Intercept Staffers Roll Their Eyes Over Glenn Greenwalds Censorship Claim

Glenn Greenwald had the freedom to publish almost anything he wanted at The Intercept. Then he cried censorship.

REUTERS

Glenn Greenwald officially left The Intercept on Thursday, complaining of censorship and heavy-handed editing.

For his part, Greenwald said no one at The Intercept ever raised concerns to him that he was violating the companys social-media guidelines, which he said he wouldnt have followed anyway because he disagreed with them.

Furthermore, Greenwalds frequent Fox News appearancesespecially on white nationalist-friendly Tucker Carlsons primetime showwere a source of concern for newsroom leaders. Staff felt that Greenwalds distaste for liberals, centrists, and mainstream media allowed him to become a useful stooge for the network, where his appearances frequently focused on bashing Democrats, former Obama intelligence officials, and Foxs media rivals. It was one thing to appear on the Murdoch-owned network; it was quite another to play hype man to its most toxic Trump cheerleader.

Reed said she did not discourage his frequent appearances on Carlsons show, but acknowledged that Greenwalds Fox News regularity was definitely a source of real tension and concern.

I take seriously the issues of freedom of expression, Reed said. I also know that had I ever told him not to appear on Tucker Carlson, that would be the one surefire way he could be booked for the next opportunity. In terms of navigating it, it was difficult. It also really exposes hypocrisy of his claim to be censored by the media when he has a regular slot appearing on one of the highest-rated shows on cable television.

Greenwald told ishonest that the only people he ever spoke to at The Intercept about appearing on Fox were two of his former outlets highest-profile reporters, Jeremy Scahill and Mehdi Hasan, both of whom argued against it. I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions, Greenwald said.

Greenwald admitted that Fox News airs plenty of horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted content. But he claimed there was value, nevertheless, in making appearances on the network. In addition to discussing issues that he was interested inincluding criticism of the mainstream press, Democrats, and American intelligence officialsGreenwald said that he felt he has brought Tucker along on skepticism of the CIA, and has been able to use his Fox News platform to advocate for a pardon of Edward Snowden and to criticize Brazils far-right president Jair Bolsonaro.

He added: I have criticized Fox, maybe not as much as other people would like, but part of the reason is I feel that right-wing media has done a much better job at reporting on the prime scandal of the Trump era, which is Russiagate. Asked by ishonest if he believed that Russiagate was a bigger scandal than the Trump administrations serial mishandling of the deadly coronavirus pandemic, Greenwald clarified that he meant that coverage of Russian interference dominated the news cycle for much longer than COVID-19.

Greenwalds tensions with the newsroom were kept mostly within the organization until his angry resignation letter went live. Many one-time colleagues began publicly criticizing his censorship claim as factually inaccurate, hypocritical, or overwrought.

Greenwald seemed aware of these charges, and couldnt resist another opportunity to take a swipe at his former colleagues. In an interview with The Hill on Friday, he remarked that if he were motivated by money, he wouldve stayed at The Intercept, which paid him a generous salary, helped pay for his private security and legal costs, and paid his assistant.

The Intercept is a place probably more so than anywhere else in media where you make an obscene amount of money, not just me, for doing very little if you want, he said.

He added: People there are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they make very little. No one reads what they write, it doesnt matter, theyre going to be there for life if they want. Same with me: I was making a huge salary, and on top of that huge salary I was making, the Intercept pays my assistant, it pays its huge team of very expensive lawyers in Brazil I have to have to fight off the criminal case that is still pending.

In a subsequent conversation with ishonest, Greenwald said that his Substack subscriptions amounted to between $300,000 and $400,000, figures that were substantially less than just my salary at the Intercept, which was around $500,000. Greenwald estimated that in addition to his salary, the Intercept covered about $300,000 in costs related to legal fees and protection.

Of course when you work on high-pressured and high-stake stories over many months, youre going to have disagreements with colleagues about how to do the reportingthe same was true during the Snowden story, he said. But just as I left the Guardian with great regard and excellent relations with my colleagues with whom I reported, I continue to be very good friends with the senior editorial staff at The Intercept Brasil, in large part because of the bonds we formed doing that reporting.

Ultimately, many staffers had mixed emotions about Greenwalds tenure, and the legacy he left behind at The Intercept. They felt his public spats, his social media antagonism, and his Fox News appearances had in recent years unfortunately overshadowed the strong investigative work that he (and they) produced.

Glenn has repeatedly shown his value in the world of journalism and political debate and rhetoric, Maass said. The Glenn Greenwald weve seen recently isn't contributing something positive. I honestly hope he will."

Read more on: thedailybeast, claim