Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1204125)

sounds like he believes the main stream media, the deep state weaponized by obama, entrenched bureaucrats and politicians who spend 47 years in Washington and big tech are the enemies of the American people...

welcome to the real world.....

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1204146)

Like Scott says Just like voting its not that hard

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1204170)

pete got the memo apparently

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1204165)

This outrage is entirely about an Intercept editor telling Greenwald that he just didn't have the evidence to back up all of the claims in a draft. Greenwald threw a tantrum and cried censorship, and will probably be a Faux news contributor before too long.

You're really good at the propagandistic technique of the seemingly innocent slipping in of a word that's not true or is misleading such as "entirely" when there are other and more important "about" reasons such as one of the main reasons for founding the Intercept was to free reporters from editorial censorship--the very thing which occurred when he submitted his article. And the idea that there was no evidence to back up his claims, which contractually should not have mattered, is moot since there is no evidence that his claims were false. To the contrary, the preponderance of evidence is that the Biden emails are genuine and not part of some Russian disinformation.

Greenwald repeatedly misspelled both Tony Bobulinski and Lesley Stahl's names in the column that he was so upset to have edited.

Correcting the spelling of words is not censorial editing of content. Again with the slipping in of some innocuous, irrelevant "detail" to create an air of suspicion as to Greenwald's motives.

The left and the CIA are tight, says Greenwald. And they are "set on destroying Trump".

Does the moron even know who runs the CIA?

Again, if you're referring to the video, the slipping in a word such as "are" is, for your propaganda purposes, putting things in the present tense. In the video, Greenwald clearly referred to past CIA personnel and actions.

And I don't suppose Greenwald's leaving the Intercept exactly now has anything at all to do with the massively increased scrutiny it's suddenly about to have.

It's last filing was for 2018. It's already on Covid extension time for it's nonprofit status.

More propaganda technique. Without directly making an unsubstantiated accusation, you slant in a suggestion of a "real" motive which somehow is supposed to cast a negative suspicion of everything Greenwald has said about the matter.

Meanwhile, new details of the Justice Department’s handling of the accusations against a Turkish bank reveal how President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pressured President Trump, prompting concern from top White House aides.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1204146)

The intercept. Never heard of it.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1204195)

get outta here.

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1204186)

cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.


what happen doesn't even meet how censorship is defined

1) no one suppressed him he was free to publish it no one stopped him

2) a private company is not required to run stories of any of its employees

3) being on Trucker Carlson show support claim 1 and 2

Detbuch who spoon feeds you your outrage ?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1204203)

The only censorship I mentioned was editorial censorship.

From WAPO: In a lengthy note published on Substack, Greenwald said the publication refused to publish the piece, “in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom,” 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.”


The Intercept did not publish his article because it said he needed to support his claims with evidence. But he had a "contractual right of editorial freedom." So, because of an editorial disagreement, Greenwald's article was not published. Or, as Greenwald stated, it was "suppressed" which is a form of censorship as you defined it--"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1204204)

Bob Mueller feels the same way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1204199)

he only reads BBC and watches THE VIEW :jester:

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1204204)

Bob Mueller feels the same way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1204242)

They should have agreed to print the story, then a day earlier released their talking points about what he really said.