I'm only talking about the reaction to how Greenwald presented the events that led to his departure. What happened to him is called editing, and is a mundane experience for journalists (even though it is, at times, aggravating, and occasionally causes journalists to switch jobs). There was nothing out of the ordinary about it (although it might have been out of the ordinary for Greenwald at The Intercept).
Bias is not just normal; it is unavoidable. Greenwald himself is biased. Professionally and ethically speaking, the only question is whether that editing action deliberately tried to manipulate the truth. From the correspondence it is perfectly clear that it did not -- the editor told him to tone down the rhetoric and/or remove things he did not actually know (or could support) -- and so it was also a pretty professional act of editing.
What you're describing might well be the reason for the editorial caution they exercised in this case, but it certainly did not exceed the boundaries of ordinary, professional editing.