United Kingdom

Glenn Greenwald posts anti-Biden article The Intercept refused to publish

Glenn Greenwald on Thursday night. He resigned from The Intercept 

Glenn Greenwald has posted the article The Intercept refused to publish in which he slams the media for their 'obvious' bias towards Joe Biden and has also released the emails with his editors in which they told him to edit the piece to make it less suggestive that Biden has ever acted unethically. 

Greenwald resigned from The Intercept- the website he co-founded - this week after a row over the article. 

It started with a recent story by The New York Post about Hunter Biden, his emails to a Ukrainian businessman and the suggestion that Hunter introduced that businessman to his father Joe when Joe was the Vice President, at a time when Hunter was also on the businessman's payroll.  

It raises serious questions about whether Biden used his influence as Vice President unethically because, in the months after the purported meeting, he pressured Ukrainian officials into firing a prosecutor who was pushing down on the businessman. 

Facebook and Twitter censored the Post's article within days, claiming invariably that it needed to be fact-checked and that it didn't meet policy standards. Twitter is now allowing people to share it again but Facebook is not and it has offered no explanation. 

Even though neither Joe nor Hunter have denied the emails' authenticity, no journalists have aggressively taken either of them to task over the story.

Greenwald wanted to use the chain of events to highlight how the media has become biased but his editors, Betsy Reed and Peter Maas, rejected a first draft of it, calling for it to be revised and edited down. 

Specifically, they said he needed to tone down any suggestion that Biden had acted corruptly.  

Greenwald refused then resigned, sharing a blog post on the subject.  On Thursday night, he published the unedited article in full on Substack. 

He has also published his email exchanges with Reed and Maas, where he says his work should not become subject to the 'whims' of editors. 

The article, which can be read in full here, says the bigger scandal than the emails themselves is the media's 'clear' bias.

It is titled 'THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS'.  

Greenwald published the unedited article on a blog on Thursday night. This is his introduction to it

It maps out how the media has become so 'eager' for Biden to win that journalists are 'ignoring' vital pieces of information and stories. 

'In the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them,' Greenwald wrote. 

He called Facebook and Twitter's censorship of the story 'highly unusual' and pointed out that Facebook's decision, at least, seemed to have been made by a 'long-time former Democratic Party operative'. 

He was referring to their communications director Andy Stone who announced the decision on Facebook. 

Greenwald then singled out journalists for refusing to discuss or report on the story. 

The emails were revealed along with photos of Biden's son Hunter, among other things, with a crack pipe in his mouth

He mentioned 60 Minutes reporter Leslie Stahl and CNN's Christiane Amanpour, both of whom said on air that they can't be verified and that is why they shouldn't report on them, even though no one, including the Bidens, has claimed that they are fake. 

He also made the point that no such standard was applied to The New York Times' vilification of Trump's taxes in 2016. 

'That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. 

'In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and -- despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its contents,' he writes. 

Greenwald said the truth of the matter was that 'these journalists are desperate not to know' about anything that could harm Biden's election chances. 

'A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. 

'And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored....

'The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years — cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. 

Greenwald singled out journalists Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour as among those who have refused to properly question the Biden emails, saying on air that they can't be validated

Greenwald also shared snippets from other articles where journalists say there is no proof Russia was involved in the emails being released, despsite suggesting as much

'One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.' 

In his first response to Greenwald's draft, his editor Peter Maas told him that 'significant revisions' were needed. 

'Glenn, I have carefully read your draft and there is some I agree with and some I disagree with but am comfortable publishing.

'However, there is some material at the core of this draft that I think is very flawed. 

 'A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence.

'Overall I think this piece can work best if it is significantly narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy — media criticism about liberal journalists not asking Biden the questions he should be asked more forcefully, and why they are failing to do that.

'Betsy agrees with me that the draft’s core problem is the connection it often asserts or assumes between the Hunter Biden emails and corruption by Joe Biden,' he said. 

He went on to say that Greenwald made 'vague' remarks about certain aspects of Biden's business dealings, and that the piece should focus more on media bias. 

'I think the draft could work if it is revised and shortened to focus on the sections about liberal media bias, about Joe Biden not being directly asked questions as much as he should (using your submitted questions to center that), and how all of this contributed to sub-optimal amounts of reporting on the corruption allegations, which, although they aren’t backed by any evidence implicating Joe Biden himself, nonetheless reveal greater detail about how his family has used his name for profit. 

'This version could be around 2000 words, which is enough to cover the ground I’ve outlined here. I realize that I’m asking for a significant revision, but it’s what I believe the draft needs, and Betsy concurs.

'Please let me know what you think. Bests, Peter,' he signed off. 

Some of editor Peter Maas' response to Greenwald about his article where he told him to 'narrow it down' to make fewer suggestions that Biden had actually acted corruptly 

Greenwald replied, refusing to make the suggested edits because he said they were core to the piece. 

'Hi Peter - Thanks for reviewing this promptly.

'I don't agree that the sections regarding the serious questions raised by the emails that Biden should have to answer are either unnecessary or inaccurate. 

'While I'm willing to talk about any specific factual inaccuracies you think are present, I'm not willing to remove those sections -- in part because I think that discussion is important in its own right, but also because the discussion of why the media should be pursuing this story more aggressively, and why they were wrong to try to bury it, requires demonstrating that there's a real story here that deserves coverage,' he said.

He goes on to say he was 'careful' in his presentation of the facts and that he does not, anywhere, suggest there is proof of Biden acting unethically. 

'But if the Intercept's position is that it won't publish any article by me that suggests that there are valid questions about whether Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing, then I think we should agree that the Intercept's position is that it is unwilling to publish the article I want to publish about the Democratic front-runner. 

'Under my contract, if TI decides it does not want to publish something I want to publish, then I have the right to publish it elsewhere, which is a right I would exercise with this article.

'Given the obvious time urgency of the article with the election approaching, I'd appreciate you're letting me know ASAP about what you want to do. Thanks,

'Glenn,' he said. 

Greenwald then sent another the following morning to emphasize his point. 

Greenwald says the media is 'eager' for Biden to win 

In that email, he argued: 'This is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored -- i.e., told by others that I can't publish what I believe or think -- and it's happening less than a week before a presidential election, and this censorship is being imposed by editors who eagerly want the candidate I'm writing about critically to win the election.

'I'm not saying your motive or anyone else's is a desire to suppress critical reporting about the Democratic presidential candidate you support in order to help him win. I obviously can't know your internal motives. 

'It could be that your intense eagerness for Biden to win -- shared by every other TI editor in New York -- colors your editorial judgment (just as it's possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine) '. 

He called it 'disturbing and extreme' that the editors wanted to make so many changes. 

'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,' he fumed. 

Greenwald did not publish any response from Maas. He shared what Reed said in response.  

'Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. 

'However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article, as we had hoped.

'It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere.

Greenwald tendered his resignation afterwards, and published a blog post on the subject. 

He has since gone on Fox News, claiming the CIA and the Democrats are 'in bed' to boost Biden's election chances and thwart Trump's. 

'The CIA and the deep state operative became heroes of the liberal left, the people who support the democratic party. They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush Cheney operatives, the CIA, silicon valley and Wall Street.

'That is the union of power, along with along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the democratic party which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that's a very alarming proposition because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light,' he told Tucker Carlson on Thursday night.   

Intercept Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed's full response to Greenwald post 

'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 Joe Biden will suffice to refute those claims.

'The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies - all of them designed to make him appear 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 bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign's - the Trump campaign's - dubious claims and launder them as journalism. 

'We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept. 

'The defining feature of The Intercept's work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington DC, New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission - a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process. 

'We have no doubts 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. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts and The Intercept record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.' 

Football news:

Why is soccer called soccer in the United States (and not only there)? Is it true that this name was invented by the British?
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer: We look at Manchester United through the lens of history. We want to attack and dominate
Koeman on the crisis: We must help Barca in the name of our love for her. We need to think about what's best for the club
Bayer midfielder Bailey named son Leo Cristiano: This has nothing to do with football at all
Tuchel after 2:2 with Bordeaux: I always protect the players, but I refuse to do this. You can't play matches of this level
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer: Any decision I make is for the good of Manchester United. The main thing is the result
Mourinho on Tottenham: We don't have the same conditions as some clubs. They create a crazy market