Jump to content

an employee at the 'The Intercept' news outlet, resigns, because the outlet refuses to allow any negative stories to be published about Joe Biden.


Recommended Posts

  • pmurT changed the title to an employee at the 'The Intercept' news outlet, resigns, because the outlet refuses to allow any negative stories to be published about Joe Biden.
1 hour ago, pmurT said:




My Resignation from the Intercept (greenwald.substack.com)
"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right"

That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is right". As he well knows, all that matters is that the story runs, not whether it's shown to be false months after the election is over. Strange that he thinks his readers are that gullible.

I want to be clear that I'm not claiming to know the truth as it relates to this story, only that this is the position of the editors, and that his argument is nonsense.

You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their readership.

However, Greenwald's argument definitely should be how it works if a media organization cares about truth and open debate. In this case, it seems very hard to believe that a story -- written by a credible journalist, with a long track record, who literally founded the organization -- was garbage.

I think Glenn hoped to create a media entity that regarded truth as the measure of merit of a story vs. how well it promoted a cause and ads/subscriptions. Now that the experiment has failed so obviously, good for him for moving on.

Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article.

From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor to shut down stories they don't believe meet the standards they set for themselves.

And for exercising that duty, they are leaving clicks, ad impressions, and probably a good amount of money on the table.

They're free to make that choice if that's their true assessment of it. But when Greenwald publishes his piece, if it actually is not in fact a garbage piece, they're going to look extremely bad and biased.
You would think that if that were the case, he would publish it alongside this letter.

Edit; he did: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

He said he'll be publishing it on his blog very soon. He may have submitted an incomplete draft to The Intercept for review, and is still finishing it up.
This proved correct, and he just posted the draft.


This doesn't really strike me as a cheap attempt to sway elections. Rather, it makes IMHO a pretty reasonable case for the idea that media - even independent publications - in the US are extremely polarized and biased when it comes to politics (albeit that's kinda beating a dead horse at this point).

With all this said, IMHO the style of the narrative also contributes to the ever increasing aggravation: why are people so focused on what can or cannot be construed as fodder for character assassination, when ideally an election is supposed to be about discussing the merits of different platforms. Investigative journalism certainly has its place, but in the context of the imminent elections and the political landscape, it would do a whole lot better to simply publish a down-to-earth for-dummies side-by-side comparison of candidate platforms, to dissuade pitchfork-induced action and encourage proper level-headed consideration by undecided voters.

He's not wrong. But, it seems the American public is completely obsessed with the October Surprise. Everyone is waiting for that last minute piece of information that will flip the entire election on its head. And why not? Social and mass media have been training us to trawl for the "bug scoop" for decades now.

The truth is, news doesn't happen overnight. If anything sufficiently important is to be determined true, it needs to happen over a course of weeks or months, as people process the information, debate with each other, and come to a consensus on what it means for the country. Just because we can have this conversation with smaller and more rapid steps due to technology doesn't mean that we can get to the destination any faster.

So, in my opinion, burying this story is wrong. Amplifying it is also wrong. If Trump truly believes this is corruption, he should open an investigation, one that will be widely mocked as a political hit job and will still not finish until well into the next term. But, if you care about your country, you do it anyway. Not to win an election but because it's the right thing to do. I guess we'll see what happens.

> But, it seems the American public is completely obsessed with the October Surprise.

The news media is. The public (especially, given the pace of early voting, this year) doesn't seem to be, as much.

My speed-read of this article shows it's similar to Tabbi's excellent piece here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-the-hunter-biden-expose-s...

Based on what I've read so far, this is absolutely not a garbage piece. The Intercept editors should be ashamed. They're doing the exact thing Greenwald rightfully lambasts in this article, ironically. This is a rigorous piece that attempts to get at the actual truth and the people seeking to suppress any attempts to seek it; not at all an unfair hit piece against Biden, let alone an attempt to try to increase the odds of Trump winning, as the parent poster alleged.

I read the entire draft and I’m going to disagree with you. Rather than write a lengthy diatribe, I’ll start with my main point. This is all very neat and tidy and while it may all be true, we live in a political climate where foreign governments interfere in elections by spreading disinformation. In that case, an editor is absolutely correct to push back, make suggestions and ensure their otherwise respectable publication is not used as a tool to spread more disinformation the week before an election.
We've lived in a world where foreign governments have interfered in elections by spreading disinformation for literally as long as there's been elections. That doesn't give the media an excuse to ignore corruption across half of the aisle.


> we live in a political climate where foreign governments interfere in elections by spreading disinformation. In that case, an editor is absolutely correct to push back

This is paternalistic to the extreme. Do we get to vote on whether we want such a society or is it just imposed by editorial fiat?

> spread more disinformation the week before an election.

You read the draft. Could you point out the explicit falsehoods to me?

Or are you saying we should stop the spread of inconvenient opinion pieces?

I vaguely understand the paternalistic side of your argument, but if you want to abandon editorial rigour, we have something already built for that. It’s called social media.

If social media doesn’t turn your crank, start your own publication and establish your own editorial fiat. HOWEVER, there’s a problem - if your editing sucks, you won’t attract enough readers to maintain high standards. That’s kind of the shit part of the free market - you can’t just go push a substandard product and scream about “my freedom”.

Ultimately, this draft needed some work and if you go through this thread, you can read some of the Intercept’s own comments. Personally, I found the section about possible disinformation to need more meat. The connection between the Vice President and the company is too tenuous. The article needs to cover WHY experts think it is disinformation, even just to strengthen the claim that it isn’t.

It doesn’t much matter what you want to read, but an editor still had to find balance and appropriate context. Otherwise, publications suck...




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...