2020 USA presidential election

Joe Rogan #1556 - Glenn Greenwald (and vid)

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1321513516029874177

"A wide range of issues, media censorship in general and on Biden, free speech erosions. Just raw and honest discourse."

The scary terrorist types who are inclined to assassinate people are generally Trump supporters who target instead female governors wanting public safety measures during a pandemic.

Trump is very bad but this problem is way bigger than just Trump and there are no easy fixes. That is what is so scary and depressing, and violence does not solve anything.

Glenn Greenwald: My Resignation From the Intercept

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

The final precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New York based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden's conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication. The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here).

The brute censorship this week of my article about the Hunter Biden materials and Joe Biden's conduct regarding Ukraine and China, as well as my critique of the media's rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Vally and the 'intelligence community' to suppress its revelations - eroded the last justification I could cling to for staying.

In the days heading into presidential election, I am somehow silenced from expressing any views that random editors in New York find disagreeable, and now have to conform my writing and reporting to cater to their partisan desires and eagerness to elect specific candidates. It is astonishing to me, but also a reflection of our current discourse and illiberal media environment, that I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet..."

Glenn must work for Russia too. What other possible explanation could there be for not going along with the Democratic Party's corrupt warmongering criminal candidate for US president nor agreeing to hush up the real history of this  longtime corporate grifter like most of the msm has,  'for the good of the cause'? 

NDPP wrote:

Glenn Greenwald: My Resignation From the Intercept

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

The final precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New York based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden's conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication. The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here).

The brute censorship this week of my article about the Hunter Biden materials and Joe Biden's conduct regarding Ukraine and China, as well as my critique of the media's rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Vally and the 'intelligence community' to suppress its revelations - eroded the last justification I could cling to for staying.

In the days heading into presidential election, I am somehow silenced from expressing any views that random editors in New York find disagreeable, and now have to conform my writing and reporting to cater to their partisan desires and eagerness to elect specific candidates. It is astonishing to me, but also a reflection of our current discourse and illiberal media environment, that I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet..."

Glenn must work for Russia too. What other possible explanation could there be for not going along with the Democratic Party's corrupt warmongering criminal candidate for US president nor agreeing to hush up the real history of this  longtime corporate grifter like most of the msm has,  'for the good of the cause'? 

I guess Naomi Klein must be a neo-liberal, neo-con shill as well.

Glenn was not "censored" - he was edited, and edited well. Crying censorship is a marketing ploy to gin up subscribers for his new Substack. Are people really going to fall for it?

https://twitter.com/naomiaklein/status/1321891416092504069?s=21

https://twitter.com/traceyecorder/status/1322008593260929025?s=20

[quote=josh]

https://twitter.com/traceyecorder/status/1322008593260929025?s=20

[quote=NDPP]

 It seems obvious that Greenwald goes on other platforms ( like FOX ) because of  the mass media blackout and suppression of this important story by the liberal media, intel agencies and Democratic Party establishments that seek to censor it at all costs for obvious reasons. It exposes the Biden crime family and the unholy coalition that wishes to hide their sins from public view and put their corrupt candidate in the White House. Probably for the same reason you posted a tweet without a link to what GG actually said on Fox. I'll correct that, because he's right and it's well worth hearing no matter what platform it's on.

Glenn Greenwald on Resigning from his Own Publication Due to Censorship

https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk

"...For a long time on the left there was a healthy skepticism of the CIA. There was a lot of anti-war activism in the Bush-Cheney years. That has disappeared and the reason it's disappeared is that the CIA from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the administration because Donald Trump questioned just a few of their pieties and that can't be done in Washington. Whoever does that must be destroyed.

And so the CIA and the deep state operatives have become heroes of the liberal left. The people who support the Democratic Party are now in  full union with the neocons, Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. That is the union of power, along with msm outlets that are fully behind the Democratic Party. And that is a very alarming proposition because they're authoritarian, they believe in censorship and they believe in censorship of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light..."

More: The Intercept Co-Founder Glenn Greenwald Quits, Claims Editors Censored Story Critical of Biden (and vid)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-intercept-editor...

"Glenn Greenwald is walking away from The Intercept, cites widespread 'repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity' from liberal editors who support Joe Biden as the reason he resigned from the media outlet he co-founded..."

The Hill: Glenn Greenwald RESPONDS

https://youtu.be/CYyn_XGAsCs

"Co-founder of the Intercept Glenn Greenwald explains why he resigned from the publication."

Tony Bobulinski, ex-Hunter Biden Associate, speaks out on Joe Biden

https://youtu.be/2zLfBRgeFFo

"Tony Bobulinski joins Tucker Carlson to discuss his alleged deals with Hunter and Joe Biden." See also #894

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/Bfn83YmKSKc

"Hunter-Biden's emails - desperate attempt to discredit them."

Michael Moriarity wrote:

For anyone who is interested, here is the official statement The Intercept made about the departure of Glenn Greenwald. Excerpt:

Betsy Reed wrote:

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 editors collectively display their moral bankruptcy in that vitriolic and very deceitful hit piece. They were wise not to allow any comments.

Contractually, before Greenwald resigned the Guardian to agree to be a co-founder of the Intercept he was granted full editorial control over his own articles:

Emails With Intercept Editors Showing Censorship of My Joe Biden Article
Given The Intercept's vehement denials, readers are entitled to see for themselves what the truth is: transparency journalism with integrity requires.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing
....
Recall that under my contract, and the practice of The Intercept over the last seven years, none of my articles is edited unless it presents the possibility of legal liability or complex original reporting, and not one of my articles in the last fifteen years — published with dozens of major media outlets around the world — has ever been retracted or even had appended to it a serious correction....

The email exchange shows up the lie that "Greenwald thinks anyone thinks who disagrees with hin is corrupt" as the reason for his resignation. The repressive intolerence for competing perspectives which results in suppression is entirely the editors:

But the glaring irony that I'm being censored for the first time in my career -- and that it's being done by the news outlet that I created with the specific and explicit purpose of ensuring that journalists are never censored by their editors -- is disturbing to me in the extreme. What a healthy and confident news organization would do -- as the New York Times recently did with its own Pulitzer-winning 1619 Project -- is air the different views that journalists have about the evidence and let readers decide what they find convincing, [emphasis mine]not force everyone to adhere to a top-down editorial line and explicitly declare that any story that raises questions about Biden's conduct is barred from being published now that he's the Democratic nominee....

Every feeble attempt by the editorial group to claim the article made false statements of fact as an excuse for their censorship is a  dud:

3) For almost every personal opinion you express about Biden that you claim I omitted, I actually already included it explicitly in the draft. Just a few examples:

    YOU: "But it’s very significant that the Journal found no corroborating evidence either of Joe Biden’s involvement in any such deals, or those deals being consummated. These are major issues that I feel undermine the draft’s thesis and are downplayed in the draft.”

    MY DRAFT: "Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

    YOU: "You can certainly note that Shokin’s successor let Burisma off the hook, but that’s not evidence he was installed by Biden in order to achieve that end."

    MY DRAFT: "It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden’s motive in demanding Shokhin’s termination was to benefit Burisma."

    YOU: "A connected problem is that your draft asserts there is a massive suppression attempt by the entire major media to not report out these accusations, but then doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting."

    MY DRAFT: "The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”...The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy.”

I could go on and on.

What's happening here is obvious: you know that you can't explicitly say you don't want to publish the article because it raises questions about the candidate you and all other TI Editors want very much to win the election in 5 days. So you have to cast your censorship as an accusation -- an outrageous and inaccurate one -- that my article contains factually false claims, all as a pretext for alleging that my article violates The Intercept's lofty editorial standards and that it's being rejected on journalistic grounds rather than nakedly political grounds....

It's understandable that Betsy Reed and the Intercept  would be enraged with Greenwald now that he has finally been forthright on the outing of Reality Winner:

But The Intercept, to this very day, has refused to provide any public accounting of what happened in the Reality Winner story: to explain who the editors were who made mistakes and why any of it happened. As the New York Times article makes clear, that refusal persists to this very day notwithstanding vocal demands from myself, Scahill, Laura Poitras and others that The Intercept, as an institution that demands transparency from others, has the obligation to provide it for itself. ...

My Resignation From The Intercept

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.

Glenn GreenwaldOct 29ttps://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

Megyn Kelly's emotional and wide-ranging interview with Tara Reade

https://youtu.be/4dBdfUudsIk

'Biden's campaign paid $2.2 m to make problems like me go away' - Tara Reade

https://youtu.be/tQPScuZxZFw

"Tara Reade talks about 'silencing and smearing rotation' after coming forward following her experience with Joe Biden...'My point is sexual assault and sexual harassment are non-partisan. What I see the DNC doing is not just elevating a predator but enabling them and using #MeToo, as a mantle to cover. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing. With the Republicans you know what you get. With the Democrats they're hiding behind womens movements and they're not sincere."

Bombshell Developments: Court Docs Corroborate Tara Reade Claims

https://youtu.be/GFuvHzzh1i4

"She calls on Biden to drop out."

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I don't know enough about the details of this case, or the conventions of journalism to take a confident position on Greenwald's dispute with his former colleagues. 

I don't see how it is that complicated. His contract stipulated that if he didn't want to be edited, he wouldn't be. The published emails make it clear, the editor's disagreements were not about his reporting of details but about his analysis of those details. That seems like a pretty clearcut case of censorship.

However, here is a conversation about the matter between 2 guys, Sam Seder and Alex Pareene, who both claim to know and like Greenwald personally, but feel that The Intercept's editorial decisions weren't all that bad. For whatever it is worth, it sounds sensible to me.

In the video Parene does say he thinks they should have let Greenwald have his way and that he had that power stipulated in his contract.

I think they are right that Greenwald has been increasingly backing himself into a corner partly out of personal animosities with people in the Democratic party and 'Liberal' media establishment. This is a little reminiscent of the Christopher Hitchens turn to the right as his relationships with the people around Clinton became increasingly nasty. Unlike Hitchens though who became a schill for Haliburton war profiteering, Greenwald is still doing some great work. 

His analysis of the House of Armed Services Committee tapes was the best journalism I've seen in a while and totally absent from the rest of the media landscape:

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/09/how-the-house-armed-services-committ...

I also thought his take on the Harpers Cancel Culture debate was pretty balanced and a good lens to look at it through:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXDPPkuRimQ

I get that Greenwald has faults but he is a very good journalist. I would say the same about Taibi who seems to be following a similar trajectory. The left shouldn't be pushing these guys out because they aren't following the orthodox line on the Democratic Party. 

I agree that Greenwald has done excellent work as a journalist, but he has never been of the left in any way. He is fundamentally an honest libertarian, who gets along very well at the Cato Institute. So I don't think "the left" whatever that is, can push him out of something he never was part of.

Well, I really want to resist the urge to get into an argument about who is and isn't part of the left but..

Greenwald has

• done more to shed light on the wrongful imprisonment of Brazil's leftwing President Lula out than any other journalist.
• helped found the leftwing publication 'The Intercept' (irregardless of whether it resulted in a falling out)
• been a consistant critic of US imperialism and the National Security State

Yeah for sure he is an extreme civil libertarian. I didn't know that disqualified you from being part of the left. He has written for the Cato Institute on positive lessons that can be taken from Portugal's drug decriminalization. It is a sad fact that libertarians were ahead of the curve compared to a lot of social democrats on the importance of ending the war on drugs. I remember a lot of NDPers on this board in the early oughts were very condescending about how unimportant decriminalization and legalization were compared to other issues even though the policies clearly had major negative impacts on low-income and racialized communities. Maybe if there hadn't been the stigma that it was a 'libertarian' issue, Trudea wouldn't have been able to outflank Mulclair on marijuana legalization and get lots of millenial first time voters to help him to power.

Anyway, I don't actually think it is that important that Greenwald is sufficiently ideologically pure. I get that he definitely isn't a Marxist. But throughout his career (The Guardian, Salon, The Intercept) a lot of his audience has been left of centre. He clearly has no problem with communicating to an audience on the right either. My point was that his left audience shouldn't abandon and stigmatize him pushing him further towards his audience on the right.