The message is, was, and always will be “Only gullible dupes trust the intercept without a much more solid second source, and preferably third.”
We’re talking about an outlet that published conspiracy theories during the election(About one of clinton’s “Biggest backers” buying The Onion to stop them making fun of her- pretty much no part of which was actually true or panned out).
We’re talking about the outlet that grassed a source to a letter agency because their Celebrity owner will never admit that he’s wrong, and thus refused to take a story seriously, and treated a vulnerable source with negligence.(Yes, they did help out after - but it’s too little, too late, especially when it comes to problems that they could have avoided by employing even the most basic source protection. Double bonus - one of the reporters assigned to the story is also famous…For grassing another source to another letter agency.)
We’re talking about the outlet that literally published mocking articles about a left wing professor being attacked by the alt-right, because the author of that article had a personal disagreement with the professor.
The outlet that is well known for weaseling out of paying contributors(For example, I know of at least one contributor who left because she was getting grossly underpaid, and Intercept was essentially getting a bunch of her work for free. They told her that her options were basically get used to it, or quit, because they wern’t going to pay her more. She quit. They ran stories based on her work - which they hadn’t paid for - later.)
The Outlet that sat on a story stemming from the Snowden leaks for fifteen months, right up until it looked like they’d be scooped by someone else, at which point they rushed it to print - with some of the more popular reporters, rather than the one who did the actual work. (And insult to injury, they even consulted her on it, because nobody else at Intercept had the expertise to properly report on the story!)
The same outlet where we have stories of senior editors crushing stories they don’t like, throwing full-on paper-throwing tantrums when stories don’t come out how they wanted, Astounding editorial meddling and incompetence, and an editorial structure that is inefficient, absurd, and not only cliqueish, but rewards sucking up to the more powerful senior writers and editors.
They’ve already show their negligence, they’ve already shown they’re willing to publish conspiracy theories, and they’ve already shown their complete inability to cover politics either from the standpoint of expertise(I recall at one point, one of them insisting that you should literally ignore all evidence to the contrary, their preferred candidate was the TRUE frontrunner of the race - their candidate then lost in a landslide) or neutral reporting.
Don’t trust The Intercept.
