I have two stories for you. Tell me which one is more believable.
A) The most powerful organized crime boss in New York City invested tens of millions of dollars to launch a hard hitting newspaper that will investigate all levels of crime in the city. A crew of crime reporters came on board. Along with the owner, they insisted that there were no barriers to their investigations.
B) One of the world's wealthiest men with a history funding programs in tandem with U.S. foreign and intelligence interests, invested tens of millions of dollars to launch a hard hitting, web based independent journalism group. A crew of seasoned journalists came on board. Along with the owner, they insisted that there were no barriers to their investigations.
Which story is true? A -- B -- None of the above?
An OEN repost by Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept triggered my multiple-choice question above and the brief analysis below. Founded in 2013, Intercept presented itself as a breakthrough effort to create a new, truly independent venue for investigative journalism. Glenn Greenwald of Edward Snowden fame was the first recruit. When Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake and others leading investigative web journalists came on board, some had high hopes for a hard hitting, fearless journalism exposing the ugliness of the national security state. Pierre Omidyar, one of the wealthiest men in the world, liberally funded the operation called First Look Media.
When I read the article, I realized that this was classic "inside baseball" journalism preoccupied with personalities over actual news, designed to cover up something painfully obvious and embarrassing. Greenwald and three other headliners from The Intercept try to explain away the departure of Wall Street muckraker extraordinaire, Matt Tiabbi. He headed up a another First Look property called Racket.
The Inside Story Of Matt Taibbi's Departure From First Look Media By Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and John Cook , Oct 30 (OpEdNews version here)
The article's only news value is that Tiabbi left the operation. He didn't stop writing. He'll publish somewhere else. The bulk of the article tries to convince us that this had nothing to do with the politics, economic or otherwise, of the billionaire owner.
This isn't the first time Greenwald tried to stop people from making the obvious connection between a billionaire owner and editorial policy.
First Look Media's owner, billionaire Pierre Omidyar, was a strong ally of the U.S.Agency for International Development's (USAID) campaign to destabilize Ukraine. He funded projects that led to the violent coup and establishment of a oligarch-neo Nazi alliance government (see Pando). Marcy Wheeler, formerly of Intercept, dug this up. That triggered a controversy -- just how independent is The Intercept? Wheeler left in May. After that, Greenwald made the case that his billionaire boss, ally of intel friendly USAID, and major source of funding for Ukraine's revolution was a swell guy who left the newsies alone.
This assertion that Omidyar's direct involvement in Ukraine has nothing to do with editorial policy at The Intercept is utter, total, and complete bull sh*t.
Here's a simple proof for the argument that Intercept's editorial policy reflects the views of the owner. If Intercept is truly independent, there should be quite a few stories on Ukraine's crazy junta in Kiev; attacks on civilians in the Donbass region by the Obama administration supported government; White House serial lying; and, billionaire involvement in supporting U.S. policy.
Look a the following site search of OpEdNews.com for "Ukraine" and notice 10 or more pages of articles.
Do the same site search for The Intercept.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
10
9
7
