A discussion of Glenn Greenwald's departure from The Intercept
Glenn Greenwald resigned from from The Intercept_ an online publication he helped start after the Edward Snowden Leaks. In that letter Glenn Greenwald goes into detail for the reason for his resignation.
The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.
Editor-in-Chief of The Intercept's response with a heavy critique of Glenn Greenwald work as a Journalist.
it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.
Glenn Greenwald post the unedited article w/ typos and and all that The Intercept refused to publish.
Glenn has also posted the email exchange between himself and other editors at The Intercept.
Zeynep Tufekci wrote about this story and what it says about the current state of media in her new newsletter yesterday: The Real Hunter Biden Story Everyone is Missing - Why aren't we paying attention to the blatant blackmail?
To elaborate on Tufekci's point, there is interesting material of service to the public interest in investigation of the blackmail plot.
Greenwald's demands for a response from Biden seem like petty and vicious "When did you stop beating your wife?"-style attempts to badger and incriminate the victims of a crime. Regardless of one's political opinions, this is not ethically acceptable journalistic practice. That's particularly true when Greenwald has done none of the background investigation himself, and is merely repeating the insinuations of other sources who have clear and obvious biases. He's become the "useful idiot" he parodied in his own podcast with Matt Taibbi, and it's fine that he won't be using The Intercept as a personal platform any more.
See I am one of the "Biden is a shithead" people ("true leftist" isn't the core criticism because I can't see how he's even a "false leftist" but nevermind EDIT: That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for the shithead because Trump vs Rich-old-dude is a clear option no matter what.) and I can see the issue with reporting where it's constrained since it skews the role of journalism in to what is historically a dangerous field of picking the news based on hopes of further reactions in society.
It's not what you want to hear, its what there is to report. Anything else and you might as well hand the paper to the political editor and fire the journalists.
At the same time if the sources aren't verified, there really is very little to report.
In this case though a lot of it is or should probably be about the information in itself - if the information isn't reliable then the core part should be to delve in to that, not blind reporting. Being fed news stories, either to cover up something else or to blanket the news mentioning something or someone isn't new. It's been done for as long as there have been journalism - the trick is to dig through the sources and verify them and then question the infodump.
The only new part is things like social media which amplifies key stories - or worse is used as the only way to communicate with someone in power.
The reason why Bidens son is relevant is that he is powerful and will get more powerful as his father looks to become the next President. If that makes people not want to vote for his dad is besides the point - not reporting on someone with that much comparative influence on society would be a miss and trying to take in to account the reactions that would come of such reporting and play them to whatever outcome you want is death for any self-critical press.
That said - until the sources are actually verified, until whether or not they are being played is cleared - the reporting has to be very careful and perhaps leave info about it to the editorial pages if they want to.
By me or the news?
The entire complexity of journalism is to avoid subjectiveness and if possible display not just sources but eventual bias. It's something the press struggle with daily - its not new, and there is a reason why it's often 101 in journalism educations around the globe.
The choice to report on an indication that one of the most powerful people in the worlds sons corruption accusations is not exactly a choice. It's news. No matter what, it is just that. The quality of reporting dictates HOW the news are communicated. The good/bad journalism lies in verifying the sources, working them and the material, and how the findings are presented, especially with how weak the sources are; not choosing what to report in the hopes that it will have a positive impact on the world.
There is always a lot to report in the world. The BBC have had one single instance of not having any news to report in its history (it played music instead).
That again is about good reporting, not the absence of reporting. In effect we probably agree, my opinion being that good journalism demands working the sources, then communicating them. What Trump is is a good quote machine. So news like "Trump claims" or "Sources connected to Trump claim" isn't uncommon. If that is building a wall, or that doctors make money from Covid... its all news. Being careful how to present it, how to work the source, or when it stops being news is relevant and part of good journalistic work - not avoiding to present it for fear of a negative impact.
Whether its a win for Trump or loss for Trump can't be the only metric with which good journalism is met. He's not forcing anyone to pick sides - but they are, like they are daily, forced to decide how to best communicate the news. The complexity of journalism is a daily fight with methods to avoid the clearest pitfalls. The work to communicate the news is always a struggle - and the way its played isn't new. From standing on a soapbox and scream a "Chicken in every pot" hoping some journalist will reprint it to leaking valuable information in a Washington parking garage it is playing the news for what it is, an attempt to communicate as-truthful-as-possible new and relevant things - or at worst an attempt to sell papers.
For example: is the fact that evil garden gnome Nigel Farage is starting up the Brexit party again, but now as a anti-lockdown party, news? Or is it just helping a despicable little populist get more airtime? Both, obviously.
But demanding the press silence because the news have a negative impact for you is a dangerous road to stumble down. Demanding good journalism, hell "stellar journalism" isn't. Which tbh would probably have the same effect in practice since it takes time too.
The difference is how well they can verify their sources, how well they can clear them and how well they can display bias and eventual workings behind the scenes to get the news there. Here it was a short text about the accusations and how they couldn't be verified. Sure some rightwing nut job with a hard-on for Qanon faff will think its proof of the deep state but to them so is a random youtube-video about chemtrails.
Again, not from the US - this is their election to have - but I see daily how the demand for removing free speech, curtailing journalism etc get more and more popular as talking points in the US. I would worry about how those themes have snuck in to the daily discourse.
In the beginning you said the constant shitting on Biden isn't helping his chances to win. I can only assume you ment by me and not the news. Now, if my right to think and say that 70 year old patrician-class millionaires are rubbish hangs in the balance for a positive outcome - what makes you think that is an acceptable loss?
What made you say that? In what other scenario would you hint that my hardly new or dramatic or hell lets be fair even interesting, opinion, should be kept to my self and slap a underhanded "it would be your fault if you didn't" at the end?
It took me three read throughs to be able to focus on that part in your reply, and it terrifies me still.
I hope your lad wins, I do. But I worry that its a pyrrhic victory at times. Or perhaps a Russian retreat.
The most widely reported e-mail was verified a few days ago via DKIM. See https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
From your link:
Oh, absolutely. My personal guess is that the meeting was little more than gladhanding for a few minutes at some event. But being able to move the discussion past "were the e-mails forged?" to "were the e-mails selectively released?" has value, as it keeps people in the same general reality.
It's always astounding how people can read the same articles and emails in the same context and come away with completely different takes.
The situation and (aggressive lack of) media coverage surrounding this whole story is weird, unprecedented, and frankly scary, but reading that email chain and both sides' statements doesn't exactly make me sympathetic to Greenwald.
This is not as clear as you make it sound. Greenwald doesn't provide any evidence for the claim, and the e-mail chain he posted contradicts it.
Yeah, that's pretty interesting. Mass' very first sentence is
Aside: Glenn's response went out at 11:00pm, and while his follow-up response is (weirdly) lacking a time, it seems safe to assume the second email went out before the Intercept could follow up.
It seems like this breakup is probably for the best. I’m not sure what there is to discuss?