Thread by @willchamberlain

The Intercept claims it did not censor @ggreenwald

However, I don't know how you can fairly read Peter Maas' memo to Greenwald and not conclude that they were censoring him

greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-…

Just in the opening paragraph

Editor Peter Maas says there is material he "disagrees with, but [is] comfortable publishing"

He contrasts that with "material at the core of this draft that I think is very flawed"

And says the piece "can work" if "significantly narrowed down"

To translate: "I will not publish your piece unless you restructure your argument to my liking"

The problem is couched by Maas as omitting relevant facts

But Greenwald points out in his own response that he explicitly accounted for the facts Maas said were omitted

So to the idiots like @oliverdarcy who are saying "why does Glenn Greenwald reject being edited?"

This isn't how editing works

When you are editing in good faith, you redline specific points that you think are false/need evidentiary support

Instead Maas wrote a memo to Greenwald that basically said "we think your argument is wrong and we won't publish your piece unless you substantially narrow it"

Greenwald had a contract that insulated him from precisely this type of editorial interference

There's plenty of times as an editor for @HumanEvents where I've said "I don't like this argument and we're not publishing it"

That's absolutely my prerogative as EIC with outside contributors, and with internal writers as well

But once we've agreed to publish a piece this is not how we would ever edit

And, in effect, The Intercept had already agreed to publish anything Glenn Greenwald wrote

They could copy-edit and fact-check, sure, but they had no contractual right to spike his piece