Thread by @kgosztola

When Glenn Greenwald announced resignation from The Intercept, he mentioned one of episodes contributing to decision involved refusal to "report on daily proceedings of Assange extradition hearing because freelance reporter doing an outstanding job was politically distasteful."

At this moment, I do not know if this is me (though I emailed and sent DMs asking Glenn to clarify).

I did ask Glenn multiple times over the past year if The Intercept needed a reporter to cover Julian Assange's case and if they were willing to hire or collaborate with me.

This was a private exchange, but it has become a public issue with Glenn's resignation. So I will add some details. Hopefully, Glenn will confirm at some point who this "freelance reporter" was that individuals at the Intercept found to be "politically distasteful."

On December 19, 2019, I asked Glenn since we go back to the days of Firedoglake if the Intercept had anyone covering the February hearing.

"Let me ask Betsy—we should definitely have someone," Glenn replied.

In January, I checked in because I never received an answer. I wasn't even told, "Sorry, we won't be able to work with you."

I covered the February hearing, and throughout, Glenn was kind enough to boost my reporting.

With the one-week Assange hearing in February drawing to an end, I asked Glenn if he was interested in working out "some kind of an arrangement for the pivotal May-June hearing" because it would involve witnesses. (COVID delayed trial to September.)

I received no response.

"Hey - how is the Assange trial working re: press credentials? We want to get someone to cover it for us," Glenn wrote in a direct message on September 7.

It was first day of the trial. I was a bit surprised that the Intercept waited til first day to try and obtain credential.

I replied, "Hey, good to hear from you. I don't know if the court is accepting further applications for credentials. I'm fortunate to have remote access."

Because I filed an application urging court to make court feed available to journos before any arrangement was announced.

I came out and asked, "Any particular reason that Intercept has refused to hire me? I've offered multiple times to cover case for The Intercept. I have a credential. But you've never shared anything about why this hasn't worked out, and you clearly could use the coverage now."

To this, Glenn replied, "I'm totally in favor of it but I don't make these decisions."

I added, "Understand. And I have a routine so it may work best to stick with how I have my coverage organized."

Trial started so it didn't make too much sense to press the issue. I had work to do.

Once more, Glenn was generous enough to boost my coverage. He even mentioned my name on #UsefulIdiots when calling out the Intercept for not having a reporter at Assange trial.

I have kind things to say about Micah Lee, who referenced my coverage in the only report on the trial that appeared while it was still unfolding in September.
theintercept.com/2020/09/30/ass…

Ryan Grim was nice enough to invite me on the "Deconstructed" podcast toward the end of the Assange trial.

He gave me a platform to share my reporting on the trial with many more people. For that, I remain grateful. theintercept.com/2020/10/02/dec…

I don't know if it is true that anyone at The Intercept thinks I am "politically distasteful" because I don't know if Glenn was referring to me. I may never know, but if I find out, I'll update this thread.

That said, I do harbor some resentment.

Millions read The Intercept daily. That millions were deprived of opportunity to read my coverage (or someone else's coverage) of one of biggest trials of the century is upsetting because it means they left a void establishment media filled with sensationalistic coverage.

So much is at stake in the Assange case. Of all the media outlets that exist, one would think The Intercept editors would recognize and move heaven and earth to get a reporter to cover each day of proceedings. But they did not.

I benefited from the decision The Intercept made. It meant I did not have to compete against their reporting. So, let's be clear about that. However, the job of informing the public on this case is greater because The Intercept abdicated a responsibility their founders seized.

Finally, I received some clarification from Glenn. He was referring to me and says he did not use my name for my protection. It's unclear who he recalls expressing this sentiment.

For the record: "Politically distasteful" are Glenn's words, not a quote from anyone at The Intercept. It's possible one or two in TI management feel this way. But by and large, several TI journalists probably respect my work—and I respect what they do as well.