The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.
Youre the one throwing out accusations without facts. The intercept published a shit ton about Tara Reade aiming to destroy Bidens credibility even after Bernie had dropped out, this just seems like Greenwald trying to go independent because you make more money on substack.
You misread me, I'm saying that the intercept covering this story in extreme depth when everyone else ignored it is evidence that they don't give a shit about protecting Bidens credibility.
Not anymore, obviously. This is shilling for Biden AND removing GG at the same time in a kind of internal power struggle. I stopped my Intercept donations today.
Yeah I think he's lying, he's been losing credibility because of his ties to the intercepts handling of the Reality Winner story. An angry sounding exit from the outlet would likely make whistleblowers more interested in working with him again.
Also he's going to make 2x as much money on substack, so being independent is a smart move regardless.
Did you miss his investigation of operation car wash and its ties to Jair Bolsonaro? And how it helped free Lula?
Even the most cynical of neolibs have to admit he did exemplary journalism on that, all while while being under attack by the Brazilian right wing and its current government.
Yeah and that wasn't in America, the intercept has been getting considerably less leaks than before reality winner. I don't think it's deserved, but it's the reality.
Its not credibility as a journalist, it's credibility as someone to trust with classified american documents.
Actually, I think it is deserved that the intercept doesn't get more leaks in America. In case it wasn't obvious, Glenn hasn't been part of the US operation for a while now. Anyway since you brought up reality winner, he addresses this in his resignation letter:
"The most egregious, but by no means only, example of exploiting my name to evade responsibility was the Reality Winner debacle. As The New York Times recently reported, that was a story in which I had no involvement whatsoever. While based in Brazil, I was never asked to work on the documents which Winner sent to our New York newsroom with no request that any specific journalist work on them. I did not even learn of the existence of that document until very shortly prior to its publication. The person who oversaw, edited and controlled that story was Betsy Reed, which was how it should be given the magnitude and complexity of that reporting and her position as editor-in-chief."
Also shits on the "editorial" direction of the US office, as it turned into just another pro imperialist rag:
"I have been extremely disenchanted and saddened by the editorial direction of The Intercept under its New York leadership for quite some time. The publication we founded without those editors back in 2014 now bears absolutely no resemblance to what we set out to build -- not in content, structure, editorial mission or purpose. I have grown embarrassed to have my name used as a fund-raising tool to support what it is doing and for editors to use me as shield to hide behind to avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes (including, but not only, with the Reality Winner debacle, which I was publicly blamed despite having no role in it, while the editors who actually were responsible for those mistakes stood by silently, allowing me to be blamed for their errors and then covering-up any public accounting of what happened, knowing that such transparency would expose their own culpability)."
Yeah I absolutely agree that there are problems with the intercept. The big basis of my criticism in this thread is that this particular story being shut down by the editor is just an excuse he was using. He's been planning an exit for a while.
He needed to leave in raging fire to regain his personal credibility with intellegence agency leakers.
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."
Youre the one throwing out accusations without facts. The intercept published a shit ton about Tara Reade aiming to destroy Bidens credibility even after Bernie had dropped out, this just seems like Greenwald trying to go independent because you make more money on substack.
deleted by creator
You misread me, I'm saying that the intercept covering this story in extreme depth when everyone else ignored it is evidence that they don't give a shit about protecting Bidens credibility.
Not anymore, obviously. This is shilling for Biden AND removing GG at the same time in a kind of internal power struggle. I stopped my Intercept donations today.
deleted by creator
Yeah I think he's lying, he's been losing credibility because of his ties to the intercepts handling of the Reality Winner story. An angry sounding exit from the outlet would likely make whistleblowers more interested in working with him again.
Also he's going to make 2x as much money on substack, so being independent is a smart move regardless.
Did you miss his investigation of operation car wash and its ties to Jair Bolsonaro? And how it helped free Lula?
Even the most cynical of neolibs have to admit he did exemplary journalism on that, all while while being under attack by the Brazilian right wing and its current government.
Yeah and that wasn't in America, the intercept has been getting considerably less leaks than before reality winner. I don't think it's deserved, but it's the reality.
Its not credibility as a journalist, it's credibility as someone to trust with classified american documents.
Actually, I think it is deserved that the intercept doesn't get more leaks in America. In case it wasn't obvious, Glenn hasn't been part of the US operation for a while now. Anyway since you brought up reality winner, he addresses this in his resignation letter:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept
Also shits on the "editorial" direction of the US office, as it turned into just another pro imperialist rag:
Yeah I absolutely agree that there are problems with the intercept. The big basis of my criticism in this thread is that this particular story being shut down by the editor is just an excuse he was using. He's been planning an exit for a while.
He needed to leave in raging fire to regain his personal credibility with intellegence agency leakers.
Biden benefits from silence, it's literally his winning strategy, keep him away from people and out of the media.
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."