In a post with comments disabled, the editors of The Intercept have responded to Greenwald’s decision to leave – writing “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.“
They suggest that Greenwald was “attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.”
We assume they’re referring to the undisputed contents of the Hunter Biden laptop, along with evidence from two former Biden associates, implicating Joe Biden in numerous corrupt acts involving his son Hunter.
The Intercept includes several low-blows in their response;
“We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be“
“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 “
Read it here.
Perhaps allowing divergent opinions would help the beleaguered outlet’s traffic, which appears to have been cut in half over the last six months.
The Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald resigned from the outlet on Thursday, after ‘editors censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.’
Greenwald writes at his new home (greenwald.substack.com):
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.
I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.
Apparently he’s also blocked from publishing the article elsewhere, though he’s “asked my lawyer to get in touch with FLM to discuss how best to terminate my contract.”
What did The Intercept do in response to Greenwald leaving? They’re attempting to raise money off of it!
Greenwald has found support across the political spectrum for his decision to walk.