Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandwichest | Hacker News Reader

> "If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election"

This is bordering on hyperbole.

1. Glenn Greenwald isn't one to produce a "Garbage Story," he's a credible journalist with a long history of dropping bombshells. He's dropped bombshells about both the right AND the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Awards

2. It's the job of the media to do exactly what you have alluded to within the last half of the statement above. All sides do just that every single election I've been alive, all the way up to election day. But this time, only one side is allowed to do it.

3. Glenn Greenwald is a co-founder of The Intercept and is provided contractual rights to editorial freedom.

The fact that this comment is the top comment on this thread is extremely worrying. This is censorship, nothing less.

*edit: removed hints of rudeness.

View on HN

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.

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 editors have made public statements about this conflict as well. Pretty much none of this is hidden from public view by now.

They have now that it has come to the forefront. My point was they could have run the article along with the note.

GG can publish his article and the readers can be the judge.

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.

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.

Well said. I can't believe people agree with this rationale. And he completely missed the part where the article states "these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication. " ...yea so its pretty clear what their agenda is

As I wrote in another comment, his faith that the story is there, if only he can find it, is what makes a good investigative journalist, but in this case he wants to publish a story built around that faith and nothing else. What his editor wanted him to take out was his insinuation that other news outlets' failure to come up with corroborating evidence is evidence that they are protecting Joe Biden, despite the fact that he, just like them, is a high-profile professional journalist that has looked into the story and found nothing to corroborate it. On this topic, there is nothing that separates him from any other journalist except his desire to communicate, through his coverage of the same lack of evidence that they already reported, his confidence that the evidence exists.

The most shocking part of this whole fiasco is the way The Intercept's editors blatantly play favorites, allowing disinformation that helps Biden while censoring a legitimate story that hurts him:

> 4) Finally, I have to note what I find to be the incredible irony that The Intercept -- which has published more articles than I can count that contain factually dubious claims if not outright falsehoods that are designed to undermine Trump's candidacy or protect Joe Biden -- is now telling me, someone who has never had an article retracted or even seriously corrected in 15 years, that my journalism doesn't meet the editorial requirements to be published at the Intercept.

> It was The Intercept that took the lead in falsely claiming that publication by the NY Post was part of a campaign of "Russian disinformation" -- and did so by (a) uncritically citing the allegations of ex-CIA officials as truth, and (b) so much worse: omitting the sentence in the letter from the ex-CIA officials admitting they had no evidence for that claim. In other words, the Intercept -- in the only article that it bothered to publish that makes passing reference to these documents -- did so only by mindlessly repeating what CIA operatives say. And it turned out to be completely false. This -- CIA stenography -- is what meets the Intercept's rigorous editorial standards:

> "The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation."

> The Intercept deleted from that quotation of the CIA's claims this rather significant statement: "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."

> Repeatedly over the past several months, I've brought to Betsy's attention false claims that were published by The Intercept in articles that were designed to protect Biden and malign Trump. Some have been corrected or quietly deleted, while others were just left standing.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

> The Intercept -- which has published more articles than I can count that contain factually dubious claims if not outright falsehoods that are designed to undermine Trump's candidacy or protect Joe Biden -- is now telling me, someone who has never had an article retracted or even seriously corrected in 15 years, that my journalism doesn't meet the editorial requirements to be published at the Intercept.

IMO, this makes Greenwald look bad. “I was willing to be a part of a knowingly incorrect news organization until it affected me directly.”

You're not wrong. To me it highlights inherent flaws in the human psyche.

edit: never talk politics on HN, how many times must I tell this to myself

Edit: Comment removed so removing response, leaving link to the censored article.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...

I applaud your self-awareness untog. A good friend once told me

"Never read the comments"

Later expanded to:

"Never respond to the comments"

Greenwald has also been a prominent supporter of a 19 year old rapist running for office, which doesn't help claims to be a credible journalist.

It's probably a good idea to cite your sources at least.

People who claim to be familiar with Greenwald should know about his partisan commitment to Aaron Coleman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com