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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#591

Post by syshum »

donohoe wrote: post #430
karl11 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their rea…

>> Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories As someone who works in media (not on editorial side but on digital), I can assure you thats you are wrong. Most media orgs have a log of rigor and fact-checking that goes into their stories. The editorial side is typically (not always in some places) shielded from the business pressures (for better and for worse). Its someone else's problem…

>>Greenwald stopped being a credible

hmmm, was that about the same time he came to understand that the Authoritarian left that was taking over the Democrat party was illiberal, regressive, and not at all out to advance individual freedom like the "liberals" used to be?

Did he "stop being credible" when is politics separated from your own?

Greenwald has always been left-libertarian, it seems today the "left" only has room for left-authoritarians

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#593

Post by CogentHedgehog »

untog wrote: post #543
eric_b wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd suggest reading the e-mail thread regarding the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... The editor in no way seems compromised to me. There's a lot of very clear, straightforward and polite feedback. I suspect what we're seeing in the statement is a great deal of frustration, which is perhaps not surprising.

If anything, Greenwald comes off as compromised by his own political biases. The editor says fairly gently that there are concerns with poorly-supported claims and omitting key information -- such as the media reporting on corruption claims and the fact that media outlets have not been given access to the supposed hard drive of emails. This results in a meandering and potentially misleading article that leads readers to conclusions it does not actually support.

They suggest a way to focus it more on core points which are well-substantiated and get a solid article out of it. They're not censoring his political views, if anything they're encouraging him to express them in an article indicting liberal media for going soft on Biden. They're trying to get a shorter, more tightly-focused article for publication. Which is to say, a more solid article.

That sounds like an editor doing their job -- editing is supposed to be the art of removing words, after all!

Greenwald sends first a polite reply, then a much less polite one that jumps to this vitriolic claim:

> I want to note clearly, because I think it's so important for obvious reasons, that this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored -- i.e., told by others that I can't publish what I believe or think

Followed by insinuations that they're suppressing the story due to their political biases. It sounds like Greenwald can't accept that there may be legitimate explanations for why the content isn't focused or solid enough.

That's downright nasty and unprofessional.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#594

Post by captain_price7 »

fatbird wrote: post #590
jMyles wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable, but then so did the counter arguments of Glenn. Hard to take sides.

But that response from another editor Betsy was garbage- she threw around words like "offensive" and "unacceptable" and didn't even bother to explain her position.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#595

Post by simonw »

StreamBright wrote: post #471
donohoe wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories As someone who works in media (not on editorial side but on digital), I can assure you thats you are wrong. Most media orgs have a log of rigor and fact-checking that goes into their stories. The editorial side is typically (not always in some places) shielded from the business pressures (for better and for worse). Its someone else's problem…

And this is proven by the countless won lawsuits against said media organisations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...

The fact that this incident was newsworthy is a useful indicator that this kind of case is rare. That's a reason to trust media organizations, not to distrust them.

Similar: sometimes I see people saying "this publication had to retract or correct a story, which is proof that you cannot trust them!". The fact that they posted a correction is a reason TO trust them. You should be suspicious of publications that never post corrections, not publications that do.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#596

Post by vinhboy »

sxyuan wrote: post #577

Rather than focusing too much on the he-said she-said of this post and the response from the Intercept, I think it's more interesting to read Glenn's article for yourself, along with the email exchange that precipitated the resignation. Article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... Emails: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... To me, the article seemed rather light…

Sad that this will never get as much views as the original complaint by Greenwald. He played his hand well.

Reading the "article", all you see as evidence from him is "Biden did not dispute this"... that's his evidence.

This is the final nail in the coffin for me. Greenwald is officially a wacko.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#597

Post by owenversteeg »

pvg wrote: post #387
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…

The Intercept's editor-in-chief has put out a statement of their own. https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1321896097099489283 Greenwald himself just confirmed on twitter he could publish with no editorial oversight. Eventually, his colleagues balked. "A grown person throwing a tantrum", as the editor puts it, sounds about right.

Regardless of your position here, that statement is definitely not a good look for the Intercept. Immediately attacking a former employee and making numerous typos in your statement as the editor in chief? Good lord. Capitalizing the name of your own publication three different ways in three consecutive sentences has to be a record.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#600

Post by marrone12 »

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.

A friend of mine works at the Intercept and has said that Glenn has been going off the rails for the past half a year and has alienated the entire staff at the Intercept, not just this specific editor. Apparently he's been planning to leave for a while, and from my friend's POV, this is Glenn's way of making himself the martyr and getting good publicity for himself and his patreon.
Post reply on HN