Don’t take my word for it, take the word of one of the founders: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept https://greenwald.substack.c

Don’t take my word for it, take the word of one of the founders: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int... “The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded” I don’t argue they are a mouthpiece for the democrat party, only that this article supports the idea of “repression, censorship and ideological conformity” being a problem. 90% of the dates and events they talk about are prior to 2018. I have no evidence that they “had this story available to them” in 2018, at least in the sense of having been investigated and written in 2018. My point is why investigate it and write it now, and not then? There seems to be no significant new information that’s come out since 2018 that might have led to this article - to quote the article,“ For decades, Manchin has profited from a series of coal companies that he founded during the 1980s.” - did the intercept only just realize coal might be bad, or was it that they didn’t realize that the (democrat) senator of a state where coal is economically important might have historical links to that industry? [edit] I also don’t claim that this is a problem specific to democrats, though the large majority of mainstream journalists are provably democrats rather than republicans - exactly the same thing happens in republican leaning publications. My point is that we should think not just about what is written in an article, but also what wasn’t and maybe should have been?