This is by far the most interesting piece of info to me. Greenwald seems off his rocker and I'm shocked that he is the one publishing this thinking it backs up his case. What censorship? Not once did they say this couldn't be published elsewhere.

> I have to add that your comments about The Intercept and your colleagues are offensive and unacceptable.

That's putting it gently.

Honestly looks like he was looking for a reason to leave and created his own excuse.

From his explanation:

> these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

From the emails:

> It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere.

Where's the demand? It sounds like the EIC can't even express her own opinion to Glenn

In his response, he implies that “detrimental” is a term that would carry some legal weight if they were to sue him for publishing it himself, so it’s essentially a veiled threat. If she were to actually write “I demand that you not publish this”, knowing that he might publish their email convo, it would guarantee that her words prove his point about the censorship.

Just because it's clear, straightforward, and polite doesn't mean that it is right or we should uncritically accept it.

As an example, I've read many "clear, straightforward, and polite" illegal eviction letters sent by landlords in the past few months.

Rather than deal with hypotheticals, why don't we talk about the actual e-mails in question?

If anything, Greenwald comes off as compromised by his own political biases. The editor says fairly gently that there are concerns with poorly-supported claims and omitting key information -- such as the media reporting on corruption claims and the fact that media outlets have not been given access to the supposed hard drive of emails. This results in a meandering and potentially misleading article that leads readers to conclusions it does not actually support.

They suggest a way to focus it more on core points which are well-substantiated and get a solid article out of it. They're not censoring his political views, if anything they're encouraging him to express them in an article indicting liberal media for going soft on Biden. They're trying to get a shorter, more tightly-focused article for publication. Which is to say, a more solid article.

That sounds like an editor doing their job -- editing is supposed to be the art of removing words, after all!

Greenwald sends first a polite reply, then a much less polite one that jumps to this vitriolic claim:

> I want to note clearly, because I think it's so important for obvious reasons, that this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I've been censored -- i.e., told by others that I can't publish what I believe or think

Followed by insinuations that they're suppressing the story due to their political biases. It sounds like Greenwald can't accept that there may be legitimate explanations for why the content isn't focused or solid enough.

That's downright nasty and unprofessional.

> editing is supposed to be the art of removing words, after all!

By whose definition? I always viewed the reporter–editor relationship as a continuous bi-directional thing, e.g. suggesting different angles or stylistic changes. A person who takes an author's words in a one-way direction and decides which ones I'm not allowed to see is more accurately called a "censor".

You clearly know how easy it is to take someone's words out of context and twist them into something they aren't. A good editor brings clarity and brevity.

The editor was telling Greenwald to focus on the story he could prove and tell effectively. That's not "censorship", that's good writing advice. He wanted to propagate flimsy partisan conspiracies instead.

If he wants to do that in his own name, that's fine. But he is not entitled to put the Intercept's reputation behind it.

The editor was trying to stop Greenwald to publish a story that puts in bad light the candidate preferred by mainstream media. All the rest, in those emails and here is mental masturbation, which serves to prove that even smart people decide first and find the justification later. There is nothing noble or ethical about it. This is a campaign play.