5 ms·

Is anyone else disappointed by what The Intercept turned into? When it was formed I expected it to be an honest, unbiased journalistic effort that would expose

Is anyone else disappointed by what The Intercept turned into? When it was formed I expected it to be an honest, unbiased journalistic effort that would expose people of different backgrounds to uncomfortable truths. Instead it turned into editorials and blogging, with most posts filled with strong, obvious bias that would never pass the editors at most mainstream publications. Their biases are so strong and clear I'm sure they scare away at least half of the political spectrum. It's too bad because the topics and facts they report on are important and interesting. There's no need for such strong bias.

blablabla123 8y ago
Yeah a lot of stuff there seems to be a bit extreme, despite some really well researched articles or even original investigations that you won't find elsewhere. Also it's not sympathetic at all that they exposed an interviewee of one piece.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hannob 8y ago
You want unbiased journalism. I hate to tell you, but there is no such thing.
- MrZongle2 8y ago
  You're right, but there's a difference between journalism that attempts to be objective and present all sides of a story.... and the tabloid-level partisan garbage that is presented by major media outlets today. For a while, The Intercept looked like it was going to be a breath of fresh air.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    If you hide your bias, I can't judge it as easily.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
beart 8y ago
I agree with you 100% and I no longer am willing to read any Intercept articles at all. For me, it isn't specifically that the articles are bias (they are). What really turns me off is that the writers can't seem to get the hell out of the way of the story. Every article is just steeped in the writer's personal opinions to the point where it feels more like ranting than news.
mr_spothawk 8y ago
The podcast is a great source of interviews with thoughtful individuals with whom i don't always agree 100%.
- driverdan 8y ago
  I tried the podcast but it was worse than their publications. The episode I listened to started with a poorly done parody making fun of Trump. That's not journalism.
  - jammygit 8y ago
    I think I listened to one where they made fun of the nsas internal philosophy newsletter in a way that... made a good argument, but that was in bad taste. I didn't finish the episode
kaila 8y ago
I was hoping I wasn't the only one. There are occasionally good pieces on important topics, but I'm no longer willing to slog through the long line of headlines that repeat some variation of "[Politician] did [something you should hate him/her for]" in order to read them. I'm with you on the bias. I want information, and I'll make my own decisions. However, maybe it is better when news outlets are overt with their biases. It's a little more disturbing to me to think of someone reading something they believe is unbiased when it's simply subtly biased.
petty_griper 8y ago
It's clearly agenda-driven reporting, but it's that agenda is also very clearly rooted in the facts they report. Ironically, I think you may dislike it because it's exposed you to an uncomfortable truth, which is that some political agendas are rooted in facts and others are not.
- driverdan 8y ago
  You're wrong, I agree with most of their opinions. I don't like the way they present them with appeal to emotion, speculation, and opinion woven into their reporting. It's unnecessary and a turnoff to those who don't share their opinions who might be otherwise swayed by the facts.
gcb0 8y ago
while they were doing exactly what you wanted then to do in the early days, did you supported them in any way?
Bartweiss 8y ago
I'm intensely disappointed with The Intercept, but that's a relatively small piece of why. I certainly recognize what you mean, they could fulfill both their journalistic and political agendas with half the editorializing and bias. I honestly can't tell whether it's a conscious choice to draw readers with a non-traditional style or just a side-effect of operating outside the usual structures of journalism, but either way it does their writing no favors. Picking up staff like Sam Biddle suggests it's the latter, and these are simply people without much capacity to restrain themselves. But what's even more damning to me is seeing The Intercept's record on due diligence and source protection. I was sympathetic on this for a long time, since critics like Lawfare were so quick to make speculative (and technologically ludicrous) accusations. But across Juan Thompson's stories, the Reality Winner debacle, and Kiriakou and Hickman's exposure, it's become increasingly hard to understand the The Intercept as a competent player in these leagues. I'm glad it's out there, and it's still doing some good work on investigative stories like AT&T data tapping, but I can't shake the sense that operating genuinely outside the establishment tends to bring inescapable flaws along with the good stuff.

blablabla123 8y ago

Yeah a lot of stuff there seems to be a bit extreme, despite some really well researched articles or even original investigations that you won't find elsewhere. Also it's not sympathetic at all that they exposed an interviewee of one piece.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hannob 8y ago

You want unbiased journalism. I hate to tell you, but there is no such thing.

MrZongle2 8y ago
You're right, but there's a difference between journalism that attempts to be objective and present all sides of a story.... and the tabloid-level partisan garbage that is presented by major media outlets today. For a while, The Intercept looked like it was going to be a breath of fresh air.
- acct1771 8y ago
  If you hide your bias, I can't judge it as easily.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

beart 8y ago

I agree with you 100% and I no longer am willing to read any Intercept articles at all. For me, it isn't specifically that the articles are bias (they are). What really turns me off is that the writers can't seem to get the hell out of the way of the story. Every article is just steeped in the writer's personal opinions to the point where it feels more like ranting than news.

mr_spothawk 8y ago

The podcast is a great source of interviews with thoughtful individuals with whom i don't always agree 100%.

driverdan 8y ago
I tried the podcast but it was worse than their publications. The episode I listened to started with a poorly done parody making fun of Trump. That's not journalism.
- jammygit 8y ago
  I think I listened to one where they made fun of the nsas internal philosophy newsletter in a way that... made a good argument, but that was in bad taste. I didn't finish the episode

kaila 8y ago

I was hoping I wasn't the only one. There are occasionally good pieces on important topics, but I'm no longer willing to slog through the long line of headlines that repeat some variation of "[Politician] did [something you should hate him/her for]" in order to read them. I'm with you on the bias. I want information, and I'll make my own decisions. However, maybe it is better when news outlets are overt with their biases. It's a little more disturbing to me to think of someone reading something they believe is unbiased when it's simply subtly biased.

petty_griper 8y ago

It's clearly agenda-driven reporting, but it's that agenda is also very clearly rooted in the facts they report. Ironically, I think you may dislike it because it's exposed you to an uncomfortable truth, which is that some political agendas are rooted in facts and others are not.

driverdan 8y ago
You're wrong, I agree with most of their opinions. I don't like the way they present them with appeal to emotion, speculation, and opinion woven into their reporting. It's unnecessary and a turnoff to those who don't share their opinions who might be otherwise swayed by the facts.

gcb0 8y ago

while they were doing exactly what you wanted then to do in the early days, did you supported them in any way?

Bartweiss 8y ago

I'm intensely disappointed with The Intercept, but that's a relatively small piece of why. I certainly recognize what you mean, they could fulfill both their journalistic and political agendas with half the editorializing and bias. I honestly can't tell whether it's a conscious choice to draw readers with a non-traditional style or just a side-effect of operating outside the usual structures of journalism, but either way it does their writing no favors. Picking up staff like Sam Biddle suggests it's the latter, and these are simply people without much capacity to restrain themselves. But what's even more damning to me is seeing The Intercept's record on due diligence and source protection. I was sympathetic on this for a long time, since critics like Lawfare were so quick to make speculative (and technologically ludicrous) accusations. But across Juan Thompson's stories, the Reality Winner debacle, and Kiriakou and Hickman's exposure, it's become increasingly hard to understand the The Intercept as a competent player in these leagues. I'm glad it's out there, and it's still doing some good work on investigative stories like AT&T data tapping, but I can't shake the sense that operating genuinely outside the establishment tends to bring inescapable flaws along with the good stuff.