An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
=== == =
The fundamental problem facing The Intercept is not ultimately about how or why the outlet published a smear specifically timed to cut support away from Assange, even though that is in and of itself despicable. It’s that doing so acts in support of the very deep state and moneyed, military interests that The Intercept purports to critique “fearlessly.”
Adding to a sense of betrayal of The Intercept’s principles in the wake of the outlet’s hit-piece is the fact that a number of writers at the publication are by all accounts on good terms with Assange, and have worked with mutual supporters including the superb Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi…
Snowden’s revelations also provided much of the impetus for the launch of The Intercept as an outlet, after Glenn Greenwald departed from The Guardian. In this way, Assange’s story and his fate in the Ecuadorian embassy is inextricably linked with the origin of The Intercept’s rise on the back of the Snowden revelations…
The relationship between Assange and The intercept makes it impossible to see the organization’s publication of an intrinsically flawed smear piece aimed at Assange as anything other than a deep betrayal.
Which brings us inevitably to Pierre Omidyar…
The issue here goes beyond Omidyar’s politics and the petty, obsessively personal derangement of The Intercept’s Micah Lee towards Julian Assange. The crux of the terminal illness suffered by The Intercept is that it cannot stand as an outlet that wishes to both participate in adversarial, anti-establishment reporting while it also relies on the funds of a billionaire – any billionaire.
= == ===
My online, disappeared, comment about the above linked-article follows:
I’m going to do a little experiment here. I see[m] to get disappeared whenever I comment. I haven’t commented much, but I thought I shared the same politics as Elizabeth Vos, so I don’t know what’s going on. But I also have a blog and keep track of sites where my comments disappear. I don’t necessarily start tracking from the get-go – and this site is a new find for me – but once I see that I’m being filtered out, or blocked, I might then start to keep track.
There’s an article on Mondoweiss about Jared Kushner’s flame-out. I don’t know who wrote it. The article only shows “Mondoweiss editors” for the author. This is the article:
In the comments attached to the article, one commenter referred to The Intercept. I then responded that he should be cautious about The Intercept. He then asked why (and, annoyingly, the website doesn’t have a reply button for the fellow who asks me a question). Anyway, I gave him a list of articles revealing information about The Intercept and its owner showing why we should exercise caution when reading The Intercept. I grabbed them from my bookmarked articles. While I had bookmarked Elizabeth’s article, I failed to add tags that would call it up when I did a search via the search feature in my Bookmarks (on the Pale Moon browser). So, I thought I’d toss it in there somewhere else once I found it. That’s when I realized that my comment here had disappeared, as was an earlier comment (which I forget, but which I know about because I had flagged Disobedient Media). lf this comment disappears, I’ll blog about it.
You get the reputation you give yourself – in the long run.
I used Disobedient Media’s website contact form to contact Elizabeth. She has not replied. No one from DM has replied. There’s no email address, but only a contact form on the website. I can’t show you what I entered into that contact form, because I didn’t think to copy and save my message, but I included in that message the above disappeared comment.