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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#131

Post by blhack »

stumblers wrote: post #114
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.

What do you mean this story hasn't been vetted? One of the major players in the story has gone on record, giving an approximately 45 minute long interview verifying the claims.

The FBI and DNI have also both confirmed the validity of the laptop. How much more "verified" than that would you need?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#132

Post by epistasis »

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…

After the past few years, I do not share that assessment of Greenwald in the least. Following him on Twitter for a while caused the scales to fall from my eyes. I think he's done some good things in the past, but currently he seems off his rocker, honesty. People can change as they age, and I think he clearly has.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#133

Post by lern_too_spel »

Lendal wrote: post #107
lern_too_spel wrote: post #44

Knowing Greenwald, what he describes as "censorship" is what a news editor would call "fact-checking."

There are more reasons to junk a story than just fact-checking. It could be that the story has already been covered sufficiently. That there is nothing new it. That it is only of interest to a certain group of people who just want to wallow in that same story every day. He hasn't actually published the story yet so nobody knows for sure, but if it's about Hunter Biden then I think it's probably in this category.

I'm just going by Greenwald's past work where he has repeatedly stated things that are easily verified to be false.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#134

Post by Pet_Ant »

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...

> it basically allows the peddlers of these unverifiable stories to dictate the news.

The allegation itself is news, but it's important to label it as such when reporting it. The next step is to investigate it.

If Trump says there are extraterrestrials living in Area 51 that's news regardless if you can verify it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#135

Post by ptmcc »

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…

> his character is beyond the pale

I don't think this means what you think it means. You just insulted his character, not praised it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#136

Post by oh_sigh »

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…

Yes, when two people disagree, one side commonly thinks the other side's argument is nonsense. But, as you admit you don't know the truth of the story, it is impossible to tell whose side is right. Maybe the editors do just think it is garbage journalism. Or maybe the editors are just protecting "their guy".

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#137

Post by ghaff »

pm90 wrote: post #71
throwaway3699 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you make of the idea that independent journalists on the web being the future?

It isn’t reasonable to expect independent journalists to take over the work that news media currently engages in. While there are legitimate criticisms of media companies becoming too large and being driven by outrage based engagements, they also provide the resources for some of the best journalists to spend a large part of their lives dedicated to digging into a story rather than worrying about how to make ends mee…

And, to the degree that they're actually doing investigative journalism, it's really hard to see how the finances work out. I guess there's patronage of various sorts but that tends not to work very well and certainly isn't very scalable.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#138

Post by Nacdor »

On the one hand, this is shocking because Glenn co-founded the Intercept as a response to the rampant partisan censorship happening at other media outlets.

On the other hand, I had been reading The Intercept regularly since at least 2016 and there was a very noticeable lack of "independent" journalism as the years went by. At some point this year I stopped visiting their website because the worthwhile articles were few and far between, buried in a mountain of partisan rubbish.

If founding your own company isn't enough to avoid censorship, then what is? Is there any hope left for truly independent journalism in this country?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#139

Post by ehsankia »

jjeaff wrote: post #56
dkdk8283 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Was that the specific mandate? Nothing critical of Joe? Or was it that all the sections in the article critical of Joe were unsubstantiated.

This right here is a masterclass on how you can still technically be saying "facts", but by cherry picking and bending words make it seem very different from what it actually was. This kind of deception honestly makes everything this person says worthless to me.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#140

Post by tomp »

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.

Vs someone with the history of journalistic integrity and clout as Greenwald, there's no doubt in my mind whom I'd trust more on their opinion (btw: it's not the New York editorial elite).
Post reply on HN