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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#481

Post by nickysielicki »

warkdarrior wrote: post #300
nickysielicki wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No, my argument is that he had the choice to override his editors, and that his choice to instead resign instead of corrupting the editorial process is noble.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#482

Post by temp8964 »

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 "golden showers" is not a garbage story, I don't know what is.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#483

Post by rat87 »

nightowl_games wrote: post #103

This breaks my heart for the world, but it increases my respect of Glenn. Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi are my only two journalists I really seek out and follow. Glenn especially. I was of the belief that The Intercept was a valid source solely because of Glenn. I believe Glenn. I will follow Glenn.

I don't know why

Both of them seem to have bought into insane conspiracy theories about the actual Russian collision with the Trump campaign

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#484

Post by captain_price7 »

babesh wrote: post #441

I put more initial weight into someone who published the Snowden disclosures than those who oppose him. But go read what he has to say and examine his sources. If what he says is true, then weigh less those opposing what he said else weigh them more. Don’t listen to all the voices here seeking to discredit him. They are playing defense. Just go to original sources and make up your own mind.

> Just go to original sources and make up your own mind.

But that's not an easy thing to do, is it? Even if we can do this one time, that's not sustainable. We need to trust somebody, and that's unfortunately getting lot harder.

Usually, I would put more trust on an established media organization like The Intercept over an individual, even though he's a co-founder. But after seeing (what I perceive to be) media's blatant disregard for journalistic standards, specially in last 4 years, I'm not so sure anymore.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#485

Post by Nacdor »

sandwichest wrote: post #478
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" This is bordering on hyperbole. 1. Glenn Greenwald isn't one to produce a "Garbage Story," he's a credible journalist with a long history of dropping bombshells. He's dropped bombshells about both the right AND the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Awards 2. It's the j…

The most shocking part of this whole fiasco is the way The Intercept's editors blatantly play favorites, allowing disinformation that helps Biden while censoring a legitimate story that hurts him:

> 4) Finally, I have to note what I find to be the incredible irony that The Intercept -- which has published more articles than I can count that contain factually dubious claims if not outright falsehoods that are designed to undermine Trump's candidacy or protect Joe Biden -- is now telling me, someone who has never had an article retracted or even seriously corrected in 15 years, that my journalism doesn't meet the editorial requirements to be published at the Intercept.

> It was The Intercept that took the lead in falsely claiming that publication by the NY Post was part of a campaign of "Russian disinformation" -- and did so by (a) uncritically citing the allegations of ex-CIA officials as truth, and (b) so much worse: omitting the sentence in the letter from the ex-CIA officials admitting they had no evidence for that claim. In other words, the Intercept -- in the only article that it bothered to publish that makes passing reference to these documents -- did so only by mindlessly repeating what CIA operatives say. And it turned out to be completely false. This -- CIA stenography -- is what meets the Intercept's rigorous editorial standards:

> "The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation."

> The Intercept deleted from that quotation of the CIA's claims this rather significant statement: "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."

> Repeatedly over the past several months, I've brought to Betsy's attention false claims that were published by The Intercept in articles that were designed to protect Biden and malign Trump. Some have been corrected or quietly deleted, while others were just left standing.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#487

Post by babesh »

captain_price7 wrote: post #484
babesh wrote: post #441

I put more initial weight into someone who published the Snowden disclosures than those who oppose him. But go read what he has to say and examine his sources. If what he says is true, then weigh less those opposing what he said else weigh them more. Don’t listen to all the voices here seeking to discredit him. They are playing defense. Just go to original sources and make up your own mind.

> Just go to original sources and make up your own mind. But that's not an easy thing to do, is it? Even if we can do this one time, that's not sustainable. We need to trust somebody, and that's unfortunately getting lot harder. Usually, I would put more trust on an established media organization like The Intercept over an individual, even though he's a co-founder. But after seeing (what I perceive to be) media's bla…

I put more trust in him. He has shown more reason to trust him given the Snowden disclosures.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#488

Post by hailwren »

ivalm wrote: post #86
1980phipsi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would withhold any opinion that it is a "garbage story" until actually reading it...

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.

This argument is specifically, and repeatedly, addressed by Greenwald in his article. [1]

> The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.

1 - https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#489

Post by hluska »

Honestly HN, what in the fuck?? The comments here have run the gamut from conspiracy to arguing there’s a purge coming against the media.

If this is the state of ‘hacking’, I’m cancelling my internet access.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#490

Post by hsod »

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.

Greenwald's version is basically attacking all his co-workers as democratic partisans and contains no actual evidence, so I'm not sure what line you're drawing here
Post reply on HN