Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Glenn Greenwald Leaves The Intercept" video.

If you read the email exchange, you'd know the editors agreed with including the stuff about the media jumping on the "Russia" angle but also cited problems with Glenn's argument, like how are news outlets supposed to verify the contents if the hard drive isn't available to them? Only the WSJ and the tabloid Glenn calls a "newspaper," The NY Post, had copies.
4
@bernman23 Oh, so Glenn is a useful idiot for ultra conservativism and fascism for free. You're right. That's so much better. "People like you." In the words of Andrew Neil, if you only knew how ridiculous that statement was, you wouldn't have said it.
4
@LukoHevia Maybe Tucker'll have you on so you can whinge about it too.
3
@JulietTango And that has been reported on. Glenn even cites that work. And neither the WSJ nor the NYT has been able to make a scandal of it; only that tabloid, the Post, despite a dearth of smoke, has been able to claim fire.
3
@duaneslack8516 Lol you're an actual moron. Nice try though.
3
I've read all the materials, and while Glenn is right about them violating his contract, his article had a lot flaws, and he was unwilling to budge because he has made some personal crusade against the Democrats. It sounds like he wanted to quit anyway and this was the proverbial straw. And it is a straw.
3
@bernman23 Glenn is so opposed to corporate media he went directly on to Fox News and whined to Tucker about it.
3
@LeftIsBest001 If you disagree with me, you're also disagreeing with his editor. Peter Maass wrote: "I think it’s totally right to point out the haste with which some journalists and experts are talking about Russia’s hand." The fact is journalists have for a long time printed as fact unsupported assertions by CIA and other intelligence operatives - people whose career is lying. The press should not be stenographers for Langley. However, that doesn't mean that Glenn shouldn't have also accounted for how the information was being used - perhaps through selective release - by Giuliani and company. But those are two different things. If the information is accurate and of public interest, it should be reported and not pre-defended by the press. Glenn wants to ignore that that material has been reported on; he thinks it should be front page news when it isn't.
3
I've seen a few twitter threads of all the MAGA chuds and recent Trump converts (thanks, Glenn!) posting their support for him on substack.
2
After reading the article, the email exchange, his post, and the editors' post, my sense is that he's making way too big of a deal about this and crying about how much the "New York" editors love Biden makes him look like a petulant child. The editors had a fair assessment of the draft. But he's technically correct; they violated his contract. The article itself struck me as that combination of analysis, cutthroat critique, grandstanding, amateur generalization, tunnel vision, and speculative allegation which has always been a feature of Glenn's writing. Go back and look at his PRISM reporting. He was absolutely right about the media's rush to label the leaks "Russian disinformation." It's a shame he didn't want that to be the thesis. What was most surprising to me is his allegation in the emails (which I'm sure he wrote knowing he'd make them public) that the editors Peter and Betsy threw him under the bus on the Reality Winner fiasco. If true, that alone would've been grounds for quitting in huff.
2
Meat Grinder Mike ...He literally started his own newspaper and in his contract gave himself control of his work. How fucking dumb are you? Holy crap.
2
@lokomk9725 What if Hunter did invoke his father's name to land deals, something Sam concedes almost immediately?
2
@alexjarmes7226 As a longtime Glenn reader, he's not to the left of Jimmy. Jimmy's just stupid, and he sees a trigger word like "corruption" and jumps on it. Glenn is probably right when he says he doesn't have a political label. He's got some libertarian views, socially liberal views, he's a giant dork for the constitution, has a history of ragging on the left, distrusts government...I think he just likes sounding as principled and contrarian as possible.
2
@JulietTango I don't follow. I'm sorry.
1
@nagulf Sorry what?
1
@nagulf Yeah, exactly. All the things I listed are serious flaws. Exactly.
1
@nagulf ...yes I did.
1
@nagulf I gave a bunch listed above. Are you playing dumb, or is this your default level of stupid?
1
@nagulf There. I posted it a couple extra times so not even you could miss it
1
@nagulf You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
1
@nagulf How am I supposed to quote Glenn when he's omitting information? I pointed to three major flaws. 1) He claims, "nothing demonstrates that Shokhin [sic] was impeding investigations into Burisma," but that's false. And I gave multiple sources of evidence, not "received opinion," to support that. 2) Throughout the article he engages in a motte and bailey where he rages against journalists for not investigating Biden's alleged corruption (motte) but when forced to admit that in fact they have investigated it and found nothing, he retreats to a position where no one is alleging Biden's involvement in corruption (bailey), whereupon he scurries back out to the motte position. And his main tactic to support his argument is to omit key information. As I said already, I can't quote that because the point is Glenn neglected to write anything about it in the first place. 3) He credulously repeats the story of how Giuliani obtained the hard drive without mentioning any of the inconsistencies. He can say the origin of the source doesn't matter, but he doesn't have to take at face value a suspicious story to make that point. I also provided evidence to support that, not "received opinion." I also have 5 quotes from his article, so you need to practice your reading comprehension. Or maybe get your eyes checked.
1
@jordonstatton6344 Read the emails. Peter Maass didn't object to Glenn's framing of the media lapping up the Russian disinformation angle.
1
Usually quotation marks contain something that was actually said.
1
@jordonstatton6344 Do I have to spoon this to you?
1
@jordonstatton6344 I guess so. The Martin (not Martian) Aspen story is separate from the laptop material, and the revelation of his false identity came out yesterday - after Glenn wrote the article, which doesn't mention Aspen that I can recall, after his exchange with his editors, after he quit, and I think even after he posted the story of his termination. So unless Glenn has a time machine, I don't see how your non sequitur gotcha has any relevance. Even if Glenn had known about the false identity, it wouldn't have mattered; he was covering a different story. You also didn't acknowledge the fact that the alarm was sounded about Russian disinformation despite no evidence supporting their involvement beyond CIA hearsay. Here's Glenn's editor, Peter Maass: "I think it’s totally right to point out the haste with which some journalists and experts are talking about Russia’s hand." Moreover Martin Aspen (Chris Balding) was not working with the Russian government but with an anti-Chinese government Hong Kong tabloid called Apple Daily. So, like, what is even your point? Our disagreement isn't over whether journalists should blindly accept the word of CIA operatives - they shouldn't - but that Glenn's recrimination of journalists for doing so was NOT a motivation for the edits. Peter agreed with that angle; in fact, his edits would've made it a bigger focus in the article.
1