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
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.
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.
I take your point.