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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#631

Post by pvarangot »

happytoexplain wrote: post #275
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…

That's an incredibly low bar for praise.

Unfortunately for investigative journalism the bar is low.

It's like being the trash-man or cleaning the sewers of the information pipes. No one wants to do it. And of the few that do it have most interests and publish lies or predigested material spoon fed to them by their boss.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#632

Post by nl »

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…

The irony of claiming that the NY Times never tears down liberals by posting a link to the NY Times publishing criticism of liberals on Martha's Vineyard is quite amusing.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#633

Post by lr4444lr »

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…

Then care to explain the wildly unfounded allegation that Trump called fallen troops suckers for dying for their country pushed by unfounded anonymous sources, when critics of the president like Bolton went on record saying the claim was bogus?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#634

Post by pvarangot »

brown9-2 wrote: post #628
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.

The facts all rely on a hard drive no one has seen and no one will offer forensic evidence of

Who saw the hard drive and forensic evidence for stuff like the Panama Paper or the DNC emails? I'm asking seriously because on Glenn's article he says that the Hunter emails have gone through scrutiny similar to the material from previous hacks or leaks, and he makes a really solid case with examples of how each dump was "verified".

Also does the Biden campaign has seen or have forensic evidence about this being forged? Because for the Typhoon Investigations fake dump they showed it but for this Hunter laptop thing they just said it was a Russian operation and didn't question the material, they just refuse to answer questions about some of the stuff that's there.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#635

Post by dalbasal »

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…

That's their position, but he has is his.

This is a strawman. Greenwald didn't say that editing in general isn't ok. He didn't argue that all editorial disputes at all times must be resolved with critical articles alongside controversial ones. He suggested it as a solution here. It's not nonsense to suggest it, whether or not the editor accepts it.

Maybe they did see it the way you outlined: "garbage story dropped a few days before the election." He clearly sees it as censorship of an article that needs to be published. This is a resignation, so sure, the dispute was not resolved. Calling it a nonsense argument though, that takes a good squint.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#636

Post by CamperBob2 »

mikestew wrote: post #571

Now that WSJ is included in Apple News+, the NYT has a month after the election to clean their shit up, or I dump a decade-long subscription. And by "clean their shit up", I want news on my front page, not political discussion. And by news I mean "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast", not "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast While Trump Plays Golf". Though I shall stay far, far away from that crazy train WSJ calls an "opinion…

Trump bragged incessantly that, unlike Obama, he wouldn't have time to play golf if elected President. Instead, he's spent about twice as much time on the links as Obama did, including during various crises that would demand a normal president's full attention.

If they didn't report how the President was responding to a given crisis, you'd criticize them for that. So I don't see how they can win here. They keep pounding the "Orange Man Bad!" drum because yes, in, fact, Orange Man is Bad, and people need to know that. It may not be news, but it's fit to print.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#637

Post by solidasparagus »

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.

This is by far the most interesting piece of info to me. Greenwald seems off his rocker and I'm shocked that he is the one publishing this thinking it backs up his case. What censorship? Not once did they say this couldn't be published elsewhere.

> I have to add that your comments about The Intercept and your colleagues are offensive and unacceptable.

That's putting it gently.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#638

Post by elif »

reilly3000 wrote: post #608

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. FYI this sob story has some precedent: In 2014: "I absolutely refuse to be exiled from my own country for the crime of doing journalism and I'm going to force the issue just on principle. And I think going back for a ceremony like the Polk Awards or other forms of journalistic awards would be a…

The form of your comment is a continuation of the censorship trend he is referring to.

Rather than engage his writing and journalistic perspective by providing your own, you have pigeonholed and dismissed it outright without even reading it.

And rather than back up your own argument, you have chosen to attack his character as your support.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#639

Post by mundo »

pvarangot wrote: post #621
reilly3000 wrote: post #608

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. FYI this sob story has some precedent: In 2014: "I absolutely refuse to be exiled from my own country for the crime of doing journalism and I'm going to force the issue just on principle. And I think going back for a ceremony like the Polk Awards or other forms of journalistic awards would be a…

Did you read his story? It's good, it's serious and it calls out the democrats about some real bullshit like inventing a fake Russian intelligence operation to not respond to allegations that come from the emails. I don't care if a journalist has a paranoid delusion as long as they are doing good writing and due diligence, and Glenn's story has both. He's not the most stable individual and he has made mistakes in the…

I read it, but did not see any new reporting. It makes a bold claim in the lede - "a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories" and offers no specific evidence for it.

It seems like Greenwald's gist is that circumstantial evidence is enough proof - that this story is so obviously important that not covering it prominently is prima facie evidence of bias. That's a reasonable opinion, but that's all it is, and if you didn't already believe it, I don't think there's anything here to change your mind.

Personally, I don't see the bombshell part. All I see here is that most journalists want Biden to win, and sometimes politicians' kids get sinecures they don't deserve. I knew both of those things last year. The whole debacle like an obvious attempt to smear Biden Sr with salacious stuff that his kid did, and the only reason it's getting this much attention is that, unlike Trump, Biden doesn't have any other scandals to talk about.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#640

Post by Lammy »

nickysielicki wrote: post #287
happytoexplain wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an incredibly low bar for praise.

Only if you choose to be blind to the relationship between most "journalism" outlets, their owners, and the types of stories they publish. If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes, or that Murdoch influences what Fox writes, indirectly or directly, you're not looking hard enough.

> If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes

For example, "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours": https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie...

Post reply on HN