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

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#91

Post by nwienert »

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’s two social groups, they don’t want to critique their social group.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#92

Post by nojito »

1980phipsi wrote: post #45
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…

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

If the entire editorial team and his peers rejected it, it seems pretty clear.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#93

Post by lern_too_spel »

RspecMAuthortah wrote: post #69
lern_too_spel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By way of example, his description of PRISM was factually incorrect to the point of making the people who read his articles more misinformed than people who hadn't. There is nothing ideological in what is a statement of fact and what is not, and Greenwald gets in trouble on that basic point.

OK so if journalists have to get 100% of what they say accurate then 99% of what we see reported today are "factually incorrect" and there won't be anyone left in the profession. Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.

Greenwald's description wasn't 99% accurate. It was barely 5% accurate. The only thing accurate in it was that some program called PRISM exists. Every statement he made about what it does was wrong, which he could have avoided if he merely talked to someone computer literate or used his status as a journalist to call the people involved. The NY Times, CNET, and pretty much the rest of mainstream media got it correct and correctly identified PRISM as a non-story while focusing on phone metadata, which was questionably legal post-Carpenter.

> Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.

I didn't say that more opinion leads to misinformation. I said nothing about opinion at all.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#94

Post by cma »

> These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom.

Whew, the Fox News editorial board can breathe a sigh of relief.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#96

Post by macspoofing »

SamBam wrote: post #68
macspoofing wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election Nobody disputes why this story was dropped at the time it was dropped. It's a common tactic that has been practiced for decades by political campaigns and even media outlets. Heck, there is a reason why the Kavanaugh story broke when it did. There is a reason why the NY Times published Tru…

There are two errors with this. First of all, was it "censorship" when Fox News had not a single article on Trump's taxes for many days after the NY Times pice? No, tat's not censorship, it's an editorial decision. Second, you're missing the "garbage" part of "garbage story" in the line you quoted. A news organization has a responsibility to vet stories, and avoid publishing stories that can't be vetted.

>when Fox News had not a single article on Trump's taxes for many days after the NY Times pice

Are you saying that all the news outlets that refuse to mention this story are acting like partisan hacks??!? I AGREE!

>Second, you're missing the "garbage" part of "garbage story" in the line you quoted.

What's the 'garbage' part of this 'garbage story'?

>and avoid publishing stories that can't be vetted.

Who vetted the NY Times story? Did NY Times release the documents or their sources? Or did everyone just report it? How about the Kavanaugh allegations? Did anyone have issues putting out prosperous, unverified, and clearly false accusations just to get him and by extension Trump? How about the Steele dossier, initially an unverified, and later found to be a fabricated document, put out by the Russians and paid for by the Hillary campaign ... it served as a basis for YEARS of reporting. The last 4 years, we've seen the mainstream media throw out all semblance of journalistic integrity just to get Trump.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#97

Post by whimsicalism »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #47
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…

Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and there is tons of evidence to suggest it’s illegitimately sourced by agents directly directed by Trump, from sources with active incentives to try to damage Biden. It is responsible to decline to run this story. It only serves to feed conspiracy theories and dr…

> Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked

Oh please. Let's try to keep the "post-truth" ethos on the Right, rather than adopting it ourselves, mmkay?

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#98

Post by burtmacklin »

a_band wrote: post #67
gkoberger wrote: post #3

Greenwald has really fascinated me the past decade. He was on track to being one of the most prolific reporters on the planet, and he has gone really down this weird victimhood "censorship" path. Sometimes it’s legitimate censorship. Other times, your editor is just insisting you don’t spread misinformation.

"Misinformation" now seems to mean anything that threatens partisan objectives. Given Greewald's track record, I would give him a long leash.

or how about stuff that just can't be, you know, VERIFIED? Unless you take Tucker Carlson at his word and that this proof did exist, he just lost it. Oops.

Greenwald seems to have gone way off the deep end, what the heck happened???

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#99

Post by int_19h »

SamBam wrote: post #68
macspoofing wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election Nobody disputes why this story was dropped at the time it was dropped. It's a common tactic that has been practiced for decades by political campaigns and even media outlets. Heck, there is a reason why the Kavanaugh story broke when it did. There is a reason why the NY Times published Tru…

There are two errors with this. First of all, was it "censorship" when Fox News had not a single article on Trump's taxes for many days after the NY Times pice? No, tat's not censorship, it's an editorial decision. Second, you're missing the "garbage" part of "garbage story" in the line you quoted. A news organization has a responsibility to vet stories, and avoid publishing stories that can't be vetted.

Of course it was censorship. Censorship can be narrowly scoped - in this case, to Fox.
Post reply on HN