The main argument against The Intercept is a technical journalistic point. It's very good practise at a news organisation for investors to have zero editorial

The main argument against The Intercept is a technical journalistic point. It's very good practise at a news organisation for investors to have zero editorial control. This is especially necessary for investigative journalism, since the main aim is to dig dirt. The Intercept doesn't have this - Pierre Omidyar has influence over what gets published. That makes it difficult (probably impossible) to publish stories that reflect Omidyar or his business interests in a negative light. For contrast, note how Pando has publically attacked its own investor Peter Thiel over his secret funding of the Hulh Hogan/Gawker lawsuit.