"I have to add that your comments about The Intercept and your colleagues are offensive and unacceptable."
This is the exact type of response i received from my superiors at a previous organization i worked at when i pointed out glaring issues in the way they were functioning. It seems to be a psychology defense mechanism to take the criticism personally and attack the messenger rather than being able to acknowledge the reality of failure that's pervading the organization. Suffice to say shortly after resigning from that corporation it went under. Anyway all the best Glenn, you have support for what you're doing.
total gaslighting tactic. He's "offensive and unacceptable," therefore they don't have to look at their egregious behavior and do any self-reflecting or soul-searching
I notice you don't say they lack factual basis though. At some point you get tired of being nice with the truth when the obstinate or obfuscating refuse to accept it, despite voluminous evidence, as the DoJ clearly has.
Betsy's retort is all we need to see. No response to your claims and concerns, just an open "you don't want to work with us" kind of attitude and then subsequently trying to shame you for bringing up your "Intercept colleagues". Pretty clear they had no valid response to being called out.
I just bought a subscription for the sole purpose of supporting a brave journo. My God, I first heard you on Democracy Now, the ultra-progressive show - you are in no way, shape or form a member of the far right. You are a man of your own mind and I have a high level of respect. Please continue and thank you, thank you, thank you for standing up.
Unfortunately, those on the left who deviate from the approved orthodoxy are now labeled "far right", "Trump supporter" or "Trump apologist", "Russian spy", "racist", "white supremacist".
Those doing that are generally Neo-Liberals. -shrug- As if I give a damn about their declarations. (But, unfortunately, far too many people DO care what others think.)
"However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article, as we had hoped."
That is maddening.
If an editor is going to violate your contract with the publication, then the presupposition of evidence should be on them. They should need to demonstrate plainly why this is necessary. If you have questions (and of course you did) then they need to respond to them.
Your response was articulate and clear. It should have been easy for them to debate you on the matter if they weren't so clearly in the wrong.
Mr Greenwald- I took note of and regularly followed the Intercept many years ago only to watch it slowly devolve into what I saw as the same click-bait liberal bias 'journalism' available elsewhere. Eventually, I lost interest in the Intercept and moved on...
Imagine my surprise to read about your struggles related to this Biden article! I have followed you here to Substack and have just purchased a full year subscription for your upcoming work. I made that decision despite not currently being in a financial position where my choice was prudent. Regardless, the choice was an easy one to make.
I sincerely hope my small contribution helps you and that you continue to write following your own sense of journalistic integrity. I'm looking forward to seeing where that leads. In the tiniest of ways, we are in this together. Best of luck to you!
Read the censored article and ask yourself this question:
Would The Intercept publish the article if you replaced "Hunter Biden" with "Donald Trump Jr." and "Joe Biden" with "President Trump/Donald J. Trump/Donal Trump"?
Wow. Just freaking wow. After Glen responds with a point by point answer to each objection raised, Betsy doesn't even engage on the facts at hand. She just reaches for the carpet-bomb denial tool and whips out the old "how dare you disrespect "muh au-tor-i-tah" (cue Cartman in South Park). All those pathetic Democratic Party hacks over at the Intercept better start looking for new jobs, because Greenwald was the Michael Jordan that the whole squad was built around..... now that he is gone, there is no reason to read that drivel they spew out over there. They went woke and will be going broke. I gladly purchased my 1 year subscription today, I was already subscribed to Taibbi, now I have 2 awesome reasons to be at Substack.
Rock on Glenn ! You will be amazed at how much support you are about to get from Classical Liberals, Conservatives, really anybody who just wants to see honest, well-researched journalism that gives no cares about which power centers get hit (Left or Right or whatever).
“Offensive and unacceptable” are two attributes at the top of my ‘must have’ list for investigative journalism. When those words are uttered, you’ve turned up the heat on the right burner.
I remember back in 2010 I wondered why Facebook was free and googled 'how does Facebook profit?' Advertisers was the short answer and there was no long answer. I thought it was odd because there really didn't appear to be any ads on Facebook back then. I didn't even think the question why Google products were free. But you're right we are responsible for our habits, we let the dope man get us high.
Totally agree! I subscribe to many independent journalists that I consider intellectually honest (mostly — everyone has blind spots) even if I disagree with them, including Matt Taibbi, Sharyl Atkisson, Andrew Sullivan and Jesse Singal, and of course now Glenn.
99% of people would have caved in to this editor's demands & subsequent bullying, but Greenwald is the other 1% and of course I am going to support him and encourage others to do the same. I would strongly encourage everyone to watch GG's appearance on the JRE (Joe Rogan) as they have a really insightful conversation about the fault lines in play between the establishment / authoritarian media and their silicon valley allies and the new media that is emerging as people look for sources that they can trust and identify with.
Though I sometimes disagree with your opinion, my ancestors back to before the Revolutionary War have fought and died to enshrine and protect your privilege to express it unencumbered by any other living soul. Happy to subscribe as a Founder.
Knew I made the right decision to jump on board as a Founder when I read all of the 175+ comments posted so far and see a good mix of people across the ideological spectrum.
Hope you take this as the sign of honor it is. You did the right thing!
Dear Mr. Greenwald. I saw you on Tucker Carlson last night and wanted to do whatever I could to support you, so I purchased a year subscription. I don't know how much we will agree on details, policy and the like, but that is not what is important now. What we will agree on, is the vital pursuit of truth. I am so grateful to you for your courage. Those that think your resignation was an over-reaction are delusional. It's clear that our right to free speech and our access to truthful journalism is quickly disappearing. What is needed now is clarity, a well-formed conscience and courage. Spinning webs of rationalization is very dangerous. I honor your courage and will continue to support you, even if we disagree on policy...etc. I leave you with my favorite quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions."
It's not really clear to me from these emails that they were outright refusing to publish it, and forbidding it from being published elsewhere? It seems like your response escalated very quickly. Rather than 'I disagree with your commentary, I want to publish as is,' you assert that TI is not willing to publish, and then start insulting their editorial standards (rightly or wrongly). I really agree on the terrible way the media has handled this story, but tbh I would hate to be on the receiving end of an email like this.
Yes it's clear they wouldn't publish it in any form close to what he wanted. And/or just keep delaying until the election is over. But I agree with Ventrue that I didn't see where they forbid him from publishing anywhere else. Sort of a quibble, though, compared to the refusal to publish in The Intercept.
I actually find that statement vague to the point of being potentially self-defeating were it brought to a court of law. Saying something is "unfortunate" removes the allegation of personal blame, "detrimental" or not. TI would also have a hell of a time providing any basis for any such detriment being actionable under law... especially if Glenn's statements about the extant violations of his contract are accurate.
In my been-to-federal-court-but-never-been-a-lawyer opinion, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to bring any such action.
I think his contract covers him, but the choice basically puts them in at a point of no return. Let's say Glenn didn't resign, I bet he'd have a very hard time getting his articles published going forward. I read it as a threat, but not a legal one. Glenn's a lawyer and he would know that, too. Plus, as pissed as Glenn is in the emails and the postings, the Intercept's response on their site to his resignation is way, way more unprofessional.
I'm glad someone mentioned that. The response on that site from Betsy Reed is not only grossly unprofessional, it effectively demonstrates that The Intercept has been compromised from their original mission, and somewhere from within. I'd say the speculation about the owner (Mr. Omidyar) being where the buck stops is probably a good guess. And with that, nobody cares if it looks "bad" or not, because All The Other MSM Is Doing It.
Hey, I don't miss the other MSM. And I damn sure won't miss the Intercept...
I think it depends on what his contract said. For instance, it might say that he can't publish elsewhere if it would be deemed harmful to The Intercept. But I agree with you given the information we have.
According to Glenn (he has said this elsewhere), his contract expressly states that articles The Intercept chooses not to publish may be published elsewhere. I had a similar contract with a publishing house long ago; this is fairly rote in the industry. Basically the contracting publisher isn't on the hook for material they don't want to pay for, but the author isn't necessarily out of pocket because they can now go to the free market with it.
Right, but I was speculating that this provision could allow The Intercept to block Glenn from publishing material elsewhere, even if they decided themselves not to publish it, if the material would be deemed damaging to The Intercept.
I'm not saying this provision existed in his contract, but it would make sense with the claims that he's making.
Again, from what I've seen from Glenn, that's not the case. Instead, TI seems to be vaguely suggesting that they'll sue over a separate concept in trade law whereby someone maliciously acts to harm another's business without cause. Not sure which exact tort it would fall under, but it's not contract-related.
I have to say that I am so grateful to see a robust discussion happening in this comment thread, and no one is resorting to insults or name calling. I came of age with the internet and always enjoyed the discussions in the comments section. That those were slowly taken away to quash any dissenting opinion was a sad, but obvious indicator of the censoring of opinion we see today. Thank you folks!!
I was expecting to see evidence of some sleazy pressuring of Glenn to significantly alter the angle of his story, but the suggested changes seemed absolutely reasonable.
Especially this part:
"A somewhat related aspect that I don’t think the draft gives fair notice of: the New York Post and perhaps the Wall Street Journal appear to be the only major news organizations that possess the contents of the hard drive. Maybe other news organizations have the archive and haven’t mentioned it, but absent evidence of that, I do think any story about a shortage of in-depth reporting on the archive would have to prominently note that most news organizations do not possess it."
Read his first post - this is just the latest in a long line of transgressions. And let's not forget that the Intercept (not Greenwald) was directly responsible for getting a source sent to prison (Reality Winner).
As a political moderate, I just want the damn news. The truth. Not a political bias, either right or left. And I trust Greenwald to give me the truth.
And the whole Lee Fang debacle where Fang was labeled a racist for a video of a black man who dissented from the BLM BS. Akela Lacy should have been fired for that.
The issue isn't only that other orgs didn't cover it, but rather that they actively pulled in the other direction to suppress it. Look how many parrotted the claim that it is Russian interference, claimed it was too complicated to understand, or hid behind ad-hoc rules regarding hacked sources (when clearly that has never stopped them before).
I might add, as I have posted elsewhere, that I have NEVER heard a news organization claim it cannot report on electronic communications unless it has direct access to the physical medium upon which those communications exist.
This line of argument: "the New York Post and perhaps the Wall Street Journal appear to be the only major news organizations that possess the contents of the hard drive." is exactly wrong. In the absence of access to the original material, any news organization owes it to the public to do their own investigations - seeking other avenues to verify or disprove the story.
The facts are no other major new organizations have not attempted to obtain the contents of the hard drive at all. Not one of them has attempted to interview Bobulinski and examine his notes and audio recordings. None of them carried his brief press conference before the Presidential Debate (except Fox). After Bobulinski's hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson, not a single major new organization had any type of reporting or follow-up on the accusations being leveled against the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
As Mr. Greenwald has pointed out, the bias of his editors has crept into their journalistic ethics. The fact that they wanted these portions of his story to be removed or revised (even though he correctly cited both sides of the argument), and their own prior history of erroneous reporting and rush to judgement (the CIA letter regarding Russian Disinformation and the clear omission of context) shows that The Intercept has lost its way and they clearly wanted Greenwald's story to play out along their favored, less than critical line of thinking.
In Glenn's response to that email, he points out three key instances where Peter (the editor) accused him of omitting details that actually appeared in the draft. Peter had relied on these nonexistent omissions as the core basis for refusing the article.
When Trump accuses a reporter of such things, he is called a "totalitarian" by his detractors and "a threat to the freedom of the press". He, however, is a politician with no actual control over what The Intercept (or any other publication) produces. A publication which censors its own journalists in order to act as a partisan political mouthpiece is a denigration of the Fourth Estate in the direction of Soviet-era "Pravda" schlock.
It's possible (hard to know with Glenn) that if they had just said, "Look we understand you may not feel its in the spirit of the Intercept, but while it's a solid story, it could confuse voters. And it's certainly in its nascent stages of unfolding. We would like to publish next Wednesday and you're welcome to note that we held it back for this reason."
That would be a noble way to handle this. Attacking the accuracy, credibility, and competency of the work was definitely the wrong way to go.
The reason for that was presented in the email: the editor wrongfully accused Glenn of omitting core details that actually appeared in the draft. Which Glenn reminded him of.
He had, in short, no basis in editorial policy for rejecting the article, and because of that also no legal basis (per Glenn's contract).
And yet the had editors. Glenn did feel like they were interfering but weren’t even being genuine about their motivations. At least all the cards would be on the table even though Glenn would have exercised his right to publish elsewhere which he doubtless included in his contract in case they pulled something like this one day. Legally, you can’t really set up a journalistic medium with absolutely no editorial control (without risking being sued out of existence).
Instead you have to hope they abide by that but also protect your right to speak and publish contractually. Glenn being a good litigator anticipates all possibilities. The opposite of Andrew Sullivan’s situation.
But I’m glad you’re someone capable of having a cogent intelligent conversation about it.
(snort) oh, you're SO smart, you really told me with all the snark you could muster up. What, did you expect that the bully act would drive everybody away? You sound desperate...
“It could confuse voters”. Is that code for it could get voters to vote for Trump? After all, only the confused might do that...or the ignorant ot evil of course
Or those of us who were already convinced in 2016 that both parties deserved to have their Bush/Clinton applecarts upset, and who since then have watched the Democrats lose their shit so badly that they reduced impeachment to the point where it no longer requires an actual crime to move forward, just a House majority that hates the President enough.
No. First I’m imagining the editor’s reasoning flawed or not. Second the administration has put so disinformation out on Hunter. That’s not uncommon in elections. Both sides do oppo often without vetting. The Clinton campaign did this. Obviously, there’s no circumstances where you want voters relying on truly bad info.
Here's the issue. Who are you to judge "truly bad info?" The reality is that there is no arbiter of truth.
And, of course, in your imagining, the editor's definition of "confuse" would be exactly the one I called out. He doesn't know if the Hunter info is true or false but we do have a person who is on the record saying it's true who was part of the overall scheme.
That's a lot more than we ever had with Russia/Trump and that consumed countless thousands of megabytes of coverage every day for months. In the editor's mind, that information wouldn't be confusing but this information would.
What does that tell you about the definition of "confusing?"
"Maybe other news organizations have the archive and haven’t mentioned it, but absent evidence of that, I do think any story about a shortage of in-depth reporting on the archive would have to prominently note that most news organizations do not possess it.""
Read the quoted bit again slowly. The editor assumes that the fact that other news organizations haven't reported on it is proof that they do not have the materials. How would that be proof?
The evidence thus far suggest that even if they did have the materials they wouldn't publish as they have published nothing about the story save protestations that it's Russian intel (without proof of course).
Exactly! I care much less about "They don't have the proof" and much more about "they went out of their way not to get the proof, which was offered immediately."
The FBI has publicly announced the laptop is part of an active investigation regarding money laundering. Why would a journalistic institution need physical possession of the laptop in order to report the story based on this fact alone? Did the intercept and other liberal media outlets have the physical tax returns when they posted the reverberating expose on Trump's financial position weeks ago? The answer is no, in fact it was anonymously sourced by none other than the NYT. The dubious claim from the editor that its unrealistic and implausible Hunter Biden, a literal crackhead degenerate, couldn't leave his personal laptop at a store in his own hometown is incredibly insulting to people living in reality.
also cmon--everything the editor said Glenn needed to rework or mention--Glenn had already done so in the article--
The thing with these types is they'll never "Go Outright"...it's this subtle, HR type pressure, this insidious kindness like a Menacing Whole Foods label....
Glenn is fireworks. He has passion. He's not some goddamn dud.
I need to look again and think a bit harder, but the response from Peter Maass did not read to me as a request to remove "all sections critical of [Joe Biden]", as Glenn claims in the introduction.
Peter Maass:
"I think the draft could work if it is revised and shortened to focus on the sections about liberal media bias, about Joe Biden not being directly asked questions as much as he should (using your submitted questions to center that), and how all of this contributed to sub-optimal amounts of reporting on the corruption allegations, which, although they aren’t backed by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself, nonetheless reveal greater detail about how his family has used his name for profit."
Take a look: he is allowing the criticisms of the media, but not of Biden. However, the criticism of the media only works if there is some substance to the underlying Biden story. By not allowing exploration of the underlying allegations, you essentially gut the whole piece.
"It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma."
At the same time Maass isn't blocking Glenn from talking about "the corruption allegations, which, although they aren’t backed by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself, nonetheless reveal greater detail about how his family has used his name for profit."
I don't think Maass is saying "you're only allowed to criticize the media".
But he says they "aren't back by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself." Glenn's article cites pretty strong evidence that implies that Biden might have had that prosecutor removed to help his son. It could be correlation and not causation, certainly, but as a journalist, finding correlations is pretty standard. Let the Biden deny it, or better yet, explain it.
It is required to look at the years-long sequence of events leading to this moment. The context is that a staff of careerist editors, fully aware of Glenn's prerogatives, attempt to cut directly across rights he had before they got to their first job interview at The Intercept. Risible, as J. Scahill likes to say. Spoiler alert: BOLO for defections; there will be some. aw
When you literally can't even post the link to the NY Post story on Facebook and Twitter, it's nothing but straight up gaslighting to claim "nothing is being censored".
First time in 10 years I have paid for news because I have been disgusted with it. And where it has been going. I don’t always agree with your POV but I have respected it. I have been waiting and hoping for a revolt among journalists as I have feared for our fourth estate and thus the country. We cannot be a healthy society without a healthy 4th estate. I am slowly but surely seeing that revolution. I just subscribed and will continue to support your outlet as long as it strives to be the vision you have described.
Yes, I am not looking for affirmation of what I believe. That is not useful to me. I want intelligence I can trust and thought provoking assessment of that intelligence. I so hunger for really good investigative reporting and assessment that is as free from political bias as it is humanly possible to be. I will pay for that. And it takes a long while for me to trust. I don't think Greenwald is always right. I don't think is is 100% free of bias. But over the past 5-10 years I do think he strives for that vision and I will pay for that.
Readers are free to donate or not. If you want to comment, you have to subscribe. If you want to read, you need only provide your email address. So, it's not about being "readers with money".
Customers should always be "in charge" of the market. That's how it works. If GG continues to create media worth paying for, we will continue to reward him. If he turns into MSNBC, we can withdraw that support.
If he isn't motivated by reward, he may be the only person in history - with a few exceptions - who hasn't been. It depends on how you define reward. Anyone with bills to pay knows that one cannot live on altruism alone.
At any rate, evidently, you haven't read or seen Glenn's responses on various outlets to charges that he left TI for financial gain. As he's made abundantly clear, that charge is laughable on its face as he lost not only an enormous salary, he lost various other valuable perks that many journalists can only dream of having unless they're stars serving corporate media. It's going to take a tsunami of individual donations to come even remotely close to matching his take at TI. In fact, he won't come remotely close with individual contributions. The ship with the level of remuneration he enjoyed at TI has sailed for Glenn, at least for the time being, and he's not having it any other way.
As Greenwald explained in minute detail in his letter of resignation and through various other outlets, the single most important factor in his leaving TI was his loss of editorial control, control which he explains he must be given before even considering working for any organization. That's the reward he seeks.
"I have to add that your comments about The Intercept and your colleagues are offensive and unacceptable."
This is the exact type of response i received from my superiors at a previous organization i worked at when i pointed out glaring issues in the way they were functioning. It seems to be a psychology defense mechanism to take the criticism personally and attack the messenger rather than being able to acknowledge the reality of failure that's pervading the organization. Suffice to say shortly after resigning from that corporation it went under. Anyway all the best Glenn, you have support for what you're doing.
total gaslighting tactic. He's "offensive and unacceptable," therefore they don't have to look at their egregious behavior and do any self-reflecting or soul-searching
His emails did seem really aggressive and rude
"His emails did seem really aggressive and rude"
Oh no! He seemed "aggressive." And rude! Send Sam some smelling salts.
Mona! perfect tone, perfect words. I just referred to Betsy as a "haughty debutante." aw
HEY MONA! ... Imagine finding you here?! 😉
About Sam's remark ... -chuckle- Yeah.
These were his colleagues. I’m saying their reply to him was reasonable and doesn’t really seem like gaslighting.
What point are you trying to make?
What, exactly, about their reply do you find to be reasonable? Specifically?
What is reasonable about violating the terms of his contract?
I notice you don't say they lack factual basis though. At some point you get tired of being nice with the truth when the obstinate or obfuscating refuse to accept it, despite voluminous evidence, as the DoJ clearly has.
Yes, and calling the comments "offensive and unacceptable" distracts from the fact that they are true, which was never disputed. Psy-Lawyer speak.
Right out of the playbook https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf
Betsy's retort is all we need to see. No response to your claims and concerns, just an open "you don't want to work with us" kind of attitude and then subsequently trying to shame you for bringing up your "Intercept colleagues". Pretty clear they had no valid response to being called out.
Thanks again, Glenn!
I just bought a subscription for the sole purpose of supporting a brave journo. My God, I first heard you on Democracy Now, the ultra-progressive show - you are in no way, shape or form a member of the far right. You are a man of your own mind and I have a high level of respect. Please continue and thank you, thank you, thank you for standing up.
I did as well. Keep fighting!
Unfortunately, those on the left who deviate from the approved orthodoxy are now labeled "far right", "Trump supporter" or "Trump apologist", "Russian spy", "racist", "white supremacist".
Those doing that are generally Neo-Liberals. -shrug- As if I give a damn about their declarations. (But, unfortunately, far too many people DO care what others think.)
Me too.
Me too
Same here. I subscribed just to support you in some small way.
I subscribed also. Respect your stand for freedom.
And I
And I :)
same here Glenn. Calling you "far right" is a "laugh my ass off" type statement.
Me, too, and pray that you will continue this fight for free expression, the very First Amendment.
What a ridiculous response from The Intercept.
"However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article, as we had hoped."
That is maddening.
If an editor is going to violate your contract with the publication, then the presupposition of evidence should be on them. They should need to demonstrate plainly why this is necessary. If you have questions (and of course you did) then they need to respond to them.
Your response was articulate and clear. It should have been easy for them to debate you on the matter if they weren't so clearly in the wrong.
Typical corporate reply, written out of frustration; she doesn't understand his argument and feels entitled to give commands. Must be the salary.
Mr Greenwald- I took note of and regularly followed the Intercept many years ago only to watch it slowly devolve into what I saw as the same click-bait liberal bias 'journalism' available elsewhere. Eventually, I lost interest in the Intercept and moved on...
Imagine my surprise to read about your struggles related to this Biden article! I have followed you here to Substack and have just purchased a full year subscription for your upcoming work. I made that decision despite not currently being in a financial position where my choice was prudent. Regardless, the choice was an easy one to make.
I sincerely hope my small contribution helps you and that you continue to write following your own sense of journalistic integrity. I'm looking forward to seeing where that leads. In the tiniest of ways, we are in this together. Best of luck to you!
Read the censored article and ask yourself this question:
Would The Intercept publish the article if you replaced "Hunter Biden" with "Donald Trump Jr." and "Joe Biden" with "President Trump/Donald J. Trump/Donal Trump"?
For extra credit ask yourself this:
What would Nanci Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the US House of Representatives do if the laptop had been Don Jr's and not Hunter Biden's?
An immediate second impeachment process. No question.
EXACTLY!
Thank you for standing up for journalistic integrity and freedom of speech.
And I'm a new subscriber.
Wow. Just freaking wow. After Glen responds with a point by point answer to each objection raised, Betsy doesn't even engage on the facts at hand. She just reaches for the carpet-bomb denial tool and whips out the old "how dare you disrespect "muh au-tor-i-tah" (cue Cartman in South Park). All those pathetic Democratic Party hacks over at the Intercept better start looking for new jobs, because Greenwald was the Michael Jordan that the whole squad was built around..... now that he is gone, there is no reason to read that drivel they spew out over there. They went woke and will be going broke. I gladly purchased my 1 year subscription today, I was already subscribed to Taibbi, now I have 2 awesome reasons to be at Substack.
Rock on Glenn ! You will be amazed at how much support you are about to get from Classical Liberals, Conservatives, really anybody who just wants to see honest, well-researched journalism that gives no cares about which power centers get hit (Left or Right or whatever).
Seriously, it's the same reason I signed up today. Also, your Jordan analogy is spot-on :-)
+1
“Offensive and unacceptable” are two attributes at the top of my ‘must have’ list for investigative journalism. When those words are uttered, you’ve turned up the heat on the right burner.
My new favorite news source. The future of journalism is readers paying reporters directly. We're tired of media designed to sell advertising.
The truth is we all fucked up, taking "free" quality journalism for granted. Nothing is free.
I remember back in 2010 I wondered why Facebook was free and googled 'how does Facebook profit?' Advertisers was the short answer and there was no long answer. I thought it was odd because there really didn't appear to be any ads on Facebook back then. I didn't even think the question why Google products were free. But you're right we are responsible for our habits, we let the dope man get us high.
Totally agree! I subscribe to many independent journalists that I consider intellectually honest (mostly — everyone has blind spots) even if I disagree with them, including Matt Taibbi, Sharyl Atkisson, Andrew Sullivan and Jesse Singal, and of course now Glenn.
Excellent observation
99% of people would have caved in to this editor's demands & subsequent bullying, but Greenwald is the other 1% and of course I am going to support him and encourage others to do the same. I would strongly encourage everyone to watch GG's appearance on the JRE (Joe Rogan) as they have a really insightful conversation about the fault lines in play between the establishment / authoritarian media and their silicon valley allies and the new media that is emerging as people look for sources that they can trust and identify with.
Though I sometimes disagree with your opinion, my ancestors back to before the Revolutionary War have fought and died to enshrine and protect your privilege to express it unencumbered by any other living soul. Happy to subscribe as a Founder.
Knew I made the right decision to jump on board as a Founder when I read all of the 175+ comments posted so far and see a good mix of people across the ideological spectrum.
Hope you take this as the sign of honor it is. You did the right thing!
Dear Mr. Greenwald. I saw you on Tucker Carlson last night and wanted to do whatever I could to support you, so I purchased a year subscription. I don't know how much we will agree on details, policy and the like, but that is not what is important now. What we will agree on, is the vital pursuit of truth. I am so grateful to you for your courage. Those that think your resignation was an over-reaction are delusional. It's clear that our right to free speech and our access to truthful journalism is quickly disappearing. What is needed now is clarity, a well-formed conscience and courage. Spinning webs of rationalization is very dangerous. I honor your courage and will continue to support you, even if we disagree on policy...etc. I leave you with my favorite quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions."
Godspeed!
It's not really clear to me from these emails that they were outright refusing to publish it, and forbidding it from being published elsewhere? It seems like your response escalated very quickly. Rather than 'I disagree with your commentary, I want to publish as is,' you assert that TI is not willing to publish, and then start insulting their editorial standards (rightly or wrongly). I really agree on the terrible way the media has handled this story, but tbh I would hate to be on the receiving end of an email like this.
The opening paragraph breaks the content of the proposed article down into:
- parts the editor agrees with
- parts the editor disagrees with but is willing to publish
- other parts
The "other parts" components amount to the reason by which the editor is outright refusing to publish the proposed article.
It seems clear to me.
Yes it's clear they wouldn't publish it in any form close to what he wanted. And/or just keep delaying until the election is over. But I agree with Ventrue that I didn't see where they forbid him from publishing anywhere else. Sort of a quibble, though, compared to the refusal to publish in The Intercept.
"It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere."
Pretty much right there...from the editor in chief.
I actually find that statement vague to the point of being potentially self-defeating were it brought to a court of law. Saying something is "unfortunate" removes the allegation of personal blame, "detrimental" or not. TI would also have a hell of a time providing any basis for any such detriment being actionable under law... especially if Glenn's statements about the extant violations of his contract are accurate.
In my been-to-federal-court-but-never-been-a-lawyer opinion, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to bring any such action.
I think his contract covers him, but the choice basically puts them in at a point of no return. Let's say Glenn didn't resign, I bet he'd have a very hard time getting his articles published going forward. I read it as a threat, but not a legal one. Glenn's a lawyer and he would know that, too. Plus, as pissed as Glenn is in the emails and the postings, the Intercept's response on their site to his resignation is way, way more unprofessional.
I'm glad someone mentioned that. The response on that site from Betsy Reed is not only grossly unprofessional, it effectively demonstrates that The Intercept has been compromised from their original mission, and somewhere from within. I'd say the speculation about the owner (Mr. Omidyar) being where the buck stops is probably a good guess. And with that, nobody cares if it looks "bad" or not, because All The Other MSM Is Doing It.
Hey, I don't miss the other MSM. And I damn sure won't miss the Intercept...
I think it depends on what his contract said. For instance, it might say that he can't publish elsewhere if it would be deemed harmful to The Intercept. But I agree with you given the information we have.
According to Glenn (he has said this elsewhere), his contract expressly states that articles The Intercept chooses not to publish may be published elsewhere. I had a similar contract with a publishing house long ago; this is fairly rote in the industry. Basically the contracting publisher isn't on the hook for material they don't want to pay for, but the author isn't necessarily out of pocket because they can now go to the free market with it.
Right, but I was speculating that this provision could allow The Intercept to block Glenn from publishing material elsewhere, even if they decided themselves not to publish it, if the material would be deemed damaging to The Intercept.
I'm not saying this provision existed in his contract, but it would make sense with the claims that he's making.
Again, from what I've seen from Glenn, that's not the case. Instead, TI seems to be vaguely suggesting that they'll sue over a separate concept in trade law whereby someone maliciously acts to harm another's business without cause. Not sure which exact tort it would fall under, but it's not contract-related.
Do you think "Senior Editor The Intercept Peter Maass" applies the same level of skepticism to news stories about people not named "Joe Biden"?
They clearly do not apply the same level of skepticism to other stories.
I imagine that this response was a long time in the making, and we're only seeing the end result.
I have to say that I am so grateful to see a robust discussion happening in this comment thread, and no one is resorting to insults or name calling. I came of age with the internet and always enjoyed the discussions in the comments section. That those were slowly taken away to quash any dissenting opinion was a sad, but obvious indicator of the censoring of opinion we see today. Thank you folks!!
I was expecting to see evidence of some sleazy pressuring of Glenn to significantly alter the angle of his story, but the suggested changes seemed absolutely reasonable.
Especially this part:
"A somewhat related aspect that I don’t think the draft gives fair notice of: the New York Post and perhaps the Wall Street Journal appear to be the only major news organizations that possess the contents of the hard drive. Maybe other news organizations have the archive and haven’t mentioned it, but absent evidence of that, I do think any story about a shortage of in-depth reporting on the archive would have to prominently note that most news organizations do not possess it."
Glenn's response seems like an overreaction…
Read his first post - this is just the latest in a long line of transgressions. And let's not forget that the Intercept (not Greenwald) was directly responsible for getting a source sent to prison (Reality Winner).
As a political moderate, I just want the damn news. The truth. Not a political bias, either right or left. And I trust Greenwald to give me the truth.
And the whole Lee Fang debacle where Fang was labeled a racist for a video of a black man who dissented from the BLM BS. Akela Lacy should have been fired for that.
Well said sir.
The issue isn't only that other orgs didn't cover it, but rather that they actively pulled in the other direction to suppress it. Look how many parrotted the claim that it is Russian interference, claimed it was too complicated to understand, or hid behind ad-hoc rules regarding hacked sources (when clearly that has never stopped them before).
I might add, as I have posted elsewhere, that I have NEVER heard a news organization claim it cannot report on electronic communications unless it has direct access to the physical medium upon which those communications exist.
This line of argument: "the New York Post and perhaps the Wall Street Journal appear to be the only major news organizations that possess the contents of the hard drive." is exactly wrong. In the absence of access to the original material, any news organization owes it to the public to do their own investigations - seeking other avenues to verify or disprove the story.
The facts are no other major new organizations have not attempted to obtain the contents of the hard drive at all. Not one of them has attempted to interview Bobulinski and examine his notes and audio recordings. None of them carried his brief press conference before the Presidential Debate (except Fox). After Bobulinski's hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson, not a single major new organization had any type of reporting or follow-up on the accusations being leveled against the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
As Mr. Greenwald has pointed out, the bias of his editors has crept into their journalistic ethics. The fact that they wanted these portions of his story to be removed or revised (even though he correctly cited both sides of the argument), and their own prior history of erroneous reporting and rush to judgement (the CIA letter regarding Russian Disinformation and the clear omission of context) shows that The Intercept has lost its way and they clearly wanted Greenwald's story to play out along their favored, less than critical line of thinking.
I meant to write: "The facts are no other major new organizations HAS attempted to obtain the contents of the hard drive at all."
In Glenn's response to that email, he points out three key instances where Peter (the editor) accused him of omitting details that actually appeared in the draft. Peter had relied on these nonexistent omissions as the core basis for refusing the article.
When Trump accuses a reporter of such things, he is called a "totalitarian" by his detractors and "a threat to the freedom of the press". He, however, is a politician with no actual control over what The Intercept (or any other publication) produces. A publication which censors its own journalists in order to act as a partisan political mouthpiece is a denigration of the Fourth Estate in the direction of Soviet-era "Pravda" schlock.
It's possible (hard to know with Glenn) that if they had just said, "Look we understand you may not feel its in the spirit of the Intercept, but while it's a solid story, it could confuse voters. And it's certainly in its nascent stages of unfolding. We would like to publish next Wednesday and you're welcome to note that we held it back for this reason."
That would be a noble way to handle this. Attacking the accuracy, credibility, and competency of the work was definitely the wrong way to go.
The reason for that was presented in the email: the editor wrongfully accused Glenn of omitting core details that actually appeared in the draft. Which Glenn reminded him of.
He had, in short, no basis in editorial policy for rejecting the article, and because of that also no legal basis (per Glenn's contract).
Precisely.
Uh, news flash--"the spirit of the Intercept" was FOR EDITORS TO NOT INTERFERE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF A STORY.
I guess all you hacks spending DoD's money to come out here and disingenuously spew nonsense don't care that you're not the least bit credible...
Well said.
And yet the had editors. Glenn did feel like they were interfering but weren’t even being genuine about their motivations. At least all the cards would be on the table even though Glenn would have exercised his right to publish elsewhere which he doubtless included in his contract in case they pulled something like this one day. Legally, you can’t really set up a journalistic medium with absolutely no editorial control (without risking being sued out of existence).
Instead you have to hope they abide by that but also protect your right to speak and publish contractually. Glenn being a good litigator anticipates all possibilities. The opposite of Andrew Sullivan’s situation.
But I’m glad you’re someone capable of having a cogent intelligent conversation about it.
(snort) oh, you're SO smart, you really told me with all the snark you could muster up. What, did you expect that the bully act would drive everybody away? You sound desperate...
“It could confuse voters”. Is that code for it could get voters to vote for Trump? After all, only the confused might do that...or the ignorant ot evil of course
Or those of us who were already convinced in 2016 that both parties deserved to have their Bush/Clinton applecarts upset, and who since then have watched the Democrats lose their shit so badly that they reduced impeachment to the point where it no longer requires an actual crime to move forward, just a House majority that hates the President enough.
No. First I’m imagining the editor’s reasoning flawed or not. Second the administration has put so disinformation out on Hunter. That’s not uncommon in elections. Both sides do oppo often without vetting. The Clinton campaign did this. Obviously, there’s no circumstances where you want voters relying on truly bad info.
Here's the issue. Who are you to judge "truly bad info?" The reality is that there is no arbiter of truth.
And, of course, in your imagining, the editor's definition of "confuse" would be exactly the one I called out. He doesn't know if the Hunter info is true or false but we do have a person who is on the record saying it's true who was part of the overall scheme.
That's a lot more than we ever had with Russia/Trump and that consumed countless thousands of megabytes of coverage every day for months. In the editor's mind, that information wouldn't be confusing but this information would.
What does that tell you about the definition of "confusing?"
"Maybe other news organizations have the archive and haven’t mentioned it, but absent evidence of that, I do think any story about a shortage of in-depth reporting on the archive would have to prominently note that most news organizations do not possess it.""
Read the quoted bit again slowly. The editor assumes that the fact that other news organizations haven't reported on it is proof that they do not have the materials. How would that be proof?
The evidence thus far suggest that even if they did have the materials they wouldn't publish as they have published nothing about the story save protestations that it's Russian intel (without proof of course).
Exactly! I care much less about "They don't have the proof" and much more about "they went out of their way not to get the proof, which was offered immediately."
Good point.
The FBI has publicly announced the laptop is part of an active investigation regarding money laundering. Why would a journalistic institution need physical possession of the laptop in order to report the story based on this fact alone? Did the intercept and other liberal media outlets have the physical tax returns when they posted the reverberating expose on Trump's financial position weeks ago? The answer is no, in fact it was anonymously sourced by none other than the NYT. The dubious claim from the editor that its unrealistic and implausible Hunter Biden, a literal crackhead degenerate, couldn't leave his personal laptop at a store in his own hometown is incredibly insulting to people living in reality.
also cmon--everything the editor said Glenn needed to rework or mention--Glenn had already done so in the article--
The thing with these types is they'll never "Go Outright"...it's this subtle, HR type pressure, this insidious kindness like a Menacing Whole Foods label....
Glenn is fireworks. He has passion. He's not some goddamn dud.
Jesus.
I don't think that specific issue is where the falling out happened.
I need to look again and think a bit harder, but the response from Peter Maass did not read to me as a request to remove "all sections critical of [Joe Biden]", as Glenn claims in the introduction.
Peter Maass:
"I think the draft could work if it is revised and shortened to focus on the sections about liberal media bias, about Joe Biden not being directly asked questions as much as he should (using your submitted questions to center that), and how all of this contributed to sub-optimal amounts of reporting on the corruption allegations, which, although they aren’t backed by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself, nonetheless reveal greater detail about how his family has used his name for profit."
Take a look: he is allowing the criticisms of the media, but not of Biden. However, the criticism of the media only works if there is some substance to the underlying Biden story. By not allowing exploration of the underlying allegations, you essentially gut the whole piece.
But Glenn himself isn't accusing Biden, e.g.:
"It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma."
At the same time Maass isn't blocking Glenn from talking about "the corruption allegations, which, although they aren’t backed by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself, nonetheless reveal greater detail about how his family has used his name for profit."
I don't think Maass is saying "you're only allowed to criticize the media".
But he says they "aren't back by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself." Glenn's article cites pretty strong evidence that implies that Biden might have had that prosecutor removed to help his son. It could be correlation and not causation, certainly, but as a journalist, finding correlations is pretty standard. Let the Biden deny it, or better yet, explain it.
Reading comprehension, s’il vous plait, not cherry picking. Seems a lot of Trumpian illiteracy afloat today...
No. You post seems a severe under reaction.
It is required to look at the years-long sequence of events leading to this moment. The context is that a staff of careerist editors, fully aware of Glenn's prerogatives, attempt to cut directly across rights he had before they got to their first job interview at The Intercept. Risible, as J. Scahill likes to say. Spoiler alert: BOLO for defections; there will be some. aw
To me it is clear. On the receiving end of which email?
It IS clear. Reading comprehension, s’il vous plait.
Imagine calling censorship of this story "inaccurate" when multiple social media platforms and news outlets have openly stated as much. Chilling.
When you literally can't even post the link to the NY Post story on Facebook and Twitter, it's nothing but straight up gaslighting to claim "nothing is being censored".
First time in 10 years I have paid for news because I have been disgusted with it. And where it has been going. I don’t always agree with your POV but I have respected it. I have been waiting and hoping for a revolt among journalists as I have feared for our fourth estate and thus the country. We cannot be a healthy society without a healthy 4th estate. I am slowly but surely seeing that revolution. I just subscribed and will continue to support your outlet as long as it strives to be the vision you have described.
That's the wonderful thing about readers being in charge, isn't it?
We decide if what GG writes is worth paying for.
Yes, I am not looking for affirmation of what I believe. That is not useful to me. I want intelligence I can trust and thought provoking assessment of that intelligence. I so hunger for really good investigative reporting and assessment that is as free from political bias as it is humanly possible to be. I will pay for that. And it takes a long while for me to trust. I don't think Greenwald is always right. I don't think is is 100% free of bias. But over the past 5-10 years I do think he strives for that vision and I will pay for that.
What you are saying is that the readers with money are in charge.
Readers are free to donate or not. If you want to comment, you have to subscribe. If you want to read, you need only provide your email address. So, it's not about being "readers with money".
It is about being readers with money: those readers without money cannot comment. What is the influence of those who read without subscribing?
People who do not have sufficient disposable income are not "free to donate".
Nobody said they had to donate. You can read without commenting. Can't you?
Newsflash. Glenn isnt reading these comments. And if he did he wouldn’t be pressured by anything anyone is saying.
Apparently written by someone who can afford to subscribe.
Yeah, all five bucks for a month.
Jesus, get a different schtick....
Customers should always be "in charge" of the market. That's how it works. If GG continues to create media worth paying for, we will continue to reward him. If he turns into MSNBC, we can withdraw that support.
Reward. I wonder if GG is motivated by reward.
Even if he personally is not, the people who ARE motivated by reward see that they can obtain it via telling the truth.
Also how markets work.
Our premises are at odds.
If he isn't motivated by reward, he may be the only person in history - with a few exceptions - who hasn't been. It depends on how you define reward. Anyone with bills to pay knows that one cannot live on altruism alone.
At any rate, evidently, you haven't read or seen Glenn's responses on various outlets to charges that he left TI for financial gain. As he's made abundantly clear, that charge is laughable on its face as he lost not only an enormous salary, he lost various other valuable perks that many journalists can only dream of having unless they're stars serving corporate media. It's going to take a tsunami of individual donations to come even remotely close to matching his take at TI. In fact, he won't come remotely close with individual contributions. The ship with the level of remuneration he enjoyed at TI has sailed for Glenn, at least for the time being, and he's not having it any other way.
As Greenwald explained in minute detail in his letter of resignation and through various other outlets, the single most important factor in his leaving TI was his loss of editorial control, control which he explains he must be given before even considering working for any organization. That's the reward he seeks.
I hope that the people who have responded to my posts are not journalists.
The assumptions regarding my statements are, in the real sense of the word, incredible.