My Resignation from the Intercept • Hacker News Board

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#881

Post by gitweb » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC

Uhhrrr wrote: post #744

ggggtez wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the kind of story that can break someone's journalistic career. Even Fox News wouldn't run the story because it wasn't supported by facts. And last I heard, there still has been no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Tucker Carlson claims that his evidence "got lost in the mail". In the age of the internet, they didn't snap any photos of this so-called proof? There is no "there" there. Just a bunch of internet…

UPS confirms that the package was lost: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ups-confirms-mystery-tucker-ca...

This story still sounds bizarre and like a load of BS. I wouldn't put it past a low level employee to confirm something has been found just to keep the suspense for the gullible alive, especially when the documents could have been scanned and encrypted.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#882

Post by joveian » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:28 AM UTC

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, I'll point out this mid-2019 article about Hunter Biden in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-bi...

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#883

Post by roenxi » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

blintz wrote: post #171

> 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, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would Glenn Greenwald is advocating for an abdication of basic journalistic practice. The role of The Intercept is not simply to air Glenn Greenwald’s musings; it is not a blog. The entire point of an editorial proces…

Although that is true, and the Biden story is pretty suspiciously timed and probably not as serious as it sounds (or fabricated). But it really is rather noticeable that the Biden story is being suppressed. Newspaper articles are being removed from twitter, journalists are resigning from their organisations. It is largely unclear that a similar story about speculation of a Trump-Ukraine story tied to Eric Trump would get this treatment. Years were spent on that Russia business that turned out to be largely baseless, and nobody was suppressing articles on Twitter for baseless speculation.

That level of bias is well worth highlighting. This is material information for voters in future elections (after 2020). I wouldn't know about this story at all except for the backlash over the censorship being news. That is pretty impressive from an information-flow standpoint.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#884

Post by jml7c5 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:33 AM UTC

subtypefiddler wrote: post #404

The dichotomy between Greenwald's complaints (censorship of his article despite contractual guarantees, Reality Winner cover-up, what editors forced Lee Fang to do, lack of reporting of Assange hearing, and "lack of editorial standards when it comes to viewpoints or reporting that flatter the beliefs of its liberal base") and the editor in chief response in the NYT [0] (he is a "grown person throwing a tantrum") is f…

Did you read the e-mails Greenwald posted? He comes off as rather unhinged in his eagerness to claim censorship.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#885

Post by mckirk » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:34 AM UTC

facet1ous wrote: post #701

I read through Glenn's draft after seeing the outrage on this thread and... it reads like a generic opinion piece. I think he makes some good points and some dumb ones, but that's besides the point in all honesty - most of the article is him just complaining about the state of the media, making accusations of double-standards, and full of inflammatory language. There's little investigative journalism, no interviews w…

I'm curious, which parts of the story can be easily refuted?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#886

Post by watwut » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:40 AM UTC

1980phipsi wrote: post #29

Is there anything worth reading by the Intercept excepting Greenwald?

Liliana Segura

Quite a lot actually.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#887

Post by jml7c5 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:46 AM UTC

crocodiletears wrote: post #556

green_rooster wrote: post #527

The e-mail exchange that Greenwald just published is very damaging to his case. His editors make some reasonable editorial suggestions about the focus of his piece and he immediately screams censorship, impugns their integrity and threatens to resign. I think it's extremely likely that he has been planning to move to an independent venture for a while and was just looking for the most attention-grabbing means of doin…

I missed this. Do you have a link?

I believe the links was added a little while after the initial post. Here it is:

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

I'm surprised Greenwald is using these as evidence of censorship, given the opening line of the memo directly contradicts his claim: "there is some I agree with and some I disagree with but am comfortable publishing." [emph added]

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#888

Post by teekert » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:46 AM UTC

With this "2 party system" (which it is not but ok) you get this kind of behaviour, even people that love freedom of expression, hate Trump even more and being pro/con 1 party is essentially the same as being con/pro the other. It's not a nice system, you need more parties my US friends.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#889

Post by jml7c5 » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:51 AM UTC

henriquez wrote: post #338

The response on HN to this is a disgrace.

There's a statement both sides can agree on!

(They are, of course, agreeing to opposite understandings of the statement. But half a horse is better than no horse, so we will consider it a show of political unity.)

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#890

Post by intended » Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 10:54 AM UTC

HNthrow22 wrote: post #75

gfodor wrote: post #6

The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement, if you want your media company to survive if its value proposition is providing journalism and the usual benefits that come with a free press. Unfortunately, not only is engagement the wrong metric, but it's also one which incentivizes the undermining of the actual metric you need to…

> The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement KPI for whose benefit? Shareholders or the 'public good'? Why would a for-profit entity optimize for the public good over profits? Fox news is crushing all their competitors optimizing for engagement. Who is winning optimizing for trust?

The conversation here is missing this point and the actual market dynamics - news pays crap.

Advertising goes to the place with most eyeballs.

If you had to choose between the super bowl and Tucker Carlson, it’s not hard to guess where the ad will go.

The internet killed off the classifieds so that leaves even less money for news firms.

Add in consolidation and king making functions under Murdoch - and media firms like Fox have a very different purpose now.

The business of News is losing to the business of entertainment.

No one wants to pay to be bored.

The only people who will pay for boring news are people who get more value out of it than boredom.

This is a society level issue, not industry level issue.