A right is only useful if you assert that right. If you look at the email chain that Glenn himself published [1], the correspondence is essentially the editor giving a bunch of suggestions of how to improve the article, then Glenn asserting CENSORSHIP and then the EIC telling him to stop being so rude to his colleagues and then Glenn quitting in a huff.
Maybe it's possible that all of the implied messages were exactly as Glenn surmised them to be but ultimately, it doesn't matter what's implied. Glenn at no point even brings up what his supposed contractual rights are and lays out a paper trail forcing them to acknowledge a breach of contract.
It's entirely possible that if he had just pushed a little harder, they would have simply been like "Well, it's your grave but it does state it in the contract so we'll put it up without edits" but him not even trying makes it seem like he is engineering the situation to resolve to this particular outcome.
> the correspondence is essentially the editor giving a bunch of suggestions of how to improve the article
From the beginning of the first letter: "Overall I think this piece can work best if it is significantly narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy — media criticism about liberal journalists not asking Biden the questions he should be asked more forcefully, and why they are failing to do that."
In other words, the editor is asking Greenwald to keep only the part about criticism of liberal journalists, and not publish the allegations against the Bidens. That's not just a suggestion on how to improve the article - it's asking him to remove a substantial part of the article.
> Glenn at no point even brings up what his supposed contractual rights are
As for his contractual rights, he spells those out in his original article: "to publish articles without editorial interference except in very narrow circumstances that plainly do not apply here". And: "my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself". Presumably, the editors would already be well aware that his contract allows him to be free of editorial interference - he's one of the founders of The Intercept, not some obscure random journalist that the editors don't know.
> "Overall I think this piece can work best if..."
is a suggestion (and a perfectly fine way to start a discussion).
Greenwald might have good reason to believe there's more to it than that based on a perceived history of political bias. But, based solely on the text of the email I'm inclined to give the editor the benefit of the doubt.
As a matter of fact, I was firmly in Greenwalds' camp before reading the email exchange. It does read like a bit of tantrum IMHO. It certainly doesn't scream "censorship".
I concede, said "tantrum" may actually be justified based on history that we aren't privy to, but the raw text of the exchange alone does not paint Mr Greenwald in the best light.
Maybe it's possible that all of the implied messages were exactly as Glenn surmised them to be but ultimately, it doesn't matter what's implied. Glenn at no point even brings up what his supposed contractual rights are and lays out a paper trail forcing them to acknowledge a breach of contract.
It's entirely possible that if he had just pushed a little harder, they would have simply been like "Well, it's your grave but it does state it in the contract so we'll put it up without edits" but him not even trying makes it seem like he is engineering the situation to resolve to this particular outcome.
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...