kcar wrote:
 

everybody has an opinion on what qualifies as evidence

i expect baba looey will feel the wrath of the 7th ring  of hell for whistle blowing

what else is new

i'm with this guy  

in the immortal words of carl sagan. if we don't know, let's look

I lost track of Greenwald since he stopped writing for The Guardian. Apparently he's appeared frequently on Tucker Carlson's show. Talk about strange bedfellows. 

Greenwald's draft piece that The Intercept refused to publish can be found here. 

The New York Times reviews here some of the claims about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and the Chinese company CEFC ("There is no evidence that the former vice president was involved in or profited from a joint venture pursued by his son and brother.")


WaPo's take on the split between Greenwald and The Intercept:



Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story

While the crusading journalist claimed censorship, his former editors accused him of trying to publish unsupported innuendo



Iconoclastic journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday afternoon, signaling an abrupt and acrimonious end to his time at the publication he co-founded in 2014 with journalists Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.

...

In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” unless he removed “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 Intercept strongly countered those claims, with Editor in Chief Betsy Reed telling The Washington Post in an email that “it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence.”

The Intercept, which is published by nonprofit First Look Media, called it “a 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 Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims,” the statement continued.

Greenwald said that when the editors refused to let him publish the article elsewhere, he proposed that they “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,” he wrote. “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.”

He made numerous other claims in his lengthy departure note, which the Intercept said it would address 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,” the statement reads. “While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s — the Trump campaign’s — dubious claims and launder them as journalism.”

Greenwald has emerged in recent years as a harsh critic of the mainstream media, and has become a regular guest on the Fox News Channel, especially on Tucker Carlson’s nightly show. In particular, Greenwald accused media companies of boarding the “Russiagate train” by hyping up stories about collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors.

Greenwald said he would publish the Biden piece on his own Substack online platform later on Thursday, and would plan to continue publishing on the channel. He also said he had been “exploring the possibility of creating a new media outlet” for months.

...

The Intercept said it had no doubt that Greenwald would “launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon.”

 R_P wrote: 
Gatekeepers are also what is wrong with HMO's.  The least qualified individual is making life and death decisions about who gets to advance to more specialized care and treatments.

 miamizsun wrote:
 
Editors are gatekeepers.

miamizsun wrote:

This makes me immeasurably sad.

looks like another news  source rolls over...

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.

 Steely_D wrote:
 

Ya sayin' animals' lives matter, or WTfriggin'? Then we're friends, really! 

 Ohmsen wrote:
 
"All animals are equal."

 Steely_D wrote:
 

Sorry for this reminder. Perhaps, it wasn't meant for you personally then. How should an outlander like me know of the exaltedness-scale of co-members of this forum? (Excuse me, pls.)
The divisiveness seems to gain foot though, as US media are spreading it. What a horrible situation. Blues shooting Reds, and vice versa. I hope, that US disease of killing one another as hyped by the media doesn't take over the whole planet, honestly. 
On top of that, I found the quote so befitting to this thread.... and I guess not many people remember the early days of the inNernet as they were. 
Peace! 

 Steely_D wrote:
 
Sometimes I do not have time to review all possibly relevant news of interest.  Sometimes I focus on just narrow areas of daily news.

So I am appreciative when folks post relevant news articles of possible interest.  Otherwise, I would have missed a few interesting stories.  Long live RP! 

 Steely_D wrote:
 

Oooh.  Sick burn!  Hardest hit: R_P !

 Ohmsen wrote:
 
or someone reposting news article headlines like none of us are capable of reading the news on our own..

by now you've probably heard something about this

you should watch it as soon as possible

parts of it a couple of times

I'm old enough to remember when the Internet wasn't a group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four.

— Tom (@tveastman) December 3, 2018

Tips for a Post-Mueller Media from Nine Russiagate Skeptics

Study: U.S. Newspapers Are More Than Twice As Likely to Cite Israeli Sources in Headlines Than Palestinian Ones

At the height of the 2014 war between the Israeli military and Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, the New York Times ran an article headlined, “Israel Says That Hamas Uses Civilian Shields, Reviving Debate.” It was an apparent reference to the hundreds of Palestinian civilians who had been killed in Israeli attacks by that point in the war. There was no question about who had killed them, yet the language shifted the subject to a “debate” about who was really responsible. A few weeks earlier, after an Israeli airstrike killed several Palestinian soccer fans, the Times ran the absurd title, “Missile at Beachside Gaza Cafe Finds Patrons Poised for World Cup,” later amending the headline in the face of widespread disgust expressed on social media.

Headlines matter. As studies have repeatedly shown, when it comes to reaching the general public, the words at the top of the page might be as important, if not more, than the text of articles themselves — to the chagrin of many writers. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, inappropriate, misleading, and biased headlines like those that appeared in the New York Times during 2014 Gaza War have been all too common. (...)

You might have to turn up the volume a little bit ...

.

The 10 Most Appalling Articles in the Weekly Standard’s Short and Dreadful Life

The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine founded in 1995 by William Kristol and Fred Barnes with Rupert Murdoch’s money, has expired. Its final issue will be published on Monday.

Most famous for making the case for the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, the magazine was born just one year before Murdoch created Fox News. Both outlets were extremely effective at achieving the same goals via different tactics. Fox was chum for the rubes; the Weekly Standard was chum for Ivy League rubes. Fox pushed mindless belligerence, conspiracism and a deep hatred for reality; the Weekly Standard did the same thing, but with less cleavage and more quotes from Cicero. (In 2009 Murdoch sold it to Philip Anschutz, a fellow billionaire who if anything is more conservative than Murdoch.)

Put another way, Fox was the conservative movement’s amygdala, while the Weekly Standard was its cerebrum, both driving it forward until Trump’s election proved it no longer needed any higher brain functions. But together they played a powerful role in pushing the GOP to where it stands today. (...)

Zuckerberg, in his testimony, made some comment about how he admitted that Silicon Valley was left-leaning.

We need to stop that shit right now. We need to start using the term "not right wing conservative" instead, so we acknowledge that the people running the media, the internet, a lot of the businesses in our nation, and just the folks living in America have a varied nature: moderate, liberal, and even middle of the road Republican. By framing the majority of the nation as "not you" we get to redirect the conversation away from a far-left, far-right fiction, and towards a "most of the country, and then there's you guys" sort of scenario.