I read through Glenn's draft after seeing the outrage on this thread and... it reads like a generic opinion piece.
I think he makes some good points and some dumb ones, but that's besides the point in all honesty - most of the article is him just complaining about the state of the media, making accusations of double-standards, and full of inflammatory language. There's little investigative journalism, no interviews with backing sources, no new facts laid out, just complaining about supposed wrong-doings and coverups. Some of which can be easily refuted.
Look I don't read The Intercept, but this is not newsroom material. I'm not journalist or have any kind of editing experience, but I wouldn't even run this in a school newspaper if I was put in charge. This is editorial material, pure and simple. The fact that he's complaining about censorship is eye-rolling.
I think it's pretty clear that most people here don't understand that the op-ed page and newsroom are different organizations, run by different people, and have different standards, even though they appear on the same newspaper. it's scary that these lines are being blurred more and more by the day.
But honestly, what's really probably going on is that Glenn Greenwald is tired of The Intercept and wants move full-time to his substack page. To do that he's bootstrapping his audience on his new site by manufacturing outrage. I would think most people should see through this...
It is an op-ed and was supposed to be published by the Intercept as an op-ed...
The NY Times reports;
> In a phone interview, Mr. Greenwald said he had received emails from Intercept editors outlining what the publication would allow and not allow in his article. “My arrangement with The Intercept since it began is my opinion pieces are not edited by anyone,” he said.
Sure and as an op-ed, the journal itself makes a decision whether it wants to front that opinion. The journal has stopped being close to Mr. Greenwald's perspective. Sure, maybe they changed the rules on him since it had become their publication. But that's a King Lear story, not a journalism story.
"You broke your promise that I'd have unlimited publication rights" is a sad story of broken promises but it's not a story of journalistic decline.
The point of op-ed's is that they differ from the publication's opinion. That's why they're opposite the editorial page, to provide a contrasting viewpoint. They've got their own columnists and the board for that.
The point of op-eds is they reflect a range of views the editors think is interesting, varied or whatever. Op-eds are still a matter of editorial decisions - obviously, papers don't just publish anything by anyone.
Maybe this is breaching the agree Greenwald had with the editor(s). But independent op-eds able to say whatever they want isn't a principle of journalistic integrity. Questions of that sort revolve around whether you lie or misdirect or run paid articles and so-forth. That you refuse to run an op-ed right when your writer really want it published is a wholly different question, one clearly about the paper having indeed evolved to a left-liberal position while Greenwald maintains his conservative/Libertarian principles - ie, the argument is political.
Glenn said he also tried to publish it somewhere else and they forbid him from doing so, even though his contract says he has the right to publish stuff elsewhere if The Intercept doesn't want it.
They said "Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. [...]
It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere."
That's not forbidding him from publishing it, it's expressing regret that he appears to be unwilling to address the editor's comments on his draft.
Interesting, I didn't know that. But "detrimental to The Intercept" seems a little foreboding. It could be interpreted as them saying he's doing his job wrong if it's published elsewhere, and if he does his job wrong, he might assume there would be consequences.
Oh my bad. I scanned his blog post to see if this was indicated and didn't notice any mention of it being an op-ed. Well to be honest in that case, I guess ignore what I said about newsroom standards - he may have a point against the Intercept if they're arbitrarily holding him to a higher (newsroom) standard than they normally would for op-ed pieces.
There's literally a hunter biden crack sex tape on something called gtv and Tony bobulinski supposedly a Democrat who was hunters business partner in some of his high dollar china assignments. So sure, the Q bullshit is fake but there's actual stories that are basically ignored by everyone but Fox news and Glenn Greenwald that actually have meat.
I think he makes some good points and some dumb ones, but that's besides the point in all honesty - most of the article is him just complaining about the state of the media, making accusations of double-standards, and full of inflammatory language. There's little investigative journalism, no interviews with backing sources, no new facts laid out, just complaining about supposed wrong-doings and coverups. Some of which can be easily refuted.
Look I don't read The Intercept, but this is not newsroom material. I'm not journalist or have any kind of editing experience, but I wouldn't even run this in a school newspaper if I was put in charge. This is editorial material, pure and simple. The fact that he's complaining about censorship is eye-rolling.
I think it's pretty clear that most people here don't understand that the op-ed page and newsroom are different organizations, run by different people, and have different standards, even though they appear on the same newspaper. it's scary that these lines are being blurred more and more by the day.
But honestly, what's really probably going on is that Glenn Greenwald is tired of The Intercept and wants move full-time to his substack page. To do that he's bootstrapping his audience on his new site by manufacturing outrage. I would think most people should see through this...