liberal Democrats" for a lot longer than the Trump Administration, and has been marginalized by the left of center and increasingly the Democratic mainstream for that from the early 2000s, even before the accusations that he wasn't just Epstein's lawyer, but also a significant client, and his recent campaign against the ACLU.

He's not been marginalized just because he hasn't taken part is a "pile on" against Trump.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#590

Post by fatbird »

jMyles wrote: post #581
hiisukun wrote: post #463

Here is a link to the article (draft) that is discussed in the resignation post, and posted an hour or so later: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... And here is the content of emails with the editors, discussing the alleged censorship: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

Reading the full article really puts me firmly on Greenwald's side of this thing. Given the controversy, I expected it to the inflammatory. Instead, this is solid, restrained reporting on the simple facts of the matter, along with completely fair critiques of the way those facts have been handled by other media.

And what about reading the email exchange with the editors where they provide feedback?
Post reply on HN