On October 17, an article was published in The Intercept alleging that administrators at Bates College, a small liberal arts school in Maine, had aggressively and shockingly “censored” the campus’s student newspaper.
As Glenn Greenwald so often and so correctly says - people who read mainstream liberal organs want to be lied to. They aren't interested in facts or reporting. They are interested in being told that they're right. People like Nathan Bernard exist to meet that demand.
You "probably" wouldn't have come across the article if they didn't tweet demand you report on it? I mean, who is casually perusing the Intercept since Greenwald left? That's why they have to promote their articles to journalists with audiences in the first place. But for fuck's sake, they should pick an article that won't demonstrate why they don't have an organic audience in the first place. Journalists are an embarrassment. You should consider coming up with a new name for whatever it is that you are doing instead.
The irony here is so rich! Why did Glenn Geenwald leave The Intercept, which he cofounded? Because THEY censored his coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story that broke in the NY Post just before the election last year. If Nathan Bernard REALLY wants to cover a censorship story he should write about his bosses at The Intercept!
It's really quite amusing that Bernard was so eager to call out Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald, and others in Substack. He seems to have some animus towards independent Substack writers. Why have quality journalists left the comfort, notoriety, and security, of legacy media and well funded sites such as The Intercept? I'd maintain it's to leave behind the partisan and ideological shackles these outlets demand of their writers. Rather than ethical journalism they demand advocacy for left-liberal-Democrat orthodoxy. All other viewpoints are subject to internal censorship. I'm not sure whether he knows it, but Bernard is operating as a tool in that system.
This guy seems like a miserable person who has an animus against anyone who doesn’t fall into his narrow cult, so I’m not shocked that he is being used as tool in the system… he fits the bill well. Hopefully he will grow up, move past his blind hatred, and actually lead a fulfilling life, it’s sad to see how much blind ideology poisons someone so much.
I took one quick look at this Nathan Bernard’s Twitter and I am not the least bit surprised that someone so obviously mired in partisanship manufactures lies to push his agenda. I honestly pity him because he seems like a miserable, hate-filled person who spends the majority of his time stalking people he disagrees with and posting petty jabs at them that they probably never even notice.
My understanding of the way The Intercept is funded, as described by Glenn Greenwald, is that it's largely (maybe entirely?) funded by a billionaire, so their incentives structure, and thus the work they produce and how they produce it, is substantially different from other media outlets primarily relying on subscriptions and/or ad revenue. Greenwald has talked about the benefits of this in the past, but its value is also its weakness - their audience is effectively an audience of one. As long as whatever they produce is pleasing that billionaire, then they'll continue doing what they're doing.
Whether or not something like this would please that benefactor - whoever it is, I don't think I've ever heard a name divulged - I have no idea. I'd assume not since it should be an embarrassment, but then again so should have been how The Intercept handled the H Biden Laptop story and Greenwald's departure, but clearly the same people are running the show over there, so who knows? Maybe this person simply wants an outlet that can coast on its cached credibility - whether or not still deserved - that will push Left narratives wherever and whenever possible, irrespective of fact.
Good work MT. Or perhaps I should say, good doing the most basic of work a journalist should be expected to do, which shouldn't be something a person in your profession needs to be praised for, but with how rare it's becoming, gotta give kudos to the folks who still do it.
Not necessarily saying this is the case with Pierre Omidyar, who I don't know, but billionaire funded journalism is usually a vanity project designed to promote the views of the billionaire and enhance their societal influence. Funding journalism that no one reads or cites to doesn't really achieve those objectives.
I think as a general rule of.thumb you're probably right, but...
Failing to accomplish a goal is not the same as not having that goal in the first place. If they continue falling down the ideological rabbit hole and their funding continues unabated, can we really say that this isn't the goal?
That said, I recognize that perhaps funding is guaranteed by a contract up through some far off period of time, maybe many years in advance, and perhaps as part of that contract no direct influence can be exercised. But if the funder (this Omidyar person? I assume that's why you mention the name) doesn't believe he's reaping some benefit from the way The Intercept is performing, would he continue funding it beyond that point? I suppose time will tell.
As Glenn Greenwald so often and so correctly says - people who read mainstream liberal organs want to be lied to. They aren't interested in facts or reporting. They are interested in being told that they're right. People like Nathan Bernard exist to meet that demand.
The Intercept is just sour because all their credibility walked out the door with Greenwald.
You "probably" wouldn't have come across the article if they didn't tweet demand you report on it? I mean, who is casually perusing the Intercept since Greenwald left? That's why they have to promote their articles to journalists with audiences in the first place. But for fuck's sake, they should pick an article that won't demonstrate why they don't have an organic audience in the first place. Journalists are an embarrassment. You should consider coming up with a new name for whatever it is that you are doing instead.
The irony here is so rich! Why did Glenn Geenwald leave The Intercept, which he cofounded? Because THEY censored his coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story that broke in the NY Post just before the election last year. If Nathan Bernard REALLY wants to cover a censorship story he should write about his bosses at The Intercept!
It's really quite amusing that Bernard was so eager to call out Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald, and others in Substack. He seems to have some animus towards independent Substack writers. Why have quality journalists left the comfort, notoriety, and security, of legacy media and well funded sites such as The Intercept? I'd maintain it's to leave behind the partisan and ideological shackles these outlets demand of their writers. Rather than ethical journalism they demand advocacy for left-liberal-Democrat orthodoxy. All other viewpoints are subject to internal censorship. I'm not sure whether he knows it, but Bernard is operating as a tool in that system.
This guy seems like a miserable person who has an animus against anyone who doesn’t fall into his narrow cult, so I’m not shocked that he is being used as tool in the system… he fits the bill well. Hopefully he will grow up, move past his blind hatred, and actually lead a fulfilling life, it’s sad to see how much blind ideology poisons someone so much.
Thank you Michael.
This is a fantastic take-down. Now I know where Saagar (Breaking Points) got this story. I hope he corrects it in their next episode.
I took one quick look at this Nathan Bernard’s Twitter and I am not the least bit surprised that someone so obviously mired in partisanship manufactures lies to push his agenda. I honestly pity him because he seems like a miserable, hate-filled person who spends the majority of his time stalking people he disagrees with and posting petty jabs at them that they probably never even notice.
My understanding of the way The Intercept is funded, as described by Glenn Greenwald, is that it's largely (maybe entirely?) funded by a billionaire, so their incentives structure, and thus the work they produce and how they produce it, is substantially different from other media outlets primarily relying on subscriptions and/or ad revenue. Greenwald has talked about the benefits of this in the past, but its value is also its weakness - their audience is effectively an audience of one. As long as whatever they produce is pleasing that billionaire, then they'll continue doing what they're doing.
Whether or not something like this would please that benefactor - whoever it is, I don't think I've ever heard a name divulged - I have no idea. I'd assume not since it should be an embarrassment, but then again so should have been how The Intercept handled the H Biden Laptop story and Greenwald's departure, but clearly the same people are running the show over there, so who knows? Maybe this person simply wants an outlet that can coast on its cached credibility - whether or not still deserved - that will push Left narratives wherever and whenever possible, irrespective of fact.
Good work MT. Or perhaps I should say, good doing the most basic of work a journalist should be expected to do, which shouldn't be something a person in your profession needs to be praised for, but with how rare it's becoming, gotta give kudos to the folks who still do it.
Not necessarily saying this is the case with Pierre Omidyar, who I don't know, but billionaire funded journalism is usually a vanity project designed to promote the views of the billionaire and enhance their societal influence. Funding journalism that no one reads or cites to doesn't really achieve those objectives.
I think as a general rule of.thumb you're probably right, but...
Failing to accomplish a goal is not the same as not having that goal in the first place. If they continue falling down the ideological rabbit hole and their funding continues unabated, can we really say that this isn't the goal?
That said, I recognize that perhaps funding is guaranteed by a contract up through some far off period of time, maybe many years in advance, and perhaps as part of that contract no direct influence can be exercised. But if the funder (this Omidyar person? I assume that's why you mention the name) doesn't believe he's reaping some benefit from the way The Intercept is performing, would he continue funding it beyond that point? I suppose time will tell.
Sadly but not at all surprising…