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. Sounds alarming! Unfortunately, the entire premise of the article would’ve been radically undermined if writer Nathan Bernard, or anyone else at
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Intercept couldn't find real censorship, but I bet they could find some fake news if they tried real hard.
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.
Sadly but not at all surprising…