My Resignation from the Intercept • Hacker News Board

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#291

Post by ojnabieoot » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

collegecamp293 wrote: post #280

ojnabieoot wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the Intercept has a blanket prohibition on criticism of Joe Biden is transparently ridiculous. https://theintercept.com/2020/09/02/biden-foreign-policy-war... https://theintercept.com/2020/09/01/biden-economic-policy-us... https://theintercept.com/2020/08/13/biden-latino-deportation... https://theintercept.com/2020/08/07/joe-biden-climate-policy... What Glenn’s whiny rant leaves out is that it wasn’t ju…

This is wrong. The WSJ did report as The Editorial Board (means all of them). https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bidens-and-tony-bobulinski-...

You are wrong, the actual op-ed that “reported” the allegations was “written” by Strassel a week before the editorial you linked to:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biden-family-legacy-1160340...

Edit: to clarify, the editorial you linked seems to be a real editorial that said “these questions need to be investigated” - the op-Ed I linked to presented itself as divulging new information. In 99.9999999% of cases this would be an odd use of an op-ed, but it appears to have been the only option since the reporters refused.

It is also worth noting that WSJ has a unique and well-known dichotomy between “brilliant, hard-hitting reporting” and “unbelievably hackish Joe-Rogan-level opinions.”

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#292

Post by happytoexplain » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

kev_da_dev wrote: post #190

Go 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.

I agree that there's a problem, though I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you aren't referring only to the comments on one "side" of this discussion. However, either way, there is also a lot of irrational political side-taking being downvoted, and frankly the state of things looks much better than the vast majority of communities.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#293

Post by mcphage » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #63

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…

Are you of the opinion that all story publication should stop in the days before the election? If not, how do you reconcile that with this? Your argument seems to be based on an assumption that the story was garbage, with the evidence being that the editor pulled it, which begs the question.

> Are you of the opinion that all story publication should stop in the days before the election? If not, how do you reconcile that with this?

You could stop story publication unless you have a preponderance of very strong evidence for your claims.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#294

Post by tzs » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #115

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.

Those issues could be addressed in the article. In open debate. That's the way the first amendment works. There are reasons to not think its purely garbage storage, as many have pointed out. Not to mention a business partner, and someone who was sentenced to jail who has released their gmail account to the public.

> Those issues could be addressed in the article. In open debate.

It's a non-tabloid newspaper. What I want and expect from such a publication is to only see stories for which the basic underlying facts have already been verified. There might still be disagreements over the implications of those facts and how to act on them, which I want and expect to see covered.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#295

Post by mlamat » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

He is trying to lobby the Trump administration to pardon Snowden in the next three months. He said on Rogan's podcast that this is his main mission now.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#296

Post by happytoexplain » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

a_band wrote: post #201

Amazing the amount of people who are essentially reacting with "Greenwald was spreading foxnews disinfo" without even having read his article.

How many people have asserted that they personally believe Greenwald was spreading disinformation and have also stated that they did not read his article?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#297

Post by YeBanKo » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

The main issue I see: this story and stories like this generate interest. If it’s not published and discussed in depth on main stream media, then the only source available becomes some crazy right-wing conspiracy theory sites. So readers are forced to choose between no analysis or an analysis done by some nut-job.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#298

Post by Pils » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

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 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!

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#299

Post by disown » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

agentdrtran wrote: post #65

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…

"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.

> 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.

They have been attack dogs of one political party or the other. But its always been this way. Social media ( especially twitter ) has shown people that journalists are political actors, not dispensers of "truth". They are part of the power structure, not a counterweight to the power structure.

At this point most newspapers should just be part of the democratic, republican or intelligence agency because that's all they are.

I can almost guarantee that most of the people here attacking greenwald and partaking in the downvote brigade are news employees or members of a particular political party. It's hilarious.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#300

Post by warkdarrior » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #232

CogentHedgehog wrote: post #64

Keep in mind we're just seeing Greenwald's side of this. It sure sounds like he's trying to paint it a way that makes him look good and the Intercept look bad. Lots of claims of "censorship" etc. I want to hear their side of it as well. My guess is that there's a lot more to this story. My guess is if all his peers thought the claims were not solid enough to publish, there is probably a reason for that -- not simply…

> not simply a desire to "censor" someone they've worked with for years. This reads as though you're implying The Intercept existed independently of Greenwald. They didn't, he co-founded The Intercept . He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor. I think it speaks volumes about him as a journalist and his journalistic integrity that he setup The Intercept as an outlet where he and his co-founde…

So your argument is that Greenwald's latest submission should be treated specially because he founded The Intercept as a media outlet where his submissions aren't treated specially?