Lee Fang, Mehdi Hasan
I hope Naomi Klein hasn't been infected with their brainworms
The Intercept has fantastic reporting, no matter what brainworms some of their contributors have.
They have good domestic reporting and dogshit international reporting.
Not surprising because the site is some weird combination of late oughts libertarianism and late teens social democratic politics
I would agree with you, but it's impossible to decouple brainworms from reporting considering that the brainworms are not blocked by their editorial staff
They just broke the Alex Morse smear job story. A man's life would be ruined by a homophobic smear campaign and one of the shittiest democrats would sail to reelection if not for The Intercept. Their reporting is valuable.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, and that's good reporting for that story, I'm trying to stress that people shouldn't consider them trustworthy without knowing how shit they can also be.
You could make the same argument about corporate news like NYT or WaPo, they do good reporting too and also have shit takes on a regular basis
I was typing a response to this and i got a new message and my messages reloaded and it disappeared and i HATE this fucking feature
Sorry comrade, I agree it makes using this site impossible sometimes
fwiw, the most reasonable take for users here to get from our discussions is probably somewhere in between our takes: heed their reporting, but be wary of their editorials and contributors' opinions
I was saying in the original response that the difference is that NYT or WaPo's purpose is to protect the power of capital and launder Imperial crimes, while The Intercept has been a thorn in the side of Capital power. The takes of either one's individual contributors are sort of irrelevant
Yeah, idk, while that's true for nyt/wapo, it's blindness to ignore the takes of their contributors. In the end, you can read them if you like, but the biases of the people who work there should still be taken into account.
Just fucking consume media critically, why do people on this lib site think that an outlet producing bad content or having dumb people involved with it means you just throw the entire thing in the trash.
If you think reading a publication means you have to adopt all the opinions of every person who writes for it you are never going to find what you're looking for.
Yeah, a more appropriate title might have been "Intercept Contributors have some serious brainworms" or something, but I can't take it back now.
Better for people to know about bad takes and consider that in the same thought as the intercept's reporting record, since that will likely lead people to be more instinctively cautious, than if they didn't know/think about the bad takes.
Eh, fair enough. I've definitely seen the kind of sentiment I'm talking about elsewhere though.
Oh for sure, it's absolutely a strong knee jerk reaction given that political activity in the US can easily begin and end with "being informed", so what news (rather than how the news is approached) becomes a part of one's identity.
It's impossible to distinguish a "cancel" from satire, irony, troll, or well-intentioned naivete.
Shooting people in the leg, idk
Maybe Fang saw Biden stuck in a loop, just saying "union jobs" with no explanation or implementation strategy and came a little
the standards are so low that when biden speaks clear and understandable platitudes its mistaken for policy and reforms.
There's a point in what he's saying but it's actually not what he's trying to say, which is activist left does need to refine it's messaging to working class and poor people. That doesn't mean Biden's focus group approved BS is "better" and obviously lmao at noted social democrat Joseph Robinette Biden.
Right, being able to explain radical concepts without theory is necessary to getting people to flip.
I've found that it works better in person to person conversation than online (which tends towards pithy statements and blunts nuance).
yeah god forbid someone running for president talk about policy. it's as if there's empty platitudes or tumblr rants, nothing else.
You don't even have to look at their contributors to be suspicious of The Intercept. It's funded by billionaire (and founder of eBay) Pierre Omidyar. Billionaires don't invest in media ventures out of the kindness of their heart; they do it because there is power in being able to shape narratives and control the flow of information.
Michael Tracey literally tweeted the exact same thing. Who’s handing out press kits with the phrase “plain spoken patriotism”?
Literally talking about a phantom in his head, what fucking "sOCiaL DeMocRaTic" reforms?
Scahill is still good, right? I know Greenwald has some shitty takes that basically amount to political compass liberalism but at least he doesn't buy into the neo-McCarthyism coming out of the center-right
Yeah, Scahill is the only one there who I feel has been consistently good
So you read the last paragraph right, but the whole article is vacillating back and forth and only lands on "the onus is on the Biden campaign" as a consolation.
