The Agora: Week 6
Dear Readers—
As I am hopelessly addicted to the perfect bubble that is my Twitter feed, it is easy for me to feel like I am part of a unified front. A coalition of cynical socialists, slightly tiresome anarchists, and starry-eyed progressives make up the majority of the political side of my Twitter feed. While there is a fair amount of squabbling to be found about intra-left issues, my feed is almost always united behind the same political positions in the US political scene. You can imagine, then, that it took me by surprise when, a few days ago, I found my feed at war with itself over the issue of Glenn Greenwald’s resignation from The Intercept due to allegations of censorship.
Greenwald claimed that the site’s editors had forbidden him from publishing an article critical of Joe Biden and his son’s dealings in the Ukraine simply because they didn’t want to publish articles that could negatively affect the Biden campaign. On the other side, the editors claimed that they were doing their duty as critical thinkers and as journalists by asking for major changes to this piece, as they say, that the information Greenwald was relying on was unverified. While this story is in itself interesting, it also represents a type of story that seems to come out more and more often these days. One side claims it’s a story about censorship, the expansion of the security state, and the partisanship of the media, while the other claims it’s a story about truth vs. lies, and the influence of Russia in the affairs of the United States.
While I had originally planned on writing Part Two of my piece on the Nuclear Family this week, I decided that due to this story’s ramifications—and due to the moment we are living in—I would push this to the future and instead present two sides of the Glenn Greenwald story, in keeping with the stated mission of the Agora. First I will present a brief overview of the Intercept’s stated purpose, Glen Greenwald’s background, and the background of the general media environment that we live in currently. After doing this, I will include brief arguments on whether or not Greenwald is the right, and is a victim of partisan censorship, or is in the wrong, and is a diva who merely sought media attention.
Glenn Greenwald is an American journalist and author, who wrote for such news outlets as The Guardian and Salon before founding his own company—The Intercept—in 2014. Founded on the idea that reporters needed a dedicated site that would protect them and publish their work if they were blackballed by the mainstream press, the ideals of The Intercept were based on the problems Greenwald faced in his reporting career. Known primarily for breaking the Edward Snowden case to the world, Greenwald has also done truly excellent reporting on the corruption within the Bolsonaro government in Brazil, on US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the bias within most mainstream news sources. For much of the 2010’s, he was revered on the American left as an intrepid investigative reporter who brought to light many of the misdeeds of the bloated US security state. However, due to many of his doubts around the Russia controversy, and his association with some figures whom most of the left deem horrible, there is an increasing divide between those who associate themselves with Greenwald and those who don’t.
Argument #1: Glenn Greenwald should have been able to publish his piece on Hunter Biden in its entirety:
In a matter such as this one, the major questions that we need to answer are the following: Was the information that Glenn wanted to publish factual?, Did the editorial staff infringe on Glenn’s right to publish factual information?, If the editorial staff did infringe on that right, was it due to political reasons? Although many US intelligence officials signed a letter claiming that the Hunter Biden information was a Russian counter-operation campaign, in his reporting Glenn Greenwald has claimed that this story has not been investigated enough, and been shut down wherever it has been investigated. As he (and many leftists like him) are incredibly skeptical of the US security establishment, it seems natural to distrust intelligence officials whose intentions are unclear, and whose record is abysmal. It seems clear to me that if the information is found to be definitely false—which can be done through journalistic efforts like Greenwald’s—then of course no journalist should publish. But if the information turns out to be true—or if there is an honest disagreement about the validity—then journalists should publish no matter the political consequences. While there is a fair amount of information we are not privy to, the emails that have been shared between Greenwald and the editors simply show two opposing worldviews. Greenwald is committed to uncovering the truth above all else, while his editors are far more committed to serving as pass-blockers for the Biden campaign. It should not, and never will be the job of honest journalists to protect a political campaign, and in this case (no matter the political consequences) it is crucial that Greenwald stood up for basic journalistic principles. Glenn Greenwald is in the right.
Argument #2: Glenn Greenwald should not have been able to publish his piece on Hunter Biden in its entirety.
It seems incredibly obvious to all thinkers and analysts that while Glenn Greenwald has done some good work, in this case, he is simply aiding and abetting both the Trump Administration and the Russian State. Choosing to report on highly flawed intelligence which could do irreparable damage to US democracy while failing to report on the evidence against the Intelligence is akin to a journalistic “high crime or misdemeanor.” The editors in this case acted with civility, poise, and logic, while Greenwald was simply looking for a fight. In a misguided crusade against the mainstream media, he has sought to have a moment that could galvanize his supporters, and in this, he got his wish and found it. It is clear as day that this is all a big media stunt for Greenwald, who is now thinking about starting a new media business—likely to be funded by the very same people he just galvanized. In choosing to report on fraudulent information, and jumping to such an extreme reaction when editors presented him with clear and present problems in his piece, it is obvious what Glenn Greenwald’s motives are, and why he did what he did. It is clear that Glenn Greenwald is in the wrong.
Though the two sides may be radically divergent (and probably far more nuanced) they do agree on a few basic facts. That “the fourth estate” is paramount to a free society, that editorial freedom is important, and that in-depth analysis of evidence is paramount to good journalism. In our own lives, it is important to analyze the motivations and perspectives of journalists, publications, and editors, if we want to call ourselves informed and dedicated citizens.
On an entirely different note—to our readers over the age of 18—please go vote. Bold, progressive change is needed, and it is needed immediately. The world is on fire, sick with disease, and growing poorer by the day. We need change, and we need it now.
Please, vote on November 3rd.