So your argument is that Greenwald's latest submission should be treated specially because he founded The Intercept as a media outlet where his submissions aren't treated specially?

Ironically, he co-founded TheIntercept by fear of being censored by editors in big media. TheIntercept sells Greenwald’s reputation to fund the editors who are politely censoring him. His resignation speaks volume of his integrity.

No, my argument is that he had the choice to override his editors, and that his choice to instead resign instead of corrupting the editorial process is noble.

> He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor.

He may or may not have some contractual guarantee of independence, but his own statement of the situation indicates that he and his cofounders deliberately chose not to have the authority and responsibility that goes with running the show but to leave that to others so that they could keep being reporters.

That's an incredibly low bar for praise.

Only if you choose to be blind to the relationship between most "journalism" outlets, their owners, and the types of stories they publish.

If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes, or that Murdoch influences what Fox writes, indirectly or directly, you're not looking hard enough.

> If you don't think Bezos influences what WaPo writes

For example, "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours": https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-storie...

Unfortunately for investigative journalism the bar is low.

It's like being the trash-man or cleaning the sewers of the information pipes. No one wants to do it. And of the few that do it have most interests and publish lies or predigested material spoon fed to them by their boss.

> He ought to (and I imagine, he does) have seniority on any editor.

> His submissions aren't treated specially. It's not his mouthpiece.

These two statements are contradictory.

No, they are not.

I am saying that while he is in a superior position at an organizational level, and thus has the authority to seize any responsibility he would like, he is noble for respecting the responsibilities he has delegated to his editors and not doing so.

> he is noble for respecting the responsibilities he has delegated to his editors and not doing so.

He quit rather than allow them to perform those responsibilities. That's not respect.

He quit rather then override them. That is respect.

It could be respect, or it could just be the realization that he could not take such actions without them coming to light, and that would likely be the death of his reputation as a serious journalists.

I think they got it right when they set up the intercept. A journalist without an editor is hard to distinguish from a blogger. Part of the editors job is to say no. Sometimes, "not yet, this isn't ready". Sometimes "no, this isn't good enough". I suppose sometimes also "no, we aren't that publication" which is more problematic.

You can never really be your own editor.

Or it could be respect. Are you going through life assuming the worst of everybody? Or this is only for a subset of Americans?

If someone quits their job in a huff because they don’t like what their boss told them, it’s not because they respect their boss. I don’t know why you think that’s a thing, but it isn’t.

Believe me, this happens all the time. You dont want to know what the non-respectful options are.

The respectful option is just doing your job, not posting internet diatribes.

You are confusing respectful with servile

You're confusing servile with having an ounce of professionalism.

It could be, as I said.