13 ms·

The Intercept cuts back

123 points by sodosopa 8y ago

Theodores 8y ago
That is quite fascinating. Billionaire pays millionaire rock star journalist and calls it charity. I wondered why it was that I never find anything meaningful in The Intercept. I prefer the journalism that is more citizen journalism, a guy with a Wordpress blog and time to spend in front of a keyboard with maybe 50 people paying $2 a month on Patreon. The joke of content is the price of it, how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Does it have to cost thousands for an article? I can understand this if you are writing a research paper on difficult science, but working out what happens in the world for real, can that only be done by people paid telephone number salaries?
- mjfl 8y ago
  > I prefer the journalism that is more citizen journalism, a guy with a Wordpress blog and time to spend in front of a keyboard with maybe 50 people paying $2 a month on Patreon. > how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Well... probably more than $100 a month.
- blfr 8y ago
  how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Depends. Would you like original reporting based on reporters actually going somewhere and investigating, and not just reviewing documents in the evenings? Would you like them to have health insurance and a retirement plan? Should the publication be edited and fact-checked? Should their website be capable of supporting more immersive style than simple blog posts: videos, visualizations, timelines, graphs? Should they host independently or remain at the mercy of censors at YouTube? Would it only cover one city? One country? A big one like the US or an organization like the EU? The whole world? The cost can easily range from $20 a month to $20 million a month.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- qqdla 8y ago
  >I wondered why it was that I never find anything meaningful in The Intercept. Well... The Intercept is basically an extension of this guy's Twitter: https://twitter.com/pierre https://twitter.com/pierre And, as you can see, all that there is is monothematic hate.
- danso 8y ago
  The cost of ProPublica's first Pulitzer-winning story (admittedly an outlier, in terms of scope and process) was roughly $400K: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/an-extremely-expensive-cover-story-with-a-new-way-of-footing-the-bill/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/an-extremely-expensive-cove...
kodz4 8y ago
Glenn Greenwald spends too much time on Twitter railing imho when that time could gave been spent doing Journalism. It was the in depth journalism that he originally did that made Snowden contact him. Not the current 75 tweets a day on everything under the sun. Ideally journalists need to get off Twitter. It's a waste of their time. Especially the pointless fact checking of bullshit. I'd rather see and PAY for one Spotlight story a year than 24x7x365 days of tweeting.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  Last time I've said this, I got a huge karma hit, but I'd say it again: Greenwald is a political activist not a journalist. I had huge expectations in investigative journalism with The Intercept, but for me it failed. But it looks like it wants to stay that course, with "said it could no longer afford its research team, and was eliminating those jobs as part of a 4 percent cut in its workforce." +100 for "I'd rather see and PAY for one Spotlight story a year than 24x7x365 days of tweeting"
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  The Intercept has become a pretty large organization that goes well beyond the vision (and personal views) of Greenwald. GG has no doubt upset a lot of powerful people who want to see him fall professionally (or even worse). It's not surprising that he has his hands full on twitter fending off attacks. I don't think GG or his staff are only on Twitter in order to find scoops and topics for regurgitation (or that twitter is automatically a problem affecting the magazines output). The Drone Papers[1] released in 2015 by Jeremy Scahill were an outstanding piece of writing. In 2016 they revealed[2] that a AT&T site in NYC hosts a secret NSA surveillance site It is probably hard to create such hits on a regular basis especially when their new content will always be judged on their previous (first) successes I don't see the quality of their reporting being reduced though, but fwiw they did expand into a more mainstream political sphere which isn't always about tech-conspiracies (NSA, Snowden, Drone-papers) and so they have to compete with other outlets that cover the same stuff. If they have become less edgy (more "blah") than they used to be maybe less funding will be good for them and they'll find their roots again. [1] https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...
influx 8y ago
There’s only so many NSA PowerPoint you can publish from Snowden before people become bored.
- boomskats 8y ago
  Journalism is supposed to be a cure for boredom?
  - krapp 8y ago
    Modern journalism is entertainment. Bored readers/viewers/listeners will turn their attention elsewhere.
    - fwsgonzo 8y ago
      It's unfortunately true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism Investigative journalism is in sharp decline. It really has all but disappeared to most people.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      So a race to the bottom then? In any case, that definition is too Orwellian. That is, today's entertainment should not be passed off as journalism; by definition it is not (journalism). Not to sound harsh, but that's the equivalent of calling op-ed news; Taco Bell fine dining; or an elected official leadership. We can't allow the wrong words to be used (and the right ones abused) and expect to get the downstream discussions right.
      - sodosopa 8y ago
        > but that's the equivalent of calling op-ed news; Taco Bell fine dining; or an elected official leadership. (edit, kinda off topic but related to calling op-eds news) Gannett allows their advertisers to run light promotional articles as op-eds. It's disgusting, ads made to look like a true opinion piece. Read your local Gannett site, look at the local paper's op-ed. Look for articles ghost written by Physicians, CEOs, lawyers that talk about community. No notice aside from a brief mention of the employer of the person in the Story Highlights.
closeparen 8y ago
It's hard to care too much about the publication that hosts Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle [0] and his reporting on technology and the people involved in it through a lens of deep personal contempt. Funding a reporter (he is their tech reporter, not an opinion columnist) to grind an axe about his own hatreds and social status anxieties is not a recipe for truthful engagement with real-world complexity. [0] https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php
- bdefore 8y ago
  Making an ad hominem attack on one reporter who said something sarcy and twitterlike on Twitter (not in an article) five years ago, while employed at a different company, should hardly determine whether you care about The Intercept. His output for them is here if you care to identify how is 'hatred and social anxiety' is affecting his work: https://theintercept.com/staff/sambiddle/ https://theintercept.com/staff/sambiddle/
  - reitzensteinm 8y ago
    Sarcy and Twitterlike isn't some kind of a defense. People that are assholes on Twitter are in fact assholes.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      We're all assholes to some extent, but Twitter accentuates that aspect of many personalities. It seems fine-tuned to generate heat with no light. Many people have withdrawn from public life entirely because Twitter could never be arsed to implement decent blocking mechanisms.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Of course it doesn’t. His output is “look at all these villains in technology, and cheer on all these heroes who are coming to kick their asses,” exactly in line with his stated mission. Look, organizing and agitating against the tech community is valid work, but it’s distinct from journalism. For that I look to EFF, which has clearly disclosed set of principles to be activist about, and goes after anyone and everyone in defense of those principles. Often tech companies, but also everyone else. Not the same thing as choosing an enemy, looking for anything and everything you can use against it, and calling it journalism.
specialist 8y ago
For $250m, The Intercept was a noble freshman effort. For comparison, Fox News was run at a massive loss for its first decade. Most of the other right leaning orgs have patrons. One needs stomach, fortitude, deep resources, and business acumen to build a self-sustaining media presence from the ground up. Alternately, use the seed capital to start an endowment, keep the effort modest.
addicted 8y ago
The Intercept lost all credibility when it didn’t even take basic steps to protect the identity of a confidential source who emailed them internal NSA documents (Reality Winner). The fact that in this case the documents contradicted Greenwald’s public position raises the possibility that the reality was even uglier, with their actions potentially being deliberate. They have also been accused of having revealed identities by a couple of other NSA whistleblowers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Exposure_and_arrest_of_a_confidential_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Exposure_and_a...
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  The article you link to only mentions Ms. Winner. Do you have a citation to support your claim that multiple sources have been outed?
throw2016 8y ago
There has been zero consequences from the entire set of revelations. What is the incentive to continue to do investigate journalism as great risk to one self when there are no results? What Snowden seems to have inadvertently revealed is a culture that is a lot more interested in posturing around these issues than the issues themselves. And its those breaking the illusion be it Snowden, Manning or Assange who will face the music while civil society looks the other way.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Zero consequences? There was one illegal program (phone metadata collection) in the revelations. It was shut down. The revelations showed that the NSA had in the past extracted email metadata from email companies from international cables. The email companies have since encrypted their cross-datacenter internal traffic. Snowden disclosed many Chinese targets to the PRC. The PRC has presumably secured them.
  - throw2016 8y ago
    If you think Snowden leaks was about 'one illegal program' you are seriously misinformed and have a lot of catching up to do. These are large scale and illegal mass surveillance programs. [1][2][3][4][5]. More can be found here. [6] No one has been held accountable for these illegal programs. The then head of NSA James Clapper brazenly lied to Congress and has still not being held accountable. [7]. On the contrary there is a grand jury out to get Assange, Manning is back in jail and Snowden is being hounded and in exile. No good deed goes unpunished. China had nothing to do with the Snowden leaks or any of these secret mass surveillance programs as you will discover. Happy reading! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairview_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairview_(surveillance_program... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant [6] https://theintercept.com/search/?s=snowden https://theintercept.com/search/?s=snowden [7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/republicans-consequences-james-clapper-testimony https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/republicans-co...
jessaustin 8y ago
I'm always amazed by comment threads at TI. So much vitriol! At least they are hidden by default. We are told that lively comment sections increase engagement, but I wonder if that's really the case for TI. ISTM they should have just set up something on Reddit and not had any comments on the main site. E.g. "reddit/r/theintercept/russiarussiarussia" would be irredeemable, but only those who are interested would be exposed to it.
danso 8y ago
It is interesting to see how The Intercept/First Look has evolved, both as a news organization and a non-profit, speaking as someone who has also worked at a billionaire-founded nonprofit news org [0]. Both orgs have a focus on accountability journalism, and PP, like TI, drew criticism for its seemingly high salaries (for the non-profit world). I think undoubtedly TI had significantly more attention/awareness/pageviews than PP, when comparing the first few years; I wouldn't be surprised if Greenwald has more Twitter followers than the entire PP staff combined. Beyond that, I don't know how directly comparable the two orgs are, because the state of online-first journalism in 2008 was so much different than it was 2014, when TI launched. That said, one main difference might be ProPublica having more a general plan for self-sufficiency through philanthropy. The Sandler Foundation promised $10M for the first 3 years, and to provide support afterwards -- their share would shrink as contributions from other donors came in (don't remember if there was a solid plan if PP failed to attract significant donors after the first 3 years). PP's early investigations [1] were relatively niche topics (at least at the time, and most certainly compared to anything Trump-related today). But the drive to have "impact" -- awards, collaboration with other news orgs, spurring legislative action -- was ostensibly attractive to philanthropic foundations looking to donate. It's worth noting that PP has for awhile dedicated fundraising staff -- $1M in fundraising expenses according to its 2017 990; I don't see First Look listing any fundraising expenses in its 990s so I don't know if they'll start going that route or plan to find revenue from other sources. 0: https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-10th-anniversary-welcome-to-our-second-decade https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-10th-anniversa... 1: https://propublica.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/about/PP_2010_annualrep_forWEB.pdf https://propublica.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/about/PP_2010_ann...
gnicholas 8y ago
The article didn’t dive into it much, but if The Intercept were declassified as a foundation, the deductibility of Pierre Omidyar’s donations would be capped based on his AGI.
astazangasta 8y ago
Why don't they fire Mahdi Hasan, James Risen and everyone else who was only hired to shill for the establishment?

123 points by sodosopa 8y ago

That is quite fascinating. Billionaire pays millionaire rock star journalist and calls it charity. I wondered why it was that I never find anything meaningful in The Intercept. I prefer the journalism that is more citizen journalism, a guy with a Wordpress blog and time to spend in front of a keyboard with maybe 50 people paying $2 a month on Patreon. The joke of content is the price of it, how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Does it have to cost thousands for an article? I can understand this if you are writing a research paper on difficult science, but working out what happens in the world for real, can that only be done by people paid telephone number salaries?

mjfl 8y ago
> I prefer the journalism that is more citizen journalism, a guy with a Wordpress blog and time to spend in front of a keyboard with maybe 50 people paying $2 a month on Patreon. > how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Well... probably more than $100 a month.
blfr 8y ago
how much does it cost to keep the lights on really? Depends. Would you like original reporting based on reporters actually going somewhere and investigating, and not just reviewing documents in the evenings? Would you like them to have health insurance and a retirement plan? Should the publication be edited and fact-checked? Should their website be capable of supporting more immersive style than simple blog posts: videos, visualizations, timelines, graphs? Should they host independently or remain at the mercy of censors at YouTube? Would it only cover one city? One country? A big one like the US or an organization like the EU? The whole world? The cost can easily range from $20 a month to $20 million a month.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
qqdla 8y ago
>I wondered why it was that I never find anything meaningful in The Intercept. Well... The Intercept is basically an extension of this guy's Twitter: https://twitter.com/pierre https://twitter.com/pierre And, as you can see, all that there is is monothematic hate.
danso 8y ago
The cost of ProPublica's first Pulitzer-winning story (admittedly an outlier, in terms of scope and process) was roughly $400K: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/an-extremely-expensive-cover-story-with-a-new-way-of-footing-the-bill/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/an-extremely-expensive-cove...

kodz4 8y ago

Glenn Greenwald spends too much time on Twitter railing imho when that time could gave been spent doing Journalism. It was the in depth journalism that he originally did that made Snowden contact him. Not the current 75 tweets a day on everything under the sun. Ideally journalists need to get off Twitter. It's a waste of their time. Especially the pointless fact checking of bullshit. I'd rather see and PAY for one Spotlight story a year than 24x7x365 days of tweeting.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Last time I've said this, I got a huge karma hit, but I'd say it again: Greenwald is a political activist not a journalist. I had huge expectations in investigative journalism with The Intercept, but for me it failed. But it looks like it wants to stay that course, with "said it could no longer afford its research team, and was eliminating those jobs as part of a 4 percent cut in its workforce." +100 for "I'd rather see and PAY for one Spotlight story a year than 24x7x365 days of tweeting"
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
The Intercept has become a pretty large organization that goes well beyond the vision (and personal views) of Greenwald. GG has no doubt upset a lot of powerful people who want to see him fall professionally (or even worse). It's not surprising that he has his hands full on twitter fending off attacks. I don't think GG or his staff are only on Twitter in order to find scoops and topics for regurgitation (or that twitter is automatically a problem affecting the magazines output). The Drone Papers[1] released in 2015 by Jeremy Scahill were an outstanding piece of writing. In 2016 they revealed[2] that a AT&T site in NYC hosts a secret NSA surveillance site It is probably hard to create such hits on a regular basis especially when their new content will always be judged on their previous (first) successes I don't see the quality of their reporting being reduced though, but fwiw they did expand into a more mainstream political sphere which isn't always about tech-conspiracies (NSA, Snowden, Drone-papers) and so they have to compete with other outlets that cover the same stuff. If they have become less edgy (more "blah") than they used to be maybe less funding will be good for them and they'll find their roots again. [1] https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...

influx 8y ago

There’s only so many NSA PowerPoint you can publish from Snowden before people become bored.

boomskats 8y ago
Journalism is supposed to be a cure for boredom?
- krapp 8y ago
  Modern journalism is entertainment. Bored readers/viewers/listeners will turn their attention elsewhere.
  - fwsgonzo 8y ago
    It's unfortunately true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism Investigative journalism is in sharp decline. It really has all but disappeared to most people.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    So a race to the bottom then? In any case, that definition is too Orwellian. That is, today's entertainment should not be passed off as journalism; by definition it is not (journalism). Not to sound harsh, but that's the equivalent of calling op-ed news; Taco Bell fine dining; or an elected official leadership. We can't allow the wrong words to be used (and the right ones abused) and expect to get the downstream discussions right.
    - sodosopa 8y ago
      > but that's the equivalent of calling op-ed news; Taco Bell fine dining; or an elected official leadership. (edit, kinda off topic but related to calling op-eds news) Gannett allows their advertisers to run light promotional articles as op-eds. It's disgusting, ads made to look like a true opinion piece. Read your local Gannett site, look at the local paper's op-ed. Look for articles ghost written by Physicians, CEOs, lawyers that talk about community. No notice aside from a brief mention of the employer of the person in the Story Highlights.

closeparen 8y ago

It's hard to care too much about the publication that hosts Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle [0] and his reporting on technology and the people involved in it through a lens of deep personal contempt. Funding a reporter (he is their tech reporter, not an opinion columnist) to grind an axe about his own hatreds and social status anxieties is not a recipe for truthful engagement with real-world complexity. [0] https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php

bdefore 8y ago
Making an ad hominem attack on one reporter who said something sarcy and twitterlike on Twitter (not in an article) five years ago, while employed at a different company, should hardly determine whether you care about The Intercept. His output for them is here if you care to identify how is 'hatred and social anxiety' is affecting his work: https://theintercept.com/staff/sambiddle/ https://theintercept.com/staff/sambiddle/
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  Sarcy and Twitterlike isn't some kind of a defense. People that are assholes on Twitter are in fact assholes.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    We're all assholes to some extent, but Twitter accentuates that aspect of many personalities. It seems fine-tuned to generate heat with no light. Many people have withdrawn from public life entirely because Twitter could never be arsed to implement decent blocking mechanisms.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Of course it doesn’t. His output is “look at all these villains in technology, and cheer on all these heroes who are coming to kick their asses,” exactly in line with his stated mission. Look, organizing and agitating against the tech community is valid work, but it’s distinct from journalism. For that I look to EFF, which has clearly disclosed set of principles to be activist about, and goes after anyone and everyone in defense of those principles. Often tech companies, but also everyone else. Not the same thing as choosing an enemy, looking for anything and everything you can use against it, and calling it journalism.

specialist 8y ago

For $250m, The Intercept was a noble freshman effort. For comparison, Fox News was run at a massive loss for its first decade. Most of the other right leaning orgs have patrons. One needs stomach, fortitude, deep resources, and business acumen to build a self-sustaining media presence from the ground up. Alternately, use the seed capital to start an endowment, keep the effort modest.

addicted 8y ago

The Intercept lost all credibility when it didn’t even take basic steps to protect the identity of a confidential source who emailed them internal NSA documents (Reality Winner). The fact that in this case the documents contradicted Greenwald’s public position raises the possibility that the reality was even uglier, with their actions potentially being deliberate. They have also been accused of having revealed identities by a couple of other NSA whistleblowers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Exposure_and_arrest_of_a_confidential_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Exposure_and_a...

dontbenebby 8y ago
The article you link to only mentions Ms. Winner. Do you have a citation to support your claim that multiple sources have been outed?

throw2016 8y ago

There has been zero consequences from the entire set of revelations. What is the incentive to continue to do investigate journalism as great risk to one self when there are no results? What Snowden seems to have inadvertently revealed is a culture that is a lot more interested in posturing around these issues than the issues themselves. And its those breaking the illusion be it Snowden, Manning or Assange who will face the music while civil society looks the other way.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
Zero consequences? There was one illegal program (phone metadata collection) in the revelations. It was shut down. The revelations showed that the NSA had in the past extracted email metadata from email companies from international cables. The email companies have since encrypted their cross-datacenter internal traffic. Snowden disclosed many Chinese targets to the PRC. The PRC has presumably secured them.
- throw2016 8y ago
  If you think Snowden leaks was about 'one illegal program' you are seriously misinformed and have a lot of catching up to do. These are large scale and illegal mass surveillance programs. [1][2][3][4][5]. More can be found here. [6] No one has been held accountable for these illegal programs. The then head of NSA James Clapper brazenly lied to Congress and has still not being held accountable. [7]. On the contrary there is a grand jury out to get Assange, Manning is back in jail and Snowden is being hounded and in exile. No good deed goes unpunished. China had nothing to do with the Snowden leaks or any of these secret mass surveillance programs as you will discover. Happy reading! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairview_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairview_(surveillance_program... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant [6] https://theintercept.com/search/?s=snowden https://theintercept.com/search/?s=snowden [7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/republicans-consequences-james-clapper-testimony https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/republicans-co...

jessaustin 8y ago

I'm always amazed by comment threads at TI. So much vitriol! At least they are hidden by default. We are told that lively comment sections increase engagement, but I wonder if that's really the case for TI. ISTM they should have just set up something on Reddit and not had any comments on the main site. E.g. "reddit/r/theintercept/russiarussiarussia" would be irredeemable, but only those who are interested would be exposed to it.

danso 8y ago

It is interesting to see how The Intercept/First Look has evolved, both as a news organization and a non-profit, speaking as someone who has also worked at a billionaire-founded nonprofit news org [0]. Both orgs have a focus on accountability journalism, and PP, like TI, drew criticism for its seemingly high salaries (for the non-profit world). I think undoubtedly TI had significantly more attention/awareness/pageviews than PP, when comparing the first few years; I wouldn't be surprised if Greenwald has more Twitter followers than the entire PP staff combined. Beyond that, I don't know how directly comparable the two orgs are, because the state of online-first journalism in 2008 was so much different than it was 2014, when TI launched. That said, one main difference might be ProPublica having more a general plan for self-sufficiency through philanthropy. The Sandler Foundation promised $10M for the first 3 years, and to provide support afterwards -- their share would shrink as contributions from other donors came in (don't remember if there was a solid plan if PP failed to attract significant donors after the first 3 years). PP's early investigations [1] were relatively niche topics (at least at the time, and most certainly compared to anything Trump-related today). But the drive to have "impact" -- awards, collaboration with other news orgs, spurring legislative action -- was ostensibly attractive to philanthropic foundations looking to donate. It's worth noting that PP has for awhile dedicated fundraising staff -- $1M in fundraising expenses according to its 2017 990; I don't see First Look listing any fundraising expenses in its 990s so I don't know if they'll start going that route or plan to find revenue from other sources. 0: https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-10th-anniversary-welcome-to-our-second-decade https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-10th-anniversa... 1: https://propublica.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/about/PP_2010_annualrep_forWEB.pdf https://propublica.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/about/PP_2010_ann...

gnicholas 8y ago

The article didn’t dive into it much, but if The Intercept were declassified as a foundation, the deductibility of Pierre Omidyar’s donations would be capped based on his AGI.

astazangasta 8y ago

Why don't they fire Mahdi Hasan, James Risen and everyone else who was only hired to shill for the establishment?