Editors and authors share the creative "ownership" of an article. Here, they did actually come up with a somewhat satisfying compromise (the note), although punting the difficult decisions to the reader is somewhat cheap.
FWIW I probably agree more with the editor than the author. Yet I found their note rather obnoxious, and the author missed an easy chance to score a point for his "side".
The final decision not to publish an article including the disagreement was the author's. It was him who wanted only his side in the article, not the editor. So I don't quite see the scandal he makes out.
(In any case, it's insane how people are unable to entertain the theory that Assange is both an important and positive figure in the fight for privacy, as well as a creepy misogynist with the sort if psychological issues required for that self-imposed martyrdom in the embassy.)
This seems so clear and easily understandable: news media are owned by elites/corporations who use media to get their way in just about everything.
Part of the benefit of owning and controlling news media is: avoid letting the public know inconvenient truths (1), the ability to affect election results, and the ability to split the population into more easily controlled groups (e.g., Democrats and Republicans in the USA).
The elites have won, game over. Hopefully they will have some self control over their greed and leave us sufficient crumbs so we can at least have a civil society.
(1) this was Assange’s crime, letting the public know things that the elites of the world did not want to become common knowledge.
On the one hand, the author is taking the high road. Good for him. He has principles, and sticks by them.
On the other hand, you are completely and utterly correct. There are people in the publishing industry that should have never been allowed into their position. This editor sounds like a prime candidate for charges of moral cowardice and partisan opinions unbecoming a member of the “free press”.
Readit News
FWIW I probably agree more with the editor than the author. Yet I found their note rather obnoxious, and the author missed an easy chance to score a point for his "side".
The final decision not to publish an article including the disagreement was the author's. It was him who wanted only his side in the article, not the editor. So I don't quite see the scandal he makes out.
(In any case, it's insane how people are unable to entertain the theory that Assange is both an important and positive figure in the fight for privacy, as well as a creepy misogynist with the sort if psychological issues required for that self-imposed martyrdom in the embassy.)
Dead Comment
Part of the benefit of owning and controlling news media is: avoid letting the public know inconvenient truths (1), the ability to affect election results, and the ability to split the population into more easily controlled groups (e.g., Democrats and Republicans in the USA).
The elites have won, game over. Hopefully they will have some self control over their greed and leave us sufficient crumbs so we can at least have a civil society.
(1) this was Assange’s crime, letting the public know things that the elites of the world did not want to become common knowledge.
This says it all.
On the other hand, you are completely and utterly correct. There are people in the publishing industry that should have never been allowed into their position. This editor sounds like a prime candidate for charges of moral cowardice and partisan opinions unbecoming a member of the “free press”.