Glenn Greenwald helped co-found The Intercept in 2013.

Well, it was a good seven years.

As Greenwald wrote on his personal site,

"The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove 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."

I suppose he could just publish the story elsewhere.

"…these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication."

Oh, okay. How about both sides lay out their cases in The Intercept and permit the readers to decide for themselves? Sound fair?

"I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose."

Oh, okay, that makes sense now that I've been told what to believe. Besides, the story doesn't exist. Nor does the laptop, eyewitness, emails, and texts.

That's how we know it's a sham story. The people who are not allowing us to read anything about it tell us so!

Thank you media elites, what would we do without you? Probably have to think or something.

That sounds hard.