Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept due to censorship of article critical of Joe Biden

Some of you may know Glenn Greenwald for his part in exposing the NSA surveillance leaks that came out in 2013. While he is decidedly left-leaning, he claims that his reasoning for resigning is because he believes that his editors did not want him to publish the story because it may harm Vice President Biden's attempts to defeat President Donald Trump in the general election next week.

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.

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.

The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.

This was not an easy choice: I am voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing.

Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.

But the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.

Glenn Greenwald

The article that was censored by the Intercept is now on the Substack website and can be seen here.

I'm not posting this to convince anybody in this forum whether or not the accusations against Joe and Hunter Biden are true. You guys can make that decision on your own, and chances are if you hated Trump 30 days ago, you still hate him now and will still vote for Biden if you haven't already.

But the more pressing issue is when media outlets are intentionally censoring unflattering stories about political candidates because they are afraid that it may harm them in the upcoming elections. If you feel that every single accusation that comes up against Donald Trump is fair game to publish, then the same should be said about Joe Biden.

The Wall Street Journal, a conservative paper, debunked that story pretty well.

Edit: what articles about trump had no evidence?

How fortunate.

I don't believe we should publish every story about Trump and neither do most outlets. We aren't, for example, going to entertain ideas that he's a lizardman in a skinsuit, because no matter how much he looks like the alien from men in black after eating the farmer, there's no credibility to that statement. Maybe if Trump wasn't such a corrupt PoS who engages in career ending controversy weekly, he wouldn't be in the news so much?

source on that? Admittingly I haven't been keeping up on Hunter Biden.

You know what I meant when I said every single accusation; I obviously wasn't talking about the accusations so outrageous even the most anti-Trump person wouldn't believe it, such as lizard people.

I know this forum is mostly an echo chamber, but discussing the ability for journalists to publish controversial stories while giving others the option to fact-check isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

If you and @LJS9502_basic would rather attempt to shut this thread down and express that Greenwald's resignation is not worthy of a discussion because it may cause someone on this site to do a little more research that causes them to discover information that may not be so flattering to the Biden family (regardless of whether or not it is true), then that's both of your prerogatives.

@drunk_pi: @LJS9502_basic: Sad that a journalist, regardless of his political leanings, was just trying to do his job is the one who suffers. Meanwhile his former colleagues continue to do their fake jobs.

‘The Wall Street Journal, a conservative paper, debunked that story pretty well.’

No they didn’t.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/no-the-wsjs-news-and-opinion-pieces-on-hunter-biden-corruption-dont-contradict-each-other/

@ad1x2: If you wanted to focus solely on the resignation then you shouldn't have brought up supposed bias against DT in your OP.

And as far as it goes really there's nothing to discuss on the resignation, it's pretty straight forward. Dude is butthurt his outlet won't give him money to post the article about a shit topic. It's not "censorship," he's already posted the article in another place.

I bought it up because almost every negative story about Trump, whether it's his taxes or a story about Russian hookers urinating on a bed, finds a place in the media. On the other hand, every major network excluding Fox refused to cover the accusations against Hunter, and both Twitter and Facebook took active measures to censor the story.

Saying that he wasn't censored because he published it somewhere else is a pretty weak copout. That's like someone saying that Twitter didn't censor the Hunter Biden story because we could still share it on Parler; the fact of the matter is you still couldn't share it on Twitter until earlier this week after Jack Dorsey had to testify in front of congress.

The bottom line is that the Intercept would not let him publish it because they were afraid the story might hurt Biden. Nobody should be comfortable with the media blocking a story for partisan reasons; that's the kind of stuff they do in China and North Korea.

You don't have to agree with me because of your obvious desire to see Biden defeat Trump next week, but that doesn't change the facts about Greenwald being censored for political reasons.

@Vaasman: ‘Dude is butthurt his outlet won't give him money to post the article about a shit topic’

Apparently you didn’t read the tweets.

‘“The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s 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."’

I'd need to know specifics on his article to make a fairer judgement. If Glenn's article had merit and followed journalistic integrity they should publish it. At the end of the day the Intercept is a private entity though. They can publish whatever they want.

Also, their response: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/

@Sevenizz: I wasn't talking about an opinion piece. They are different from factual pieces. But thanks for playing........

lol what facts? Dude posted a bunch of tweets with no receipts and you just lapped it up like a drone because you want it to be true. Did you even try to look for Intercept's statement on this? Either way it's he said she said at best. Here is their statement by the way, from their perspective we could argue that a rogue journalist tried to bully them into posting a terrible article, or otherwise made a big stink so he could get some attention for his new ventures.

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/

"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 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. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism."

But you don't like that point of view so we should just pretend it's not an option, right?

@Vaasman: Ouch. I guess that ends this thread. Just glanced at the TC and now I see why the thread was made.

It's ironic that the right's claims of media bias are slowly marching them towards a new fairness doctrine.

Sometimes history really does come full circle.

Glenn has always been divisive, more so in the last several years as he continues his 'both sides' rhetoric. This is a pretty strong retort from the Intercept calling bullsh*t on Glenn.

Just because they say it doesn't mean they are right about this. Again you are the perfect example of what is wrong with America. You will only choose the side that fits your political beliefs instead of looking at the entire story. Just really shows how weak minded people have become over stuff like this and it is only getting worse.

Just know the truth is usually in the middle with things like this. To bad you let your political beliefs control what you believe and what you don't believe.

Liberal News: Biden is the president we need, blah blah blah

Right-wing Nuts: BIAS! I CALL BIAS! WAH WAH WAH!

*a few moments later*

Right-wing outlet: Democrats are kidnapping little kids and having sex with them and harvesting their adrenaline to make life-extending elixirs.

He sounds....difficult. One might say "uppity".

I've never heard of him nor The Intercept, so no big loss for me.

Ooooooh Glen, ouch. Sick burn, bro.

@Vaasman: So, in other words, as of right now it's Glenn's word against his former employers, who boast that there is no political bias. I think I'll wait until all of the facts come out instead of taking their word for it, but you obviously want them to be right since it helps shoot down any possibility of bias on the Intercept's part.

No @LJS9502_basic, that response does not end the thread. If you choose not to post in the thread anymore, I would assume that would end it for you, but it will still be there for everyone else unless a mod locks it.

@ad1x2:

Wow you are projecting so hard lol. You instantly posted one side of a story with no effort to account for the other, took it as fact, now forced to backtrack and say "lets wait for all the facts" after you said these were facts, and it's me who wants to be right?

Honestly your brand of pseudo-intellectual trolling is probably worse than the likes of eoton or sevinezz, at least with them there's no pretense that they are pretending to be fair.

I'm not the one that claimed his accusation of being censored was bogus because he was able to publish it on another website, and then moved goalposts when I told you how ridiculous that excuse was. That was next-level gaslighting, but it's unlikely anybody is going to call you out on it.

There are enough people here that post anti-Trump threads, so why do you demand that I join the chorus? Afraid of points of view that aren't the same as yours? It's unlikely any Biden votes are going to change to Trump over this thread, so finding this thread as a threat seems weird.

A few years back, many people in OT (where most of the posters came here from) thought Glenn was a hero for his efforts in exposing the NSA surveillance, and now he's a shitbag because he dares say anything negative about who you hope will be the next president.

I never moved the goalposts, you have yet to actually explain how it's censorship when he can freely post elsewhere. You just tried to brush it off as a copout. They are a private company that said no to paying him to attach themselves to his work. That's not censorship. At worst it's bias in content selection, sure, but even then, you're just assuming that based on his singular account, after a resignation, with no supporting material. Only gaslighting here is you for trying to convince everyone this is a one-sided narrative by, possibly deliberately, working to avoid the second side of the story.

Also, being a hero once upon a time doesn't mean you will be forever. We all remember when Rudy was America's Mayor, totally presidential candidate material, and now he's a crazed windbag "tucking" his dong in in for female reporters.

We can't even be sure, but perhaps it's the same here.

Minus the sexual harassment, of course.

Even Fox News and WSJ said this story is unverified and bogus.

It died. You're exhuming a dead and failed October Surprise.

The thread is about Greenwald resigning because the Intercept refused to let him publish a story critical of the Bidens, not whether or not the story about Hunter is true. Keep up.

@Vaasman: I can see that our conversation isn't going to go anywhere. Rather than discuss the topic, you are trying to discredit it because the person the topic is about wanted to publish a story critical of your preferred presidential candidate.

Greenwald accuses the Intercept of censoring him, so your proclamation that he wasn't censored because he was able to post his story at another website is inaccurate because guess what, the Intercept still censored him.

If I walk into a McDonald's and they refuse to serve me, walking over to Burger King and getting served doesn't negate the fact that McDonald's refused to serve me first.

He pretty much demonstrated that your OP was one sided and devoid of facts. But keep digging in and pretending to be neutral.

Yes I would say since you have an utterly nonsensical concept of what censorship is, this won't go anywhere. And don't blame me because you didn't do your due diligence and look for the second side of the story dude. You discredited it and yourself by posting only half of what there is.

Also your analogy is horrible. Mcdonalds doesn't pay you, and they aren't associated with you once you eat their food, and so long as their reasoning was legitimate, they are in fact allowed to not serve you.

Even in Australia, this has been mentioned as conspiracy bullshit.

so hack . data that was stolen and i forget what his name. sitting on it for months... to use now....

How many times must this be said? If you are conservative you must not complain about the one important thing that will get Trump re-elected easily. That is the obvious bias towards Trump, it has created mass Trump supporters in ways he could have never done on his own no matter how good of a President he is.

For one thing, the post just makes it look like a he said-she said scenario between Glenn and the Intercept editors he accuses of censoring him to protect Biden. It doesn't exonerate the Intercept of any wrongdoing.

For another thing, the Intercept's rebuttal was not online when I posted the original thread, so at the time, I only had Greenwald's word of what happened. While I'm sure you want to accuse him of lying, the fact that several other outlets outright refused to cover the story due to fears that it may help Trump in the election gives his accusations some credibility in regards to motivations.

By the way, if your standard for posting a story is that both sides need to be addressed first, then I will stand by while you criticize people that posted about Jussie Smollett, Nick Sandmann, the McCloskey's and every other sensitive topic that got a lot of posts before the other side was able to present their side of the story.

@ad1x2:

If we were seeing a rush of articles being published about a scandal involving Trump, then I'd say the Hunter Biden story is fair game. But we're not and simply put, no one cares about Hunter Biden's story. And it's painfully obvious that it was a last ditch attempt to sway the election from the get go. But regardless, it doesn't offer any reason to convince me to vote for Trump. And I still voted for Biden. So far, it looks like Trump is the only candidate trying to cheat.

@ad1x2: Stop making things up.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is now obvious you are intentionally gaslighting in an attempt to win your argument while simultaneously derailing this thread that isn't even about Hunter Biden's guilt, but Glenn being forced to remove negative information about a certain presidential candidate.

My scenario about McDonald's is hypothetical under the assumption that I did nothing wrong, and they just told me to leave. You're trying to bring up some fantasy scenario that I must have done something crazy to give McDonald's legitimate justification to kick me out and discredit my scenario.

If you don't want to discuss the subject and instead want to continue to gaslight because you can't stand the idea of your preferred presidential candidate possibly having some negative press sent their way, then you are no longer worth my time discussing with.

Project more about gaslighting while you continue to tailspin in a failed thread. Even now you continue speaking as though you were right, but you have no honest clue at all. It's not derailing that the core argument of the thread has been proven to be spurious and you refuse to accept it.

Your gotcha turned into a shitshow of your own making, and maybe you really wish it wasn't your fault. But it is. The sad desperation to reveal media bias has only revealed your own. Take the L and run.

But what's the subject being discussed? He wanted to publish a story that his employers did not want to. They gave their reasons even when they didn't have to. They're a private company and he can take it elsewhere if he wants. The Intercept isn't state-run media so he is not being censored. I mean maybe he is being treated unfairly from the standpoint of an employee or freelancer, maybe not.

Most private businesses can not serve you for any reason they want, whether or not you did anything wrong. I mean, if they were your utility, local hospital, or some other scenario where you didn't have another place to go it might be a better argument.

Just because you don't care doesn't mean nobody cares. For example, over seven and a half million people watched Tucker Carlson interview Hunter Biden's ex-business associate Tony Bobulinski on Tuesday; the interview was beaten only by the Voice and game six of the World Series. It beat the season premiere of This is Us.

Besides, if nobody cared, then Facebook and Twitter wouldn't have censored the story. They didn't censor fake stories such as China's bogus claim that Patient Zero of COVID was a soldier from the U.S. Army, but they went out of their way to censor the story about Hunter and block leaked pictures showing him smoking crack.

A lot of you keep missing the point of this thread. The thread isn't about convincing you to vote for Trump or that Hunter is guilty of what he was accused of. It is about Glenn Greenwald being censored because his media outlet wanted to prevent him from posting negative information about the Bidens and Glenn's resignation as a result.

Glenn Greenwald is a scumbag! He kisses up to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, while he screws over Reality Winner (who has COVID while in prison).

@ad1x2:

Refusing to post a flimsy story isn't censorship, it's more about integrity. You don't post something until all the details are out and the Hunter story had holes and red flags from the beginning. Millions watching something doesn't necessarily mean that they all agree with the content either. Personally, I like watching other people's viewpoints on certain matters. I don't have to like it or agree with it.

The media posted a story from an anonymous source claiming that Trump called dead soldiers losers despite people that actually don't like him like Bolton saying that it's doubtful he said it.

The media spent weeks talking about how Justice Kavanaugh was a serial rapist based on flimsy testimony from an accusor he supposedly went to high school with, but when Joe Biden was accused of sexual assault, the accuser was pretty much made persona non grata.

The media spent an eternity telling us how a 16-year old kid from Kentucky smirking while wearing a MAGA hat was a huge racist threatening a Vietnam Vet (that we later found out never went to Vietnam) before more footage came out showing the full story.

The media breathlessly covered Bubba Wallace's alleged hate crime until they found out the supposed noose was just a misidentified garage door rope pull.

We don't even need to get started on Jussie Smollet.

Let's not pretend that there isn't some partisan reasoning for what stories they wanted to publish and which stories they choose to ignore.

I'm not sure the media, along with those obsessed with Trump making endless tweets/comments/threads, will know what to do if Trump is defeated this year. They might lose their purpose in life!

They'll probably laugh, gloat, and share a bunch of memes mocking Trump supporters for the first few weeks. Hollywood will spend their next two or three awards shows boasting about how everything will go back to normal under a Biden presidency. A few may even openly fantasize about Trump being arrested by the NYPD minutes after Biden gets sworn in, although that's pretty unlikely.

After Trump goes back to Mar-a-Lago to retire and comedians get tired of mocking Trump for losing the election, they will struggle for material. Maybe they'll lightheartedly make fun of Biden's frequent gaffes and memory lapses and then change the subject.

Other entities like the Lincoln Project will really be screwed because the GOP isn't going to accept them for being RINOs that may have contributed to Trump's loss and Democrats aren't going to accept them because, well, they're Republicans.

On the other hand, if Trump wins, they'll act angry openly while secretly being happy that they still have a job. After Trump is declared the winner they'll just claim that (insert number of votes Trump got here) million people are racists, or if they are black they are Uncle Toms. Vladimir Putin may even get a few more shoutouts for election interference.

There's plenty of evidence of Hunter Biden's drug and sex addiction.

Tons of photos of him doing both. That leads me to believe the emails might be true as well since they've got his texts too and reddit account.

Agreed, I would need to read the article, including the parts that were deemed unsuitable by The Intercept.

But I'll say this much: if what Glenn included was borne even slightly of the Trump campaign's narrative, I'm not inclined to humor anything stated by the pathological liar and the cronies that enable him. People want to sit by and allow Trump to be the liar he has been for all this time? Then live with the consequences of those not giving a single shit what he and his camp have to say. I discount, and will continue to discount, anything from the Trump camp on general principle. I won't even listen to what they have to say.

That benefits Biden, even unfairly? Sorry, live in the bed you made. Perhaps you Trumpsters actually cared about facts and not alternative ones, I'm be much more prone to lend my ear to your side. As it is? Give me a break.

@ad1x2:

By Shield Laws in 30 states, reporters have a right to protect the identity of their sources. They rely heavily on confidentiality so that the source won't fear any backlash from talking.

As for the rest of your response, you might as well not watch any news outlet at all if you're going down that slippery slope. Ever since Trump started calling things "fake news" he made his supporters completely distrust any news outlet that doesn't paint him in a good light. And that basically lets him get away with anything. Suddenly, everything is fake and everything is biased and liberals own everything and Trump is this poor, innocent guy who just can't catch a break.

When did Republicans become the party of pity? Well, the moment you sign off on that is the moment you let yourself become subject to right wing propaganda. And that in itself is completely biased. Probably even more so than any "liberal news" outlet could ever be. Unlike Trump supporters, I didn't push the panic button and act like the whole world is against me and the president I voted for. Hopefully one day when Trump is gone, you'll realize it for yourself. That nothing changed and the whole time people spent white-knighting for Trump was a waste of time.

According to two of his former business partners, the emails are absolutely true.

As an FYI how Russia works is to take some true things and sprinkle in what they want you to believe. So they plant false items amongst true things. From what I've read none of the emails have metadata attached.

And again the Wall Street Journal, a conservative paper, debunked that. So stop spreading it around. The FBI is investigating if Russia was involved in this.