1. This article is an unedited repetitive mess, but it is a perfectly fine media criticism ⁦ @ggreenwald⁩ always does telling mainstream media why they suck. A lot of good points, some hand-waving suppositions & mostly lots of stuff I have read before https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

2. The emails from @intercept editors are also perfectly normal asks to substantively support his more hand-wavey stuff & don’t look like anything more nefarious as he claims. Frankly at this point in the relationship, it feels both sides are tired of each other & this edit dance

3. The media should endeavor to get an answer from Biden about whether the emails are real etc, but not responding to Glenn is not the smoking gun he seems to think it is. They should, they won’t and that sucks. Happens all the time. So try to get the goods another way, Glenn.

Speaking of getting the goods, um, get them. So far other really good investigative reporters have done so & have concluded there is no there there. That does not mean there is no there there, so he might do more than just raising questions he does not answer. You know, reporting

4. Speaking of reporting, this is not that, but good on him that he brings up all these media issues as others like @mtaibbi has done (frankly his piece was better — sorry Glenn!). So why not just let him publish it since it feels more media criticism that he does all the time.

5. Speaking of editing, why not let these editors do their job instead of making dramatic but questionable allegations against them. It feels very tantrumy given how much they’ve allowed this theme (the media fix is in) to be published by him. A lot. Always. Oh, that column AGAIN