My Resignation from the Intercept • Hacker News Board

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#11

Post by pfisch » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

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?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#12

Post by m52go » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

What happens when Glenn fails to conform to Substack's standards?

To my knowledge Substack hasn't censored yet, but it's inevitable. Glenn should just start his own site, in my opinion.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#13

Post by secondcoming » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

lainga wrote: post #2

Greenwald co-founded it; how did it get out of his control and lead to this situation?

He was maybe more interested in being a journalist than running a business.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#14

Post by gkoberger » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

kev009 wrote: post #9

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.

Setting boundaries on what one will and wont do isn't victimhood. He doesn't owe the world his output under any terms but his own.

I’m not talking about this specific situation; I’m talking about his career the past 5 years.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#15

Post by spamizbad » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

dkdk8283 wrote: post #7

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.

Exerpt: > refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden

This is the news site that broke the Tara Reade rape allegation against Biden this spring. To me, this makes me think there's more to this story. You have no problem dropping a rape allegation story days after Biden is the presumptive nominee (with numerous follow-up articles), but apparently are "censoring" critical comments about Biden from GG's articles?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#16

Post by forgotmypw17 » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

lainga wrote: post #2

Greenwald co-founded it; how did it get out of his control and lead to this situation?

It happens all the time, more often than you may think. More often than not.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#17

Post by kev_da_dev » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

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.

"victimhood"?

I find it hard to believe this comment is anything but gaslighting.

Did you actually read his resignation? The editors are refusing to publish a story unless he removes all sections critical of Joe Biden. How in the world is this playing the victim card?

The conversation regarding censorship is getting disgusting at this point. Censorship should be the main focus of ANY and EVERY journalist, full stop. The profession cannot coexist in a world with censorship. It undermines every single thing about honest, transparent reporting.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#18

Post by karlkatzke » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

dkdk8283 wrote: post #7

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.

Exerpt: > refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden

Keep in mind that this is Greenwald's perception.

The story he's referring to has so many holes in it that it's more of a mesh than a woven cloth. Maybe a lace. There isn't much to it except criticism of Biden. Removing criticism of Biden just makes it threadbare and tawdry.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#19

Post by wnevets » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

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

I surprised this post did not include the term sheeple in it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#20

Post by bachmeier » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

"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 right". As he well knows, all that matters is that the story runs, not whether it's shown to be false months after the election is over. Strange that he thinks his readers are that gullible.

I want to be clear that I'm not claiming to know the truth as it relates to this story, only that this is the position of the editors, and that his argument is nonsense.