> 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.
... does sound like he feels victimized.