{"id":171758,"date":"2020-11-02T12:00:28","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T12:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=171758"},"modified":"2020-11-01T11:44:04","modified_gmt":"2020-11-01T11:44:04","slug":"glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation-from-the-intercept","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/11\/glenn-greenwald-on-his-resignation-from-the-intercept\/","title":{"rendered":"Glenn Greenwald on His Resignation from the Intercept"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Pulitzer winner founded the Intercept to challenge official narratives and protect editorial freedom. When editors abandoned those principles, spiking a controversial story, he was forced to quit.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

30 Oct 2020 – <\/em>Pulitzer Prize-winning<\/a> journalist Glenn Greenwald quit his job this morning. In a bizarre, ironic, and disturbing commentary on trends in modern media, the celebrated reporter was forced to resign after writing a story criticizing both the Biden campaign and intelligence community \u2014 only to have it spiked by the editors of The Intercept, <\/em>the news outlet he co-founded six years ago with the aim of preventing pretty much this exact situation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe irony,\u201d Greenwald says, \u201cis that a media outlet I co-founded, and which was built on my name and my accomplishments, with the purpose of guaranteeing editorial independence, is now censoring me in the most egregious way \u2014 about the leading presidential candidate, a week before the election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Greenwald becomes the latest high-profile journalist to leave a well-known legacy media organization to join Substack. You\u2019ll be able to read the piece rebuffed by The Intercept<\/em> at his new site here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a nutshell, the fatal sequence of events went as follows:<\/p>\n

Greenwald, after commenting pointedly about the reaction by press and Democratic Party officials to the New York Post <\/em>story, reached out to Intercept <\/em>editor Betsy Reed to float the idea of writing on the subject.<\/p>\n

The first hint of trouble came when Reed suggested that yes, it might be a story, if proven correct, but \u201ceven if it did represent something untoward about Biden,\u201d that would \u201crepresent a tiny fraction of the sleaze and lies Trump and his cronies are oozing in every day.\u201d<\/p>\n

When Greenwald retorted that deciding not to report on one politician\u2019s scandals because those of another politician are deemed worse is a \u201ccorrupt calculus\u201d for reporters, Reed expressed concern. Based on this, on his comments on Twitter, and other factors, she worried that \u201cwe are headed for a conflict over the editing of this piece.\u201d<\/p>\n

Greenwald insisted he wasn\u2019t planning an overwhelming amount of coverage but wanted to do a single article, reviewing the available facts and perhaps asking the Biden campaign to comment on the veracity of the Post <\/em>story. Reed agreed that he should write a draft, then they could \u201csee where we are.\u201d<\/p>\n

An aside: when reporters and editors interact, they speak between the lines. If an editor only ever suggests or assigns stories from a certain angle, you\u2019re being told they don\u2019t particularly want the other angle. If your editor has lots of hypothetical concerns at the start, he or she probably won\u2019t be upset if you choose a different topic. Finally, when an editor lays out \u201csuggestions\u201d about things that might \u201chelp\u201d a piece \u201cbe even stronger,\u201d it\u2019s a signal both parties understand about what elements have to be put in before the editor will send the thing through.<\/p>\n

Reed explained that any piece Greenwald wrote on the Biden\/Burisma subject would have to go through \u201cthe editorial process and fact-checking that we do with any story with this kind of high profile.\u201d Peter Maass would edit, but Reed also noted that there was a lot of \u201cin-house knowledge\u201d they could all \u201ctap into.\u201d<\/p>\n

By \u201cin-house knowledge,\u201d she meant the work of Robert Mackey and Jim Risen, two Intercept <\/em>reporters with whom Greenwald clashed in the past. Risen had already loudly denounced the Post <\/em>story not only as conspiracy theory, but foreign disinformation. Essentially, Reed was telling Greenwald his piece would be quasi-edited by people with whom he\u2019d had major public disagreements about Russia-related issues going back years.<\/p>\n

To this, Greenwald responded that this was a double-standard: when Risen wrote an article<\/a> credulously quoting intelligence officials like James Clapper, John Brennan, and Michael Hayden (more on the extreme irony of this later) describing the Post <\/em>story as having \u201cthe classic earmarks of Russian misinformation,\u201d he could do so willy-nilly. But when Greenwald wanted to write an op-ed piece questioning the \u201cprevailing wisdom on Biden and Burisma,\u201d a team of people would would be summoned.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only reason people are getting interested in and ready to scrutinize what I write is because everyone is afraid of being accused of having published something harmful to Biden,\u201d Greenwald told them. \u201cThat\u2019s the reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then Greenwald wrote the piece \u2014 essentially an opinion piece, drawing upon publicly available information. In it, he criticized the media response to the Post <\/em>story and noted, among other things, that the history of the Hunter Biden\/Burisma story did not reflect well on any of the Bidens. Reed and Maass refused to publish it. Maass wrote:<\/p>\n

Betsy agrees with me that the draft\u2019s core problem is the connection it often asserts or assumes between the Hunter Biden emails and corruption by Joe Biden. There are many places in which the explicit or implied position is a) the emails expose corruption by Joe Biden and b) news organizations are suppressing their reporting on it. Those positions strike me as foundations to this draft, and they also strike me as inaccurate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Maass added that he didn\u2019t believe Greenwald had done enough to address the \u201ccomplexity\u201d of the \u201cdisinformation issue\u201d:<\/p>\n

Lastly, I think the disinformation issue should be handled with greater complexity. I think it\u2019s totally right to point out the haste with which some journalists and experts are talking about Russia\u2019s hand. But the argument that some people make about disinformation, and that I think you should address, is the way the materials are being used by Giuliani, the rightwing media, and Trump, to support an exaggerated and false narrative \u2013 a narrative that is not supported by the materials themselves\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Maass suggested Greenwald cut the piece and stick to a narrower essay about whether or not the press was directly asking Biden enough questions. Another irony: Greenwald was trying to criticize the rush to describe the Post <\/em>story as disinformation, and Maass was essentially asking that he address the \u201cdisinformation issue,\u201d even though the material\u2019s veracity had not been denied, and the editors themselves didn\u2019t seem to believe the laptop material was fake. Reed at one point wrote to Greenwald, \u201cI agree with you that [the emails] appear to be mostly or entirely genuine, though authentication has been difficult in part because of the Biden camp\u2019s refusal to address questions about authenticity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Greenwald, by then furious, noted that neither Maass nor Reed had identified a factual inaccuracy in the article, but rather disagreed with its conclusions and his assessments of the facts \u2014 his \u201cpositions,\u201d rather than his information.<\/p>\n

Greenwald added:<\/p>\n

What a healthy and confident news organization would do — as the New York Times <\/em>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, 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the end, Maass and Reed would not budge, and Greenwald resigned<\/a> rather than accept what he described as being censored. The Intercept <\/em>quickly put out an icy statement describing him as a \u201cgrown person throwing a tantrum<\/a>,\u201d adding that Greenwald was laboring under the assumption that \u201canyone who presumes to edit him is a censor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anticipating the obvious criticism that the Intercept <\/em>had betrayed its founding mission, they wrote, \u201cIt is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not the Intercept<\/em>.\u201d Mourning the reporter he \u201cused to be,\u201d the Intercept <\/em>editors defined the value that Glenn supposedly lost sight of as \u201can investigative mission\u2026 that involved a collaborative process.\u201d In other words, absolute editorial freedom \u2014 but by group consent.<\/p>\n

They then pulled out the go-to rhetorical device of media hall monitors in the Trump era, accusing him of being a secret Trump partisan, trying to \u201crecycle\u2026 the Trump campaign\u2019s\u2026 dubious claims, and launder them as journalism.\u201d<\/p>\n

I reached out to both Reed and Maass for comment this afternoon. Neither has responded.<\/p>\n

In the last few weeks I\u2019ve heard from multiple well-known journalists going through struggles in their newsrooms, with pressure to avoid certain themes in campaign coverage often central to their worries. There are many reporters out there \u2014 most of them quite personally hostile to Donald Trump \u2014 who are grating under what they perceive as relentless pressure to publish material favorable to the Democratic Party cause. Greenwald\u2019s story mirrors some of these stories, but his is more striking than some others on a few levels.<\/p>\n

Many outside the media world will miss the subtleties of what makes this tale so crazy. Some may even think it\u2019s unreasonable for a reporter to quit rather than \u201caccept editing.\u201d To understand why that\u2019s not what\u2019s going on here, one has to know the unique history of The Intercept. <\/em><\/p>\n

On February 10th, 2014, Greenwald, documentarian Laura Poitras, and fellow reporter Jeremy Scahill announced<\/a> the creation of an aggressive new investigative outlet, backed by the deep pockets of eBay founder and billionaire Pierre Omidyar.<\/p>\n

It was big news in the media world. Greenwald and Poitras had been working on one of the great scoops in recent times, helping former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden come forward<\/a> about a secret, illegal<\/a> mass surveillance program conducted by the U.S. government. After bringing the story to light, Snowden was forced into exile, and Greenwald in particular became the subject of denunciations by colleagues and politicians alike, with some prominent officials openly<\/a> calling<\/a> for his prosecution and jailing.<\/p>\n

The Intercept <\/em>was designed specifically to be a place where journalists would be protected from such intimidation and editorial interference. As they wrote in their introduction:<\/p>\n

Over the past seven months the journalists who have reported on these documents from the National Security Agency have been repeatedly threatened<\/a> by a wide range of government officials<\/a>\u2026 None of this will deter the journalism we are doing. A primary function of The Intercept<\/em> is to insist upon and defend our press freedoms from those who wish to infringe them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Greenwald recalls today: \u201cWe saw in the media, reporters were quoting CIA officials about Snowden and about me. They were essentially stenographers. The Intercept <\/em>was created to avoid that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Again as noted in the announcement six years ago, Intercept <\/em>writers were to be encouraged at all times to speak their minds, no matter who might take offense. This, they said, was another core part of the organization\u2019s mission:<\/p>\n

The editorial independence of our journalists will be guaranteed\u2026 Our journalists will be not only permitted, but encouraged, to pursue stories without regard to whom they might alienate<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The whole idea of The Intercept <\/em>was to create a hands-off, journalist-run enterprise where mistakes like the WMD fiasco could never happen. If the journalists themselves were put in charge, the thinking went, there could be no pressure from above to conform to clearly flawed official narratives like the WMD case, or to back off stories like the Snowden affair.<\/p>\n

The traditional method of controlling the press \u2014 as described by legendary independent journalists like I.F. Stone \u2014 was the quiet aside by the boss, \u201ca little private talk<\/a>,\u201d where a \u201chint that the reporter seems irresponsible, a little bit radical\u201d would be dropped. Getting the message, and fearing for his or her job, the reporter would back off. Or, in cases like the Iraq war runup, the strategic dismissal of a big name with the wrong views \u2014 Phil Donahue<\/a>, Jesse Ventura<\/a> \u2014 makes sure the rest of the employees get the message.<\/p>\n

Greenwald co-founded the Intercept <\/em>with this exact scenario in mind, building a structure where \u201clittle private talks\u201d with bosses would never happen, and there couldn\u2019t be high-profile dismissals for ideological reasons.<\/p>\n

What he didn\u2019t guess at was that even in an atmosphere where managerial interference is near zero, a collective of independent journalists can themselves become censors and enforcers of official orthodoxies. In some cases, free journalists will become more aggressive propagandists and suppressors of speech than the officials from whom they supposedly need to be protected. This Lord of the Flies<\/em> effect is what happened with The Intercept. <\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a long story, but the punchline is that the self-editing journalists at the Intercept <\/em>somewhere along the line began to fall for what will look, years from now, like a comically transparent bait-and-switch operation. They were suckered into becoming parodies of their original incarnation.<\/p>\n

In the Obama years, progressive journalists were infuriated by the disclosures of whistleblowers like Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and aimed their professional ire at the federal government for war crimes, drone assassination, and mass abuse of surveillance authority. The bugbears of the day were intelligence officials who ran these programs and deceived the public<\/a> about them: people like CIA directors Hayden and Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence Clapper.<\/p>\n

These intelligence community leaders only a few short years ago served an administration that sought a \u201creset\u201d with the systematic human rights violator that was Vladimir Putin\u2019s Russia, a country then-President Obama dismissed throughout his tenure as a \u201cregional power\u201d that acts \u201cnot out of strength, but out of weakness<\/a>.\u201d The consistent posture of the Obama administration \u2014 the Obama-Biden administration \u2014 was that Russia ranked far below terrorists as a potential threat to the United States.<\/p>\n

After 2016, however, these officials presented themselves as norms-defending heroes protecting America against the twin \u201cexistential\u201d threats of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Russia, just a few years ago described by Rachel Maddow as a harmless \u201cgnat on the butt of an elephant,\u201d was now reinvented as an all-powerful foe mounting an influence campaign of unprecedented reach, with everyone from Trump to the Green Party to blogs like Truthdig and Naked Capitalism<\/a>, to congresswoman and war veteran Tulsi Gabbard, to Bernie Sanders, all potentially doing the bidding of a Cold War foe bent on \u201csowing discord\u201d on our shores.<\/p>\n

\n

"President Obama yesterday … explaining that Russia is basically a gnat on the butt of an elephant." Video: http:\/\/t.co\/0Y1WmimzlF<\/a><\/p>\n

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) March 27, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n