Working Poor
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,985
Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept citing censorship of Joe Biden article
- Thread starter jct74
- Start date
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 4,132
Glenn is getting a headstart on his next Pulitzer Prize.
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 4,132
The Intercept's response
[FONT=TIActuBeta-ExBold_web]GLENN GREENWALD’S DECISION to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.
The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.
We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.
The defining feature of The Intercept’s work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington, D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission — a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process.
We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept’s record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/
[/FONT]
[FONT=TIActuBeta-ExBold_web]GLENN GREENWALD’S DECISION to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.
The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.
We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.
The defining feature of The Intercept’s work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington, D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission — a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process.
We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept’s record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/
[/FONT]
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,466
Fail. They just admitted censoring him on the basis of politics.
https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1322213230585040896
Last edited:
Champ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 840
I hope what is left of the Intercept keeps trying to justify their actions. It makes them look more foolish each time they do it and more apparent to the average person that even outfits that claim to be anti-establishment truth tellers are actually easily infiltrated, corrupted, then removed from any threat to the establishment.
The best truth telling we are getting now is from tiny or solo crews, most often setting up their own podcast or youtube channel. You don't need an entire staff and administrative office anymore to get the word out on information you have been studying. This is the real threat to the establishment and hopefully Glenn has now learned that this will be the way to go, to do it his way with zero interference from anyone else.
The best truth telling we are getting now is from tiny or solo crews, most often setting up their own podcast or youtube channel. You don't need an entire staff and administrative office anymore to get the word out on information you have been studying. This is the real threat to the establishment and hopefully Glenn has now learned that this will be the way to go, to do it his way with zero interference from anyone else.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
The Aftermath Of My Move Back To Independent Journalism
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aftermath-of-my-move-back-to
Glenn Greenwald (30 October 2020)
Interviews Discussing My Departure, Media Culture, the Need For Trans-Ideological Dialogue, and Intelligence Community Propaganda
The last twenty-hours] have been exhilarating. I had no idea what to expect when I decided to leave The Intercept and move my journalism here, but the outpouring of support — both words of encouragement from readers and those subscribing and supporting my work here — has been beyond what I can describe and it is incredibly gratifying and appreciated. Thank you to everyone who has subscribed and reached out.
This morning I discussed various aspects of my resignation from The Intercept on the outstanding YouTube program Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti. We discussed more in-depth my rationale for leaving, my response to various criticism and accusations from former colleagues and other assorted journalists, why I speak to both conservative and liberal media outlets, and what this episode reflects about broader media pathologies:
Glenn Greenwald RESPONDS: Why I Left The Intercept Over Censorship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyn_XGAsCs
Last night, I was on with Tucker Carlson to discuss not only the reporting of mine that was censored, but also the severe acceleration of intelligence community propaganda and interference in our domestic politics and the increasingly restrictive media and political climate:
Glenn Greenwald on resigning from his own publication due to censorship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk
My appearances on Tucker Carlson’s programs typically provoke some controversy and even consternation among some of my long-term readers on the left. In addition to discussing my rationale for doing so in that above Rising interview, I also explained my reasoning on the Rolling Stone podcast “Useful Idiots” with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper. Those interested can hear part of my answer in these two short clips:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1218586409944088577
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aftermath-of-my-move-back-to
Glenn Greenwald (30 October 2020)
Interviews Discussing My Departure, Media Culture, the Need For Trans-Ideological Dialogue, and Intelligence Community Propaganda
The last twenty-hours] have been exhilarating. I had no idea what to expect when I decided to leave The Intercept and move my journalism here, but the outpouring of support — both words of encouragement from readers and those subscribing and supporting my work here — has been beyond what I can describe and it is incredibly gratifying and appreciated. Thank you to everyone who has subscribed and reached out.
This morning I discussed various aspects of my resignation from The Intercept on the outstanding YouTube program Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti. We discussed more in-depth my rationale for leaving, my response to various criticism and accusations from former colleagues and other assorted journalists, why I speak to both conservative and liberal media outlets, and what this episode reflects about broader media pathologies:
Glenn Greenwald RESPONDS: Why I Left The Intercept Over Censorship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyn_XGAsCs
Last night, I was on with Tucker Carlson to discuss not only the reporting of mine that was censored, but also the severe acceleration of intelligence community propaganda and interference in our domestic politics and the increasingly restrictive media and political climate:
Glenn Greenwald on resigning from his own publication due to censorship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8pkCZBjgrk
My appearances on Tucker Carlson’s programs typically provoke some controversy and even consternation among some of my long-term readers on the left. In addition to discussing my rationale for doing so in that above Rising interview, I also explained my reasoning on the Rolling Stone podcast “Useful Idiots” with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper. Those interested can hear part of my answer in these two short clips:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1218586409944088577
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1218586906172239873
Finally, for those who did not see it, I appeared earlier this week, for the first time, on Joe Rogan’s program. It was an extraordinary three-hour discussion that covered a very wide range of topics, from my experience in reporting on the Snowden story and our exposés last year in Brazil, the state of free speech generally in the U.S. and in journalism, regulation of our discourse by unaccountable Silicon Valley overlords, the 2020 election, the need for dialogue across partisan and ideological lines, and a great deal of personal introspection and examination. Having done the show, I understand much more why he has built up such a massive and loyal audience. It is very worth thinking about why that has happened and what it says about what is missing from our media ecosystem (we discussed that as well):
Joe Rogan Experience #1556 - Glenn Greenwald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA
The last twenty-four hours have been intense, exciting, draining and so energizing — not just for me but for my family as well. The predictable attacks from journalists trapped in repressive institutions were easily endured as a result of the far more organic and principled support I received. I am very enthusiastic about what is possible on this platform and the journalism it will enable. And I want to thank all of you again with great sincerity and gratitude for making the launch of this platform so successful, and for making my resolve and determination to deliver honest, unique and impactful journalism and commentary higher than it has been in quite a long time.
AngryCanadian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,257
The mental state of some liberals on twitter is truly showing. Those who don't believe it are your usual ones who support the peaceful protestors.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,466
Banned. History erased. Welcome to Soviet Amerika.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
[h=1]Glenn Greenwald: Nothing Trump Did Compares to the 'Moral Evil' of Bush's and Obama's Wars[/h]
In unrelated news:
mediaite.com/crime/glenn-greenwald-bound-and-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-terrifying-violent-home-invasion/?utm_source=mostpopular
In unrelated news:
mediaite.com/crime/glenn-greenwald-bound-and-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-terrifying-violent-home-invasion/?utm_source=mostpopular
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,958
I'm still waiting for him to report on more Snowden material he received. Anybody remember that? Greenwald himself said he would only publicize 5% of the Snowden/NSA material he received and suppress the rest for "national security" because the info was a "time bomb". While some of his work is pretty good he has a lot of nerve talking about journalistic integrity and censorship now. He didn't mind serving the interests of the state not very long ago. Seems like these days he focuses on the politics-as-usual charade instead of any real kind of deep journalism.
Last edited:
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,227
Globalist Agenda Playbook 101:
1) If the opposition starts a movement/organization critical of the Agenda, buy it up, rebrand it, and convert it into a "critical" movement/organization
2) If the founder will not sell out, buy up the underlings
3) If neither the founder nor the underlyings will sell out, then send in loyalists to integrate into the movement/organization and move them, inch-by-inch, into the decision-making positions within the movement/organization. When critical mass is reached, effect a hostile takeover of the movement/organization and convert it into a "critical" movement or flip it outright since you already have the decision-making levers in hand...
1) If the opposition starts a movement/organization critical of the Agenda, buy it up, rebrand it, and convert it into a "critical" movement/organization
2) If the founder will not sell out, buy up the underlings
3) If neither the founder nor the underlyings will sell out, then send in loyalists to integrate into the movement/organization and move them, inch-by-inch, into the decision-making positions within the movement/organization. When critical mass is reached, effect a hostile takeover of the movement/organization and convert it into a "critical" movement or flip it outright since you already have the decision-making levers in hand...
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,227
But you're shooting the messenger, and not only that, you're proposing to punish him for a good deed. That's crazy. If he does a good deed, that creates no obligation on his part to perform another like it. He did a good deed, that stands on its own merits. If he had not done that good deed (instead telling Snowden to take a hike), would you be protesting "Glenn Greenwald never exposed the national security state! He must do an expose on the national security state!" No, because there would be no reason to set up such a protest.
Greenwald made it absolutely clear that his hands were tied by the agreement he entered into with Snowden upon receiving the materials. Some of it was released under his journalistic review (as agreed). Some of it was deemed too sensitive to be released at that time or the near future (his call, after speaking with the US government, and as agreed with Snowden). Some of it was withheld on Snowden's request as insurance. And some of it is withheld on his own behalf, once again, as insurance. Absolutely none of that counts as lack of journalistic integrity or censorship. The point that needed to be made by the Snowden disclosures was made. Nobody in government or corporate American or any other decision-making body can go on pretending "Yeah, but they don't actually spy on us." I work in tech and I could list many of the specific effects this has had in detail -- ever heard of memory encryption? Pre-2013, this was regularly pooh-poohed as "silly paranoia". Not anymore. Everybody in the tech/security domain takes this stuff very, very seriously now.
Is there more to be done? Perhaps, but there's no way a second drop would have anything like the impact of the first drop, unless it was one of the "insurance" packages. Let's just hope for the sake of everybody involved that we never have to see one of those packages released....
Actually, all it really did was condition people to accept the 24/7/365 360degree surveilliance state as normal operation. Some think Snowden was a limited hang-out for exactly that purpose and Greenwald was his media conduit. I tend to agree.
I disagree. He helped normalize mass surveillance as common knowledge instead of pulling back the veil, when (if) he really had the opportunity to. Journalistic integrity isn't about protecting the state, which is what he apparently did. It is about analyzing and exposing what info you have that is in the best interests of the consumer of the work, the reader. He has no problem serving the state. Why is he acting offended now? Your assertions about what happened may or may not be accurate but some of it doesn't even make sense. Why would Snowden give him so much material but tell him not to publicize it? Why steal it in the first place if exposing it isn't the goal?
Yes and that point was that the NSA spies on everyone but here's only a tiny bit of the info to let us know just enough to act surprised and then accept it. Just enough to normalize/desensitize it but not enough info for everyone to see how pervasive it really is, start to understand who the NSA really works for (British), how and why. Definitely not enough info to get people to band together to oppose it en masse.
And yet it still continues and has since then become much, much worse, even to the point that people joke about it. Thanks Glenn! You really headed that off when you had the chance! I'll certainly feel so, so sorry for your fate now, since you helped things get to this point instead of ripping back the veil when you had (AND STILL DO) the chance.
5%. That was it. 5%. Barely worth even mentioning unless conditioning/desensitization was the goal.
Last edited:
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,227
Well you tend to be wrong in this case.
Have you actually read through the source documents that were released? I have. They contain detailed, specific information about many of the most important and most invasive programs that the NSA was running. We had hints and clues from various sources that had allowed us to sketch out bits and pieces of some of these programs pre-2013, but we had no documented proof, and we had no confirmation. After disclosure, we had proof (thus, they no longer had the "conspiracy theory!" card), and we had a lot more specific information about the kinds of operations the NSA was performing abroad and domestically. The disclosure of the tools and methods of the Tailored Access Operations group alone was a move that put the crack in the whip on NSA's back... this was not some kind of fluffy, feel-good disclosure with no teeth, this was an absolute gut-punch and this is why they want Snowden's head on a platter. In the globalist playbook this is out of bounds, this can't happen. And yet it did.
They've been stuck in damage control since 2013. Literally no one in the cryptography community today accepts the old platitude from the 90's and 2000's that "Well, you there's no reason not to trust the NSA on an academic level", meaning, NSA constants, algorithms, and so on, were to be treated as trustworthy just-because. No one buys that line anymore. The same thing has happened in IT, data-center security, and even computer architecture and design (my field).
And you're trying to spin it as some kind of limited-hangout?
Yes, and so this should cause you to stop and reassess your entire theory of how the political world supposedly works. "If only the sheeple knew what the wolves were up to, why, they'd grab their muskets and there'd be a revolution!" No such thing will ever happen. The US public was already domesticated by a century of government schooling, welfare-warfare state, and central bank fueled credit-based consumerism. We're a nation on a morphine drip, and you want us to conclude that Snowden/Greenwald were cooperating with the NSA because there wasn't a national uprising afterwards??
Back to shooting the messenger again. Greenwald didn't pacify and domesticate the American populace over the period of a century. The globalists did that. So why are you blaming Greenwald for the work of the globalists??
He published source materials. He didn't even have to tell us what percentage it was. But he did. Percentage is like "pounds"... it tells you nothing about the quality of the bulk of the materials that were not published. The quality of the materials that were published was very high. Confirmation of the existence of XKeyScore alone was a major blow to the NSA (and Pentagon) -- this was the reincarnation of the old Total Information Awareness Office that the Bush neocons had tried to create right after 9/11. They got swatted down because Negroponte was way too aggressive and was sliding his hand up America's shirt too quickly. So they slowed it down, renamed it, added some new bells and whistles, and outsourced it to the NSA. Greenwald and Snowden exposed that, it was an absolute political bombshell. When you add in the MUSCULAR program, PRISM, FELLOWTRAVELER program (aka CO-TRAVELER), specific information on TAO methods and tools, and many more, you're talking about a near-nuclear strike to NSA.
Mach
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,137
This just came out today....
Corporate Media's Double Standard: They Attack Whomever They Want, But You Cannot Criticize Them
My responses to The Washington Post's article and Daily Beast's questions about accusations from The Intercept that I have "endangered" their writers.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-medias-double-standard
Corporate Media's Double Standard: They Attack Whomever They Want, But You Cannot Criticize Them
My responses to The Washington Post's article and Daily Beast's questions about accusations from The Intercept that I have "endangered" their writers.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-medias-double-standard
None of that matters. He'll continue to whine about being censored and complaining about liberals (blah blah more fake left/right) while allegedly sitting on the largest trove of secret information ever obtained about the ongoing subversion and takeover of this country. His allegiances are not hard to discern. Sounds a bit like GCHQ controlled opposition.
