Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There we go. A journalist is supposed to follow the facts wherever they go -- even if it reveals something they're uncomfortable with. They build a reputation by researching and checking their stories, and not running stories unless the facts hold up.

Greenwald made his name with quality investigative journalism. It sounds like he has fallen from this standard by trying to run a story with dubious political talking points and pass it off as factual news. We have a term for people like this: tabloid writers or opinion commentators. This is a sad decline to see.

He's free to do whatever he likes in his own name -- and it sounds like this is the path he has chosen.



> There we go.

Why did you not believe the first side you heard but you believed the second? Or is your conclusion making sense of both?


My conclusion is making sense of both of these.

Why didn't I believe Greenwald initially? Well, I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing many people behave badly and then play the morally-outraged victim to try to legitimize it. There's a particular way they write and talk, and Greenwald's description of events reeked of it.

The Intercept's response made a few jabs but it didn't level any particular wild accusations, unlike Greenwald. It seemed much more credible, although clearly frustrated. I assume (reading between the lines) there he developed a prior history of conflicts and bad blood at the Intercept, and political differences. This kind of blow-up does not just come from nowhere.

Greenwald has since released the emails, and they sound much closer to what the Intercept said than what he did: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

The editors clearly had substantive journalistic concerns about the extent Greenwald was drawing conclusions from dubious evidence, and the lack of context around it. They're comfortable publishing the parts of the story he can substantiate, but not the parts that are weaker (or less on-topic). There have some political disagreements, but that's hardly censorship.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: