It’s not about who Greenwald is, it’s about the quality of reporting & the evidence they have to support their claims. You can’t run big stories based on the reputation of the journalist rather than the quality of the reporting. You’re basically suggesting they should get out of the way of Greenwald because he’s a celebrity journalist.
My focus on character is in response to OP assuming an article written by a notable author was "garbage," while taking the side of unnamed editors. I focused on a single sentence, and fail how to see this is illogical in the context presented.
The issue is that we're not privy to the editor and their motives or the strength of Greenwald's evidence. It could very well be that he has a solid story. In this case you have a well known journalist claiming that his editors are censoring him on an important story.
The editors can run the story with a disclaimer outlining their concerns as Greenwald argues.
The job of an editor is literally to make decisions about what to publish, not to publish everything or kowtow to celebrity journalists or potentially big stories.
