Glenn Greenwald has on Thursday resigned from The Intercept, the publication he co-founded. At issue was Greenwald's reporting on Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the scandalous allegations of influence-peddling and shady international business dealings that emerged on Oct. 14 from the New York Post.
Greenwald wrote that "The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles."
An article that Greenwald wrote, "based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony," were "censored" by The Intercept's editors. He said that they refused to publish the article unless he removed "all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression."
As if that weren't bad enough, the editors then "demanded that [he] refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication."
Greenwald said that he had "no objection to [the editor's] disagreement with [his] views of what this Biden evidence shows," but that his primary interest is very journalistic—to present the information and let "readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would."
Greenwald wrote what many journalists and thinkers have found, that "modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it." This, he writes is why they censored his story, because it was how they felt they could best support a Biden/Harris candidacy.
Greenwald will now be publishing on Substack, along with Matt Taibbi, Jesse Singal, and others, who, as Greenwald said, "have come here in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country."
The Intercept isn't the only outlet that has banned reporting on the Biden family's alleged misdeeds. NPR not only refused to report on the story, but reported on their reasoning for not reporting on it, saying that it wasn't a story. The New York Times reported on it to say that the New York Post's reporting was shoddy, as did the Washington Post, neither of which undertook their own investigation.
Reporting from the New York Post was banned on Twitter, and the laptop from which the information sprang was alleged to be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This was proven false by the FBI, yet the allegations remain that the story about story about dodgy Hunter Biden is dodgy in itself.
"...the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept," Greenwald wrote.
"These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom." He said that he had originally entered the realm of political reporting "with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression."
"...regardless of the risks involved," he writes that he "simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces [him] to submit [his] journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates."
As Greenwald says, the story should be reported, without censorship or bias, in order that Americans can make up their own minds. Greenwald joins other writers who have left their outlets over similar concerns, including Bari Weiss at The New York Times, and Andrew Sullivan at New York Magazine.