Reads to me that Glenn flew off the handle pretty fast. Imagine this was a PR review:

Editor: Extensive feedback, but couched in a professional way

Glenn: I disagree, professionally

Glenn, a few hours later: Your review comments are solely because you are biased and you're accusing me, someone who has never made an error of making an error.

Editor-in-Chief: You're out of line.

Glenn: I quit.

Sounds like he founded The Intercept so he could write journalism free from having to adhere to political narrative that are pushed by the major news outlets of today in order to be used to promote the interests of powerful people and corporations.

They refuse to engage with him. "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" That kind of full stop to the conversation is exactly what gets people to understand they don't have a say and don't have someone who will even listen. I'd say quitting over this kind of journalistic integrity is extremely noble. How could they even request he not post his article elsewhere when he is allowed to do so. We're talking about the guy who released Edward Snowden leaks basically building the Intercept in the process and now with the overwhelming evidence that the 'laptop' stuff is true as he detailed, they all of a sudden are opposed to information leaks and claiming it's "Russia" when the photos and videos from the laptop are obviously proof that the laptop was in fact Hunter Biden's. If i was dismissed so easily about something that is integral to my profession I'd be pissed too.

That's not how I read that. They started out trying to engage. Then he sent multiple emails stating how he wouldn't change anything and was quite accusatory.

So then they responded stating the obvious that Glenn was not willing to work with them.