He founded The Intercept and could have been the EIC choosing what gets published. But he wanted to focus his work elsewhere. Why are they speaking as if he's a rank and file peon that won't behave?
Forget about the Intercept for a second and try it like this: Imagine a tech startup cofounder wanted to remain in the trenches instead of managing others. Then she's accused of not respecting the management that formed around her. Yeah, no shit, they have to earn it. And it takes a lot of fucking nerve to tell her "you didn't give yourself a management job before now, even though you were at one point free to. Therefore you're unqualified to make this specific managerial decision, even though you deliberately created a contractual route to retain that power over those certain choices even if it isn't your day-to-day job."
> Therefore you're unqualified to make this specific managerial decision
They kind of are though. If they've chosen not to be in a management position, they have chosen not the have all the context around decisions, nor devote their mental energy to evaluating and making managerial decisions.
Qualified isn't necessarily the right term, but you can't be the leader only when its convenient, that just won't work.
the other alternative is that the founder is Elizabeth Holmes and imagines enemies everywhere to prop up her image. Greenwald did good work with the Intercept but he's quite obviously not the only writer at the paper, just like founders aren't necessarily the person carrying companies forward.
>He founded The Intercept and could have been the EIC choosing what gets published. But he wanted to focus his work elsewhere.
TBF, it sounds like he's barely involved (He does live in Brazil after all), and he just uses the intercept as a venue to post articles to which he has full editorial control.
If he doesn't actually have any ownership, nor a title, just a contract that says he can publish articles in exchange for the use of his name, then, yeah, they can tell him whatever they want.
Because he is a rank and file person who won't behave. His editor sent him a list of reasonable corrections. They did not ask him to resign or tell him he was unqualified to make editorial decisions like your version of the story supposes.
Instead of applying the corrections or pulling rank and saying that he's the founder and wants his article to be published despite the damage it might cause to the paper's reputation, Greenwald threw a tantrum, flung a bunch of accusations at the editor, quit, and took it all public.
"While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign's — the Trump campaign's — dubious claims and launder them as journalism."
The Intercept said it had no doubt that Greenwald would "launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon."
"In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks," the Intercept statement reads.
"We get it. But facts are facts and The Intercept record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself."
I would go as far as say its a blatant lie. Nothing he wrote puts him in the victim position at all. He is very aware that he doesn't need them to publish his stuff.
> What's happening here is obvious: you know that you can't explicitly say you don't want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days. So you have to cast your censorship as an accusation -- an outrageous and inaccurate one -- that my article contains factually false claims, all as a pretext for alleging that my article violates The Intercept's lofty editorial standards and that it's being rejected on journalistic grounds rather than nakedly political grounds.
He describes what he thinks, is what they did and why. Nothing about that is about him. In this quote it doesn't even matter whos article they didn't wanna publish. The whole quoted part could almost identically be written about someone else article they rejected. The "my article" is the only thing that would need to be changed and its quite obvious that if he cant make them post it no one else would get a similar article to be posted. This is not about him at all and certainly hes not the victim hes the one who attacked "the media" in what he wrote. He certainly was well aware that he asked them to publish something that criticizing themselves and he certainly was also fully aware that if they decline they proof his point. Checkmate for him - not a victim.
I don't think he sees himself as a victim but he is certainly disappointed.
I think he is also correct. I think it is a bit of a smear against Biden, but editorial complaints about that sound a bit opportunistic to stay diplomatic.
Glenn Greenwald appears to be confirming that the source evidence hasn't been verified and can't be examined by him; further, Tucker Carlson has said that he has evidence yet to be revealed.
Sounds like Glenn's colleagues prevented him from engaging in a preliminary bet when no news agencies outside of NY Post and Fox have seen the source evidence.
At best Glenn can play second-fiddle to Fox and NY Post, engaging in meta-analysis from afar. At worse, Glenn was betting a decent chunk of his brand's credibility.
It's not like this evidence is being hidden from the rest of the media. Tony Bobulinski held a public press conference where he brought 3 cell phones with text messages for anyone to examine. The whole NYTimes, Washington Post, CNN crowd just refused to show up.
To be clear, this is a statement by the Intercept’s Editor in Chief about Greenwald quitting, not a restatement of the story that landed on the front page earlier today.
Reads to me that Glenn flew off the handle pretty fast. Imagine this was a PR review:
Editor: Extensive feedback, but couched in a professional way
Glenn: I disagree, professionally
Glenn, a few hours later: Your review comments are solely because you are biased and you're accusing me, someone who has never made an error of making an error.
Sounds like he founded The Intercept so he could write journalism free from having to adhere to political narrative that are pushed by the major news outlets of today in order to be used to promote the interests of powerful people and corporations.
They refuse to engage with him. "Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article" That kind of full stop to the conversation is exactly what gets people to understand they don't have a say and don't have someone who will even listen. I'd say quitting over this kind of journalistic integrity is extremely noble. How could they even request he not post his article elsewhere when he is allowed to do so. We're talking about the guy who released Edward Snowden leaks basically building the Intercept in the process and now with the overwhelming evidence that the 'laptop' stuff is true as he detailed, they all of a sudden are opposed to information leaks and claiming it's "Russia" when the photos and videos from the laptop are obviously proof that the laptop was in fact Hunter Biden's. If i was dismissed so easily about something that is integral to my profession I'd be pissed too.
That's not how I read that. They started out trying to engage. Then he sent multiple emails stating how he wouldn't change anything and was quite accusatory.
So then they responded stating the obvious that Glenn was not willing to work with them.
WAIT! BEFORE YOU GO on about your day, ask yourself: How likely is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn’t done it?
As the pandemic worsens, it’s not just the virus itself that threatens human life. The corruption, cronyism, and incompetence of those in power is adding fuel to the fire. The public deserves to know more than just case counts and death tolls, which is why our reporters are digging deep to break stories on corporate profiteering and political jockeying that undermine public health.
The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We don’t have ads, so we depend on our members — 55,000 and counting — to help us hold the powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn’t need to cost a lot: You can become a sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That’s all it takes to support the journalism you rely on.
Why? The Intercept's point is that we indeed don't know the facts, that Greenwald's article contain allegations and innuendos that can't be substantiated with the information currently available, and that therefore they edited it as they would any article to remove what couldn't be currently proven.
Even Greenwald himself acknowledges he doesn't have access to the relevant information. How does that make his claim of political censorship more credible?
Tantrums, rage-quitting, and playing the victim are pretty consistent with his schtick.
It’s sad, really. I used to respect the guy and still follow his work, but I think spending all of his time on conspiracies and abuses of power has maybe warped his perception of reality.
Being paranoid does not mean they are not after you.
Greenwald broke some of the biggest stories of the last 20 years. He’s seen the US government downing planes and trampling all over due process just to get hold of some of his sources. His partner was effectively detained and grilled in London for the sole crime of being his partner. He moved to a country that soon suffered a de-facto coup. I think his vision is actually less clouded than ours, to be honest.
Now that the article and the email exchanges are released, it's clear to me that Greenwald once again used his popularity to peddle conspiracy and victimhood. In my opinion he has lost all his credibility.
I am angry that he did this and many people on here bought it.
I think that's a very uncharitable way of framing his questions. He's not passing any judgement (that I saw) that the documents are true or not, he wants an official position from the Biden campaign relating to them.
Putting aside the whole debate about the material, it really is remarkable how nasty this response is from The Intercept. Unprofessionally nasty I would say.
Wanted to read the actual article when I saw all the hubub. Greenwald has been a go to for a long time. Article reads like Trump propaganda.
Central argument is that the 'story' about Hunter Biden's laptop and the emails on it is not being taken seriously by the mainstream media.
The purported emails have not been provided with their metadata as far as I can tell.
The story told by the emails appears to be some vague, 'Hunter Biden was pursuing a business deal and trading on his family name' type thing.
And all of this from an unnamed author in the New York Post citing evidence on a laptop left in a computer repair shop? All sounds completely ludicrous.
Makes me wonder why the hell Greenwald is making so much hay over this. Kompromat?
If this is all completely ludicrous and made up it would hardly kill the Biden campaign to just issue a statement saying that. I was quite skeptical when the article was first published (especially about the origin of the leaked materials) but have become less so as I've observed no one with any skin in the game actually stepping forward to say the leaks are forged.
The GRU likes to mix genuine documents with fake documents[1]. The e-mails that the NY Post initially released are probably real. If the Bidens confirm they are real, then the NY Post starts dumping everything else that they have, real or not, and points back to his initial confirmation. If Biden denies, then they get someone on record confirming they are real (Tucker sort of did this on his show already) and claim he is lying. It is pretty telling that the NY Post refuses to give the raw material to anyone credible to try and independently authenticate the documents. They are just trying to trap him into making a false denial.
And from Bidens' perspective, the e-mails are mostly a "nothing burger" even if real. At worst, some influence peddling by people close to the VP. So what is the point in giving this any more attention? It looks like the mid-west is going to swing this election, and right now they are getting slammed with COVID. The only folks who remotely care about the NY Post story are already solidly in Trumps camp. The voters that he is trying to reach have no idea what the "laptop from hell" is. So from the Biden perspective, ignoring the story is probably the best move. A confirmation/denial would likely get picked up by mainstream press, who so far have been staying away from it because of the issues with sourcing.
I definitely think the most likely case is that the documents are genuine, but the Biden campaign is ignoring them for tactical reasons.
A separate question then becomes "are they a big enough deal for it to be a legitimate news story?" and your answer to that will depend on whether you are naive enough to believe Hunter and James Biden were able to peddle influence without Joe Biden's (perhaps entirely off-the-record) involvement.
Yet another separate question is, "should this sway anyone's vote from Biden to Trump?" and that will depend on how you weigh this instance of corruption against Trump's many ethical violations, and how important considerations of corruption are in picking your candidate.
The question is "will this story make some people stay home?"
Because when you go out to vote, you don't vote against a candidate. You vote for one. And with two obviously unfit candidates, people may prefer to not legitimize either through voting.
Yes, for the people that do go. But there will be people who will not vote. Out of distaste. This story does not make either of the two main candidates any more deserving of a vote.
The problem is people see anything against democrats as 'Trump propaganda.' It may be hard to believe but everyone on either side isn't all gumdrops and kisses. There is so much evidence that the laptop is real, nude photos, nude videos, no assertion that it is fake, apparently even Hunter's lawyer requested the laptop back. Metadata is spoofable anyways and hardly prooves it is real, what proves it is real is the FBI, who can and will request text records from cell phone companies/tech giants, or corroborating e-mails from the recipient, or say someone who worked with Biden also testifying to it's authenticity (this which happened.) Something with so much overwhelming evidence at least the majority of information is true is crazy it still doesn't get any play on so many news stations and websites. Apparently they even know the source of the laptop and have a receipt. That's just what's off the top of my head, go read his e-mails and article for more reasons. Even presented with these reasons they only stop responding and say HE is the one unwilling to cooperate, I mean the audacity.
I respect him but my opinion of his credibility dropped quite a bit when The Intercept burned Reality Winner.
He claims it was the fault of a colleague but he's still comfortable calling himself the founder of the org. Take some responsibility for Christ's sake.
In a decent world Joe Biden would pardon her on his first day.
It's unfortunate that reality is often biased. Sometimes, there simply aren't two sides. Frankly the "teach the controversy" stance has led to a lot of negative knock-on effects for traditional journalism, as they are often up against op-eds masquerading as journalism. You can be impartial without representing "both sides." For instance, I don't think history books that paint the Third Reich as exclusively negative aren't being impartial.
I'm not says this is the case necessarily here, but it is something to remember.
Its the difference between a history book with the tone of "then the evil nazis who were the spawn of satan did this and caused suffering because they're evil nazis"
as opposed to
"then the nazis did this and caused a significant degree of suffering widely regarded in the forthcoming decades as among if not the most evil acts ever committed"
The difference is taking things personally, as opposed to a third person observational perspective. Both may come to the same conclusion, but one is hoping you'll be convinced while the other just represents what is known about the reality in question, letting the meaning of it speak for itself. There is even inclusion of opinion, but not personally taken, just noted as occurring.
The keyword is "evil", which is subjective, therefore an opinion. A Nazi Officer, for example, would disagree with your opinion whether what they did was evil.
And if you had taken the effort to scroll down one or two months more you would have found: https://imgur.com/dSz0iCg
The Intercept has been consistently critical of Biden and other establishment Democrats which isn't surprising given its progressive slant. The difference, in contrast to Greenwald's framing is just, that this story he wanted to go with is complete and utter rubbish.
Your evidence doesn't address the statement you are apparently refuting. It only shows that, A. There are a lot of negative Trump stories, which would make sense for a neutral platform, and B. They use unprofessional tone in their headlines, which is certainly a reasonable thing to criticize.
They're claiming they're publishing articles negative on Biden as well, but I don't see any of those from the last few months (you know, the times that matter with the election looming). Do you have any examples?
Great response by The Intercept. Pretty much sums up the comments on the previous thread. I do enjoy this new normal, Ok boomer, way of responding to the Greenwalds of the world. Instead of wasting time refuting every ridiculous conspiracy theory or accusation, they treated him like the child he's acting like, gave him the boot, and moved on.
Just skimming, some parts stand out. Like this one:
"The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories"
A self-respecting school newspaper wouldn't publish that. That's "longform Twitter", not journalism.
The op-ed pages have always been longform twitter, not journalism. The journalism and op-ed sides are different departments with no influence over the other.
Forget about the Intercept for a second and try it like this: Imagine a tech startup cofounder wanted to remain in the trenches instead of managing others. Then she's accused of not respecting the management that formed around her. Yeah, no shit, they have to earn it. And it takes a lot of fucking nerve to tell her "you didn't give yourself a management job before now, even though you were at one point free to. Therefore you're unqualified to make this specific managerial decision, even though you deliberately created a contractual route to retain that power over those certain choices even if it isn't your day-to-day job."