From "Inside Glenn Greenwald’s Blowup With The Intercept" (New York Magazine).
November 1, 2020
"Since the beginning, Greenwald had been separated from The Intercept’s U.S.-based newsroom, having lived in Brazil for over a decade."
"As a result, most of the staff had little to no interaction with him, according to Intercept staffers who spoke with Intelligencer. Even as The Intercept built itself into a full-fledged news organization — complete with robust editing like the kind Greenwald balked at — the co-founder remained apart, writing and publishing his columns with little to no editorial oversight. 'He could have chosen to be a part of the mix, part of the conversation, the daily, weekly conversation about what we should be covering and what stories we were working on,' [Intercept deputy editor Roger Hodge said]. 'But he never did that. He always held himself aloof from the newsroom and never, ever soiled himself with the day-to-day business of news gathering.' Ryan Grim, The Intercept’s D.C. bureau chief, [said] Greenwald’s conflict with The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech. Greenwald wrote that he eventually concluded The Intercept itself embraced this so-called 'cancel culture' in being reluctant to publish anything (like his Biden column) that might lead to accusations of aiding Trump and his supporters.... "
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
It's not mysterious - you see it on campuses and women's news shows all the time.
It's women in charge, as Scott Adams has begun to put it.
they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.
Shutting down speech is much harder than editing. Putting those pillows on stories is important, though.
He always held himself aloof from the newsroom and never, ever soiled himself with the day-to-day business of news gathering.' Ryan Grim, The Intercept’s D.C. bureau chief, [said] Greenwald’s conflict with The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech. Greenwald wrote that he eventually concluded The Intercept itself embraced this so-called 'cancel culture' in being reluctant to publish anything (like his Biden column) that might lead to accusations of aiding Trump and his supporters.... "
Grim said all there is to say. It's not a news outfit, it's a propaganda outlet. Ivestzia and Pravda were more honest in their day, they never pretended to be anything but propaganda outlets for the Communist Party.
And the smearing of Greenwald by the democrat media begins.
This dialogue ends with "Oh, girlfriend!" scorn.
I disagree with Greenwald on the vast majority of things, but it's pretty easy to pick sides on this one. The Intercept has become worse than worthless. They are now lust another partisan anti-freedom opinion that you can't trust to be informative. They will perish from lack of usefulness.
The most telling line in the paragraph; "and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech." Exactly Greenwald's point: who gets to decide what's hateful, harmful"? Its is not the paper's job to decide that. What I think is "hateful", you may think is hunky-dory. Certainly denying the reality of Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents ranks at the top of the scale of self-delusion that would disqualify anyone from making qualitative decisions about any kind of news reporting.
He could have chosen to be a part of the mix, part of the conversation, the daily, weekly conversation about what we should be covering and what stories we were working on,' [Intercept deputy editor Roger Hodge said]. 'But he never did that. He always held himself aloof from the newsroom and never, ever soiled himself with the day-to-day business of news gathering.'
The whole point of the Intercept, I thought, is that it was honest journalism and not part of the narrative. So when you start editing your editorial page because it's not in line with your "journalism," then you're just telling everybody that your journalism is a joke.
Who will read it now?
“...some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.”
And they think Trump is the fascist?
Fuck them.
I heard about this new thing called the interwebs that allows reporters to work anywhere and not spend time in the office, where news never happens anyway.
Name one reporter who disclosed more news!
And GG shredded the Russia stuff in detail repeatedly— sounds like the nitty gritty to me.
Greenwald has integrity, so he doesn’t fit in is the real story.
The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship.
" The Intercept built itself into a full-fledged news organization..."
They wanted to be accepted as part of the Democratic party apparatus, where the Cool Kids reside. To do that, they became a full-fledged news suppression organization. They wear that badge proudly, even if they don't acknowledge it in exactly those terms. Today, you cannot believe in free speech and be a "full-fledged news organization."
Greenwald’s conflict with The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.
Hey! I'm fully on board with calling out and shutting down hateful or harmful speech.
But I want to be the one who decides what is hateful and/or harmful.
So it was a "he's just old" deal. Not hip, not up to speed with technology. Hell probably not on social media. Being gay is no free pass. Logan's Run
Ryan Grim, The Intercept’s D.C. bureau chief, [said] Greenwald’s conflict with The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.
But what if Greenwald was right and his younger left-leaning colleagues were wrong? Just once, I wish one of the so-called "journalists" would ask that question and print the response, or lack thereof!
Greenwald's "younger left-leaning colleagues" believe that Orwell's 1984 was an instruction manual. They love Big Brother.
So, Greenwald telecommutes. He's social forward. How is Brazil an issue? Is Brazil an issue, the issue? What changed in the interim. #PrinciplesMatter
Greenwald's recent moves are devastating to the bubble that many smarter progressives inhabit, since he's a true hero to them. Since smarter progressives represent who I interact with on a daily basis in my community (I avoid the dumber ones), I have enjoyed the opportunity to "But Greenwald" them over the last several days, and it's been very potent. They are confronting questions about their carefully constructed views in ways nothing else I've seen forces them to. I'm about to go pick up my son from just such a guy, and I'm going to "But Greenwald" him in his vestibule.
Shorter article: if Glenn had been more involved he would have bailed sooner.
Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech. Greenwald wrote that he eventually concluded The Intercept itself embraced this so-called 'cancel culture' in being reluctant to publish anything (like his Biden column) that might lead to accusations of aiding Trump and his supporters.... "
Decoded:
Anything negative about a democrat = "hate speech"
Wow - how convenient for corrupt democrats.
Anything negative about a democrat will be washed clean.
Anything negative about a democrat - you will be accused of being pro-Trump.
So all negative information about a democrat, even if credible, will be ignored.
Any amount of innuendo or BS or Steele Dossier - will be leveled at Trump. Does not matter if it's BS.
How much prestige did The Intercept get for breaking those corruption stories about the Brazilian government?
I doubt there was much hand-wringing about Glenn being in Brazil when he was making them look so good.
who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech
If you're constantly compelled to "shut down" any speech you disagree with it's usually an indicator that you have no confidence in your own arguments. This young fools seem to look at 1984 as a how-to guide rather than a cautionary tale. But I guess that's the world we now live in, one where speech suppression rather than reasoned debate is all the rage.
There is no such thing as social justice. There is only justice.
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only speech.
There is no such thing as leftist tolerance. There is only leftist totalitarianism.
Questions:
Does Joe Biden need to win to stay out of prison?
_____________________________________________________
Leftwing Media Rules:
___________________________________________
All fake news about Trump is newsworthy.
All real news about Biden is hate speech.
Ah, so, you had to try to silence Greenwald because he didn't socialize with you, eh, Comrade Hodge?
Just like that Glenn Greenwald morphs into some NAZI.
One hopes that intellectually honest liberals decide to fight the Woke left. Greenwald is doing his part along with the Weinsteins, Lindsay, Boghossian, and others.
Lindsay even had the courage to announce his vote for Donald Trump.
Will Althouse join the fight or maintain her cute little affectation of "cruel neutrality"?
"We have an oppressive internal culture which bends others to our will, but quietly and socially, so that people believe it is their own free will and a rational decision, not one of social fear. Greenwald refused to participate and that, so we know he must be wrong."
The beliefs of a liberal bubble must be actively maintained to survive. No one goes there on the basis of first principles. It's social.
"The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship."
To be honest, not even those of us who think Trump is an ass-clown can think of anything good to say about Biden.
omidyar funds the intercepts, he couldn't ultimately stomach taibbi, the last two big scoops reality winner and the other guy, got the leakers in the net,
Blogger Nonapod said...
[These] young fools seem to look at 1984 as a how-to guide rather than a cautionary tale.
It's a pretty stunted life when your dream job is Commissar of Information.
larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.
Who believe they ahve the right to shut up anyone they disagree with.
FIFY
And fuck them.
They'd better hope they lose the election this Tuesday. Because anyone who successfully takes away my free speech will discover a "cancel culture" that isn't about mean words
Readering said...
The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship.
**********
Since when do any of us hold ourselves out as part of a "news organization"?
DERP
This is on blue on blue so I don't really care who wins or is seen to be winning although I think that would be Greenwald. I regard him with a certain amount of suspicion because I think he helped orchestrate Snowden's Moscow asylum, which makes me wonder about his connections to that world. I wonder how much he would care about the Hunter Biden laptop story if the Democrats weren't trying to blame it on Russian disinformation.
“ who believe they have a responsibility....”
Responsibility to whom?
It is funny that the leftists think we will ever accept their corrupt fascist crap ever again.
The masks are off.
You are done one way or the other.
I welcome our mal-educated, self-righteous, twenty-something overlords. I've been needing someone to tell me what to think.
"...they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech."
Because writing critical things of Biden is hate speech, you racists. The bar is getting lower and lower. Next it will be "hateful, harmful, or uncomfortable speech". And it won't end there.
Conquest's #2: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
Used to spar with Greenwald back in the days of Shock and Awe. I jokingly called him "Waldo Greenglen" for his transparent sock-puppetry.
Whatever his Leftist beliefs, he's been absolutely right about the Deep State Coup, Agit-Prop One Party Media, Globalist Big Tech monopolies and their Free Speech censorship of Americans. All those things were once anathema to liberals--but are now embraced by the proto-Brownshirt Democrat Party and their Klantifa Nightriders.
Blogger Readering said...
The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship.
That's your job. The sheep need to speak up about how terrific Joe is. All I see from gadfly and the other lefties like R/V is how bad Trump is.
Shutting down what they consider to be hateful or harmful speech is important to these characters, isn’t it?
Go Glenn. We don’t often agree, but I know you are honest.
Greenwald, and Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, Stephen Cohen and a host of others, including Comedian turned political commentator Jimmy Dore, lefties all, never fell for the obvious and transparently false russia collusion hoax.
That, and that alone, is what has driven the media sheep to bleat at them and try and force them to the fringe of political reporting.
We now have a complete and permanent alignment between our US govt national security and law enforcement apparatus, the deep state lefties buried in all federal agencies, the democratical party, the neo-con FakeCon NeverTrumpers, the entire legacy media, Hollywood, public sector unions, globalist national "allies" and even enemies and competitors, etc.
It is already utterly astonishing that Trump has not only survived this long, but has been successful and is poised to win reelection, assuming the ballots that are currently being filled out by the hundreds of thousands in corrupted democratical states can be shut out so the entire nation doesn't get "Franken-ed".
I disagree with Greenwald on something like two-thirds of his views, or nine-tenths. But anyone should be able to see that he is the outstanding journalist of this generation. He has broken some of the most important stories ever.
What bullshit from the Intercept. There was no reason for Greenwald to "involve himself in the day to day running of the magazine". And when do "New young staffers" run a magazine or newspaper? Its the EDITOR who censored Greenwald and he runs the place. Finally, the Left can label ANYTHING "offensive" or "Hate Speech". Why give these censoring fascists "Cover" by ascribing good motives to them?
Bottom line: They want Biden to get elected, no matter what. And they hate Greenwald for having a higher principle.
The bar is getting lower and lower. Next it will be "hateful, harmful, or uncomfortable speech". And it won't end there.
We're already there. Diversity indoctrination is a clear and progressive condition in schools, in corporate training sessions. Trump, to his credit, has stood up to the diversity and exclusion, not limited to racism, racket at the executive level. But political congruence ("=") and Rainbow schema is a liberal rot that underlies social progress in every major institution.
"The sheep need to speak up about how terrific Joe is."
Wouldn't you need to make up something good to say in order to do that?
Readering said...The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship.
No. It is not censorship.
What was your point?
Whatever his Leftist beliefs, he's been absolutely right about the Deep State Coup, Agit-Prop One Party Media, Globalist Big Tech monopolies and their Free Speech censorship of Americans
You know, what's interesting about "The Deep State" is the fact that the first mention of it was by a lefty on LBJ's communications guy's web site. It was on Bill Moyer's web site.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]
During the last five years, the news media have been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected
He ends with a typically lefty statement but the whole thing is interesting.
Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.
Even the lefty gets it. How interesting.
If AA deleted comments for praising Biden, that would be censorship. But she only deletes comments from one or two specific commenters, and deletes all her (their?) comments, whether they praise Biden or damn him or don't mention him at all. Not censorship.
Obviosly, The Intercept committed an egregious unforced error. Their pathetic “explanation” actually goes even further to identify what’s gone wrong inside their organization. That’s what takes it from odd to hilarious! How could they write that and think it would help? Clearly out of touch and not very perceptive, they’ll spiral into oblivion as they join the crowd of media mopes we hold in such low regard. I’ll fire off a parting salvo to them for my own peace of mind, then gladly follow GG wherever I find him.
If there's an award for media malpractice we have a clear winner here.
"The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship."
If you got something why are you self-censoring?
Do you expect us to believe that Althouse is censoring you?
OK, it was just a dumb thing to say. That's OK. We all do it, but you seem to be addicted to it.
""...they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech."
That really identifies you as too stupid and unprincipled to pay any attention to, and so I never will again.
Blogger Readering said...
"The posts here say nothing good about Biden but that's not censorship."
Well, that's not entirely clear. It's possible that someone is posting "good" things about Biden, and Althouse is deleting them, in her cruelly partisan fashion. Let's try an experiment. Can anyone think of anything good to say about Biden?
I distinguish between posts AA and comments us.
So a magazine from the Blue Bubble of New York is trying to tell us rubes why this happened. When it's as clear as the nose on our face: He didn't toe the Editorial Line of a now obviously anti-free speech website. Soon to be folding.
Switched my Intercept bookmark over to Greenwald's new site already. We'll see how long Intercept hangs on after deciding they didn't need to listen to their driving force.
The Intercept was part of a larger culture clash between Greenwald, a civil libertarian... and some of his younger left-leaning colleagues, who believe they have a responsibility to call out and try to shut down what they consider hateful or harmful speech.
That's really damning. Newspapers should be reporting the facts, not filtering them so people aren't tempted into wrongthink.
"robust editing" -- that's funny
Post a Comment