|
|
|
|
|
|
by AnthonyMouse
1975 days ago
|
|
|
> That's already a very large group of people to generalize. On the other hand, it's not that large a number of entities. And the people who work there are constrained by their employers in particular ways, and choose to remain. Here's the article Greenwald quit The Intercept over: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b... To the best of my knowledge nothing in it is untruthful. The Intercept demonstrably wouldn't publish it. Which of the other institutions listed do you expect would have? Is there an instance of any of them publishing anything substantively equivalent before the election? He quotes the NYT there in several places but the articles the quotes are from are minimizing the story and even then the authors became the targets of attack for even discussing it. |
|
|
It looks like Glenn Greenwald’s business partners choose not to bet recklessly with the credibility of the publication, and in retrospect they may have choose wisely. The story was entirely under the control of Tucker Carlson and friends, and so would have been The Intercept’s brand credibility. The Intercept is far more vulnerable to missteps than Fox.
First Tucker Carlson kind of lost the files, and now he won’t show anyone the secret computer files because he thinks Hunter Biden is down on his luck, and Mr Carlson just feels so sad about it.