Talk:The Intercept

For later addition

Steal these or I'll add them as time permits:

• Greenwald debuts Omidyar-backed The Intercept
• Defying Threats to Journalism, Jeremy Scahill & Glenn Greenwald Launch New Venture, The Intercept petrarchan47tc 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"American"

I have reverted an anon edit twice now that describes the publication as "American" in the lead. The edit is uncited, and given that two of the three most prominent people associated with the publication report from outside the US I'm not sure what it means or what it adds in context. I'm going to remove it one more time, but I'm not really sure how to proceed. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

US Govt

Defense contractors also required to block this site from internal networks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.230 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Separate Juan Thompson article?

Now that he's done (or allegedly done, anyway) something else that would make him notable whether he had ever worked at The Intercept or not, perhaps we could take all this stuff on him I wrote a year ago and make it the basis of a separate article? Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that makes sense. He's gone from BLP1E to BLP2E, and the section on him here does take up a rather inordinate amount of article space. -- Irn (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll split it off in a week or so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looks like someone's not only created it, it's reached that usual Wikipedia rite of passage—getting nominated for deletion. Seems like it's going to be kept, though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Incompetence

Someone should add the fact that they basically handed the NSA the name of whoever their document leaker was. How can an organization with such topical knowledge of govt spying be so careless? Only an idiot would give documents to the intercept now. 199.18.157.82 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-intercept-leak-20170606-story.html jrun (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-2016 election thoughts?

I'm pretty shocked to see that Benjamin Wittes's warning, from January 2015 (cited in a paragraph under "Criticism"), that The Intercept was basically inviting hacking of US intelligence documents, has gone unanswered to this day (writing in October 2017, nearly 1 year into the Trumpocalypse). No one has any thoughts at all??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousse (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rousse: I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. We don't just put opinions in articles. We have to both maintain neutrality and stick with verifiable information that is published by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rousse Your concern, and Witte's warning, are suddenly very pertinent again with The Intercept Brasil's sensational accusations against (then) judge Sergio Moro. The files have not been made available to law enforcement, or any other independent party, but whatever The Intercept Brasil has in its possession would have been acquired through the criminal actions of a hacker, or, more likely, a hacker group. Either way, criminal. Yet, there appears to be no widespread concern here about, not only The Intercept's encouragement of crime, but its use of the supposed materials to destabilize an entire nation. The section "Operation Car Wash leakage" on this page should be edited to reflect a neutral stance on whether Moro actually did anything out of line, but instead, it states matter of factly that The Intercept Brasil has shown his guilt. I attempted to make that edit yesterday, but it was my first ever edit on Wikipedia and was reverted. I'm not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceteris Paribus 1 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The_Intercept#Aims_and_content

I'm thinking that this entire section could go. Three long paras of mission statements distract from the subject, in my opinion. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. Primary sourced self-aggrandizing bs. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed per K.e.coffman and SPECIFICO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-left designation

The Intercept is known in all quarters - including mainstream liberal ones - to be far to the left. Is it forbidden for the website to be designated as such? 38.101.158.253 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 38.101.158.253 thanks for creating a discussion. The main reference, allsides.com, does not appear to be a reliable source. A discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#Allsides.com. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that allsides.com is not a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "far left", it ranks media organisations as left/left leaning/centre/... -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Kacziey I'm not sure there's a consensus for the designation "far-left"; I'm not sure where the line is drawn between left, progressive, and far-left and I'm struggling to find RSs that describe The Intercept as "far-left". I agree they are left of the mainstream, centrist parts of the Democratic party, but they're broadly sympathetic to the progressive AOC/Sanders/Warren wing and its goals. This includes strident criticism of the Israeli government. (I tend to avoid editing on topics pertaining to Israeli & Middle East politics etc. because I'm not emotionally invested in the issue.) Reviewing the supporting sources listed in this diff I'd say:

• The Politico piece paints The Intercept as attacking the mainstream Democratic party, in particular its pro-business and influence peddling, but describes it as progressive, lefty, and similar terms.
• The New Yorker piece focuses on Greenwald, "[a] leftist journalistÄs bruising crusade against establishment Democrats". It describes his attacks on the centrist parts of the Democratic party, and his skepticism of the Mueller investigations which has made him welcome on right-leaning publications. He is described as a "Sanders admirer".
• The JTA source highlights the site's criticism of Israel's "right-wing government" and AIPAC, and quotes the Politico piece about "attacking Democrats from the left."
• JCPA doesn't mention the Intercept, but describes Greenwald as an "anti Israel liberal". (Wikipedia describes JCPA as neo-conservative and funded by Sheldon Adelson.)
• City Journal doesn't mention the Intercept but describes Scahill (an Intercept employee) as a radical and an ideologue.
• The Dodds book doesn't mention the Intercept but desribes Scahill as a radical for his leftist criticisms of Obama-era drone strikes.

None of these sources use "far-left" to describe The Intercept. I get that the site launches plenty of progressive-wing attacks on centrist and centre-left Democrats but without a single source saying "far-left", I hesitate to use that term. (I can't really speak to the Israel-specific stuff.).-Ich (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ich. Re JCPA if we are going to dismiss this, are we then going to dismiss any group hacked by George Soros? Would term “radical left” or “anti Israel” suffice? Scahill and Greenwald are the main guys.Kacziey (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just added from noted author Ronald Radosh re Greenwald ”radical” and moved it’s ref re IsraelKacziey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Added re Scahill, book ref. Describes him as such. BTW. It was ‘’’when’’’ talking about Obama’s war in terror. Not necessarily “because” of it. But it doesn’t even matter in the definition.Kacziey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with the far-left designation. I also oppose labeling greenwald and scahill "radicals". you need to provide a fair number of good sources claiming that, a single one does not suffice, per WP: WEIGHT. - Daveout(talk) 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference

https://quillette.com/2019/01/18/glenn-greenwalds-bad-history from: Ronald Radosh is a noted author quote from him: “In a January 14 featured article at the Intercept, co-founder and radical journalist Glenn Greenwald”.

Here is more ref. clearly “radical journalist Glenn Greenwald” https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-august-2020/the-man-who-exposed-the-watchers/

And more: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/insight-lauri-love-making-hacker-1554327 again the terminology “radical journalist Glenn Greenwald”.

The next one I didn’t include, but it’s just to show the wider range of view of Greenwald as such (there is also criticism of Bolsonaro on that same site):

“Greenwald se enxerga como jornalista que combate corrupção, mas não passa de um ativista radical” https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/rodrigo-constantino/artigos/greenwald-se-enxerga-como-jornalista-que-combate-corrupcao-mas-nao-passa-de-um-ativista-radical/

Obrigado.Kacziey (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Describing Greenwald and Scahill in that way would also require attribution which would make the sentence rather complex. The descriptions could not be given in Wikipedia's voice. There is also the issue of synthesis since you are adding a descriptor to journalists that would carry an implication for The Intercept that was not contained in the source. If you were to include that description of Greenwald and Scahill it would need to be separated from any connection to the Intercept. Burrobert (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kacziey:The Quillette is a deprecated source and should not be used, there's still the WP: WEIGHT problem. Just because 2 sources casually called him that, it doesn't mean that he is widely and mostly regarded as such by the majority of the media\public. One of the sources that you used (the new republic) actually say that his views appeal to both far-left and far-right sympathizers. Also, the lede should be a summary of the article's body.

( É bom ver um lusófono se aventurando pela wiki-inglesa, mas vai com calma aí meu. Aqui não é casa da mãe Joana. 😆✌️ ) - Daveout(talk) 10:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ronald Radosh who wrote that piece (Jan.18.2019) is a noted author. What you said re The New Republic does not take away from their own description of Glenn Greenwald as a far left = Their terminology. Reminding you, TNR is a progressive site in and of itself.. and is pro Glenn Greenwald https://newrepublic.com/article/156279/brazilian-conservatives-really-hate-glenn-greenwald . I noted that it is ‘they’ who used this term re him which is true. I’m not sure why you object to it, most probably Glenn himself would be proud of it.Kacziey (talk)

This is the article that I was referring to (the one you included in glenn's article). The article you linked above doesn't use the terms "far-left" nor "radical". Radosh is a conservative, so it's no surprise that he considers glenn a radical leftist. Still, if properly attributed, it's probably ok to mention Radosh's view in the body of glenn's article (although I can't see how that is particularly relevant). - Daveout(talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to point to your error, of course TNR https://newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe mentions this:

By this point, Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right...

Kacziey (talk)

Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right, often but not always under the rubric of libertarianism. He held positions that appealed to either end of the political spectrum

and this is a 2014 article, can't u find anything more recent? - Daveout(talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Before I search, I can date the TNR article. Which I’m doing.

Summary of some of sources on Glenn Greenwald as FAR LEFT:

1. The New Republic "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . Jan 2014

2. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, 2019

3. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair. There was shock when far-right U.S. provocateur Steve Bannon and leftist UK firebrand George Galloway shared an intimate moment in Kazakhstan recently. But the 'red-brown' alliance's roots run deep, and their mutual attraction shows no sign of waning." Haaretz, 27.05.2019.

4.

1. 4

Washington Post, February 13, 2019: Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left”. “Indeed, it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-to-beware-their-loony-left/2019/02/13/fb98354a-2fae-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.htmlKacziey (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Left and far left, just like right and far right, are two different animals. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m saying that it has been described as such by others.

All 5 sources state “far left” not “just” left.

Here is source number 5:

The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?". "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018Kacziey (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability bomb

This article had already been tagged as "too many primary sources". In particular, the section "Major stories and reaction" uses 12 out of 39 citations pointing to its own website. It seems more like a violation of WP:Citation overkill#Notability bomb. I worked on just ONE paragraph. I'm not sure that the section is acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article; it should be something that other secondary sources are discussing, which is glaringly missing in this section. Normal Op (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You just reverted my reaaddition of a reliable source (politico.com) which you removed from the article earlier without a reasonable explanation for it. I think perhaps you don't understand what a notability bomb is. Here's a quote:

The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability.

There isn't the slightest question in the world that The Intercept is a notable topic. You can maybe object to it on other grounds, such as that the source you removed (politico.com) is not a reliable source. You could try taking that to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I think you'd be wasting your time; see our article Politico.

Also, per WP:BRD, you should not have removed it again, after another editor objected. I've restored this reliable source again. If you wish to have the source removed, please provide an argument for it based on policy; n the meantime, please leave the stable status quo ante while discussing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal of notability tag. It is preposterous to assert that this article would get deleted at AFD. If you really think so, try it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Read the section below. This isn't about trying to declare TI as not-notable. Normal Op (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A more thorough explanation

The Politico story contained merely a brief mention of The Intercept's article and does not fit as "and reaction" (for a section titled "Major stories and reaction") and as such is WP:UNDUE — especially since the article wrote "Zuckerberg did not make direct reference to the report in The Intercept," compared to the wiki article which said "According to Politico, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later complained to President Obama about NSA's surveillance," basically hinting to the wiki reader that TI had something to do with it (which is not stated anywhere)... hence it is WP:SYNTH.

My evaluation of the entire section is that it is SYNTH for the purpose of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery or cite bomb or whatever. I'm not going to bother getting inside the head of the wiki authors of this content, but I know this entire section (as currently written) fails to follow wiki guidelines on so many levels.

For a section named "Major stories and reaction", I would expect other sources (secondary sources, independent of the subject... aka NOT The Intercept) to be talking about the subject (TI) and discussing "reactions" to TI's "major stories". There is no such content in this section.

It is not appropriate to cite TI's own articles in a section comprised of a "list" of TI's own articles. Every single one of the "major stories" in this list cites the actual story.

I'm not sufficiently "up" on these sorts of topics to wade through each one and "fix" this section one article at a time. I did one as a sample and it took a lot of work for just one. My evaluation of the entire section is that it should be nuked. If there are independent reliable secondary sources that ARE discussing the topic of "Major stories by The Intercept, and reaction to the stories", then someone could rewrite the section.

The article should be about The Intercept, and does not need 17 [self-published/primary-source] citations published by The Intercept to support this article. There should be maybe one or two primary source citations which support non-contentious content, such as when the organization started, or who started it, or what city and state do they operate in. There should be no need for 17 citations to articles published by The Intercept (such as there currently is).

The "primary sources tag" has been at the top of this article FOR THREE YEARS! It's about time someone addressed it.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Understand it now, thanks for the ping. Yes agree with you, the article is WP:NOTDIR of news article that the article subject considers to be noteworthy :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Would you agree that the entire section "Major stories and reaction" needs to be nuked as a violation of WP:NOTDIR? Someone can always create a similar section IF they can find independent reliable secondary sources discussing the (sub-)topic. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me and please feel free to continue to do so. I looked at the section just now for a short time (I am not an expert on this subject). I do see some other sources, plenty of them, such as washington post, etc. But do these sources refer to these as major stories? I think this section could be summarized, if it is WP:DUE. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: To answer your question directly and succinctly... NO, not major and not "about The Intercept". I looked closer at paragraphs/stories #1 and #3.

Let's take the first story in the section. There are seven citations. Let's see what they cover:

• 7 is the TI article itself. It focuses on photographs of the NSA, NRO and NGA taken by some independent photographer.
• 8 has one brief mention of TI; focuses on the photographer
• 9 is also a brief mention of TI, focuses on the photographer, and has a small blurb about TI.
• 10 doesn't even mention TI.
• 4 is a TI article time stamped 1 minute after TI's first article (citation 7) that covers the subject of NSA
• 5 has two quotes from TI article #2 (cite 4) but is not about TI.
• 6 is an interview with the two authors of TI's articles #1 & #2 (cites 7 and 4) who are also the co-founders of The Intercept

So in all, the only citation of note is cite 6 which is an interview with those who wrote the article and includes discussion about The Intercept. Though, since it's an interview with the founders of TI, most of the content is categorized a "primary source".

Interestingly, since the wiki article mentions which of the TI articles is first and second, and gets it wrong if the time stamps are any indicator, then I hazard the guess that whoever wrote this section works for The Intercept or has a very close connection with it.

I'll skip the second paragraph since I already edited in it, and move on to the third paragraph of the section. It has four citations 13-16.

• 13 The TI article itself. (July 23)
• 14 Also a TI article. (August 5, 13 days later)
• 15 (August 5) is about the furor over TI's Aug 5 publication of a graphic
• 16 Requires a subscription to read it, and even Wayback Machine is no use. But the headline indicates that this news story is NOT about The Intercept. If TI is mentioned, it would only be a brief mention.

In other words, the "content" that is in the wiki article, section "Major stories and reaction", paragraphs 1 & 3... is original research because there is no secondary-source reliable-source independent-of-the-topic citation to support any of the content for paragraphs 1 or 3. I posit that all the remaining paragraphs in that section are similar. And it is likely that whichever editor(s) made this section has probably also written similar content throughout the wiki article.

Using tool "Who Wrote That?", there are two main editors of this section:

• Rosethursday, who was the author of 27.0% of the current page (remaining from their edits in 2017)
• Ideastation, who was the author of 14.3% of the current page (remaining from their edits in 2017)

BOTH of these editors are single purpose accounts that edited only in 2017, and only on this article.

The version of the article just prior to the earliest edit of the "Major stories and reactions" (by rose_ and idea_) shows a similar section, though more skimpy. The editor of the first paragraph was SPA editor Theta00 whose predominant edited article was Barrett Brown, followed by Ahmed Ghappour, Brown's defense counsel. Brown was a journalist for TI and was sentenced to Federal prison for... well, read the article.

There are other bit players that were very interested in editing this article due to the NSA/Snowden/etc. hot topics, but still...

I can conclude that much of the article IS flawed in some way by having had much of its content created by SPA newbies, and I'm not surprised that the article has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources for THREE YEARS! My evaluation report above should be sufficient evidence that deleting the entire section "Major stories and reaction" is warranted (without the prerequisite of reading every single one of the remaining citations). If someone wants to research the topic and present it newly with RS secondary sources, then I would not object to it. What I object to is the massive use of TI's own articles as citations in the wiki article, with tangential citations that only support the OR written about TI and are not actually discussing/covering TI itself. That is a WP:CITEBOMB.

— Normal Op (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation is certainly logical and thorough. I think that the interview with the founders if publised in an RS would not be primary. If NYT is quoting someone as saying something, then we can cite it saying that x person said it. But certainly it also wouldnt be a source to justify that these are big scoops on the part of TI. Seems you should just ax it as you have mentioned, and maybe keep the sources to anchor one or two sentences of summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted the section. There's no way I'm going to read the entire section and 41 more citations in the hopes of 'saving' one or two citations. Normal Op (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Poitras firing

I'm going to remove the part that says she was fired. Poitras says she was fired, but the company denies it. The WaPo source says: "In a statement early Thursday afternoon, First Look described Poitras’s parting from the company as a 'natural' decision to not renew her contract after she 'decided to step away from her role at the company to pursue her own projects.' The company denied that its decision was based on Poitras talking to the media." The Praxis source is self published, so it's reliable for statements about what Poitras says, but not for statements of fact. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your change seems appropriate to me based on the WaPo source. Someone not having their contract removed is usually not considered being fired. In some situations it might be considered such from a practical point of view, but we'd go by what the sources say in those cases, and in this case WaPo is careful to put things behind "Poitras says..." and quotes First Look as saying she just didn't have her contract renewed without saying she was fired. @Bueller 007: Do you have a source we can use for statements of fact saying she was fired in the article voice (ie. unattributed)? I'm definitely not seeing it in the WaPo source, and as GA-RT-22 says, we can't use an open letter she posted on her personal website for unattributed statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Anybody have a source for The Intercept's country or headquarters?

I'd like to get this info into the lead once we can source it. I think it's reasonable to include (at a minimum) a country or demonym for articles like companies, towns, people. Need to know where the heck this is. Normally I'd slap a link to the company website's "about" page and call it a day, but The Intercept doesn't appear to publish their address on their website. The closest I could find in RS is this article that mentions a Washington bureau chief. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Controversy.

The article has a note saying:

Politico notes that The Intercept has a tendency to write articles that speak negatively of Democrats.

I'd like to remove it, since this doesn't really seem like a controversy.

-Solid Reign (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is an assessment rather than a controversy. Perhaps put it in an Assessment section. Burrobert (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I was the one that wrote that sentence. Feel free to move it around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it until we find a place for it. Assessment is a good place DesertShadow (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

I believe Greenwald praises his 'work'. That should tell every right-thinking person just exactly what Greenwald is. Do search for Latuff's 'work' about Jews and Israel, and then ponder which Central European publication it comes closest to.

Your belife is not enough, do you have any RS for this? If not it may well violate [[wp:blp].Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Lee Fang missing from this article

How come ? He wrote there. — Jerome Potts (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

COI edit requests for History

Hi! I'm a COI editor for The Intercept through my employer, Porter Novelli. I have a series of updates to request for this article, so I'm breaking them up into more manageable chunks – starting with the "History" section below.

• Add after first paragraph of "History":

A Brazilian version of the site, The Intercept Brasil, launched in August 2016. The site featured both original reporting in Portuguese as well as features from the main Intercept site translated into Portuguese. The newsrooms for The Intercept and its Brazilian counterpart were editorially independent. In 2019, The Intercept Brasil published Vaza Jato ("Car Wash Leaks"), messages demonstrating collaboration on illegal acts among former judge Sergio Moro, prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, and others as part of Operation Car Wash. The Intercept Brasil spun off as as an independent organization in October 2022.

• Update

In January 2023 it spun off from the First Look Institute as an independent nonprofit organization.

to

In January 2023 it spun off from the First Look Institute (the nonprofit arm of First Look Media) as an independent nonprofit organization.

• Add after "In January 2023 it spun off from the First Look Institute as an independent nonprofit organization.":

Reporting from The Intercept exposed significant sourcing issues with the influential December 2023 New York Times article "Screams Without Words", which alleged that Hamas perpetrated systematic sexual violence during the October 7 attacks. The investigation demonstrated how two inexperienced freelancers in Israel had done the majority of reporting work for the New York Times story, raising concerns about its editorial process and credibility. In follow-up reporting, The Intercept confirmed that The New York Times had withheld an episode of its podcast The Daily related to "Screams Without Words" due to internal debate about the veracity of the publication's original reporting. In February 2024, The New York Times began an internal investigation into the source of leaks to The Intercept.

• Update

In June 2024, the unionized staff of The Intercept made several demands to the group's board of directors, including "the immediate dismissal and termination of CEO Annie Chabel and Chief Strategy Officer Sumi Aggarwal, a commitment to restructure the business, and transparency about the board's recent discussions with prospective donors." In July 2024, after unsuccessfully asking the organization's board of directors if they could take over the organization, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim left The Intercept to found their own news website, Drop Site News.

to

In June 2024, the unionized staff of The Intercept asked the group's board of directors to terminate the organization's CEO Annie Chabel and Chief Strategy Officer Sumi Aggarwal, commit to restructuring the business, and provide transparency into conversations with donors. The next month, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim left The Intercept to found their own news website, Drop Site News, with some funding at launch from The Intercept. The Intercept continued to publish the Intercepted and Deconstructed podcasts.

Reworked the first sentence to avoid the quotation, which implies it comes from the letter but in fact comes from the Semafor source. It seems to me inappropriate to cite Drop Site News for a sentence on Drop Site News, and the original cited source does not verify the first half of the second sentence.

• Add to end of section:

In February 2024, The Intercept filed a lawsuit against OpenAI regarding the unauthorized use of journalists' work to train ChatGPT. The lawsuit focused on a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) not previously explored in the legal disputes between news organizations and AI companies. One year later, a federal court upheld part of the suit and overruled OpenAI's attempt to dismiss the case, though claims against Microsoft were dismissed. The ruling demonstrated that the DMCA can provide protections for news organizations against AI companies' unauthorized use of digital content, regardless of whether that content has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

In February 2025, The Intercept published Elon Musk’s government email address, which had not been previously reported, and filed more than a dozen related Freedom of Information Act requests. The Intercept reported on a bill introduced in September 2025 that would give the Secretary of State power to revoke the passport of a U.S. citizen based on their beliefs or speech. Within days, public outrage led Rep. Brian Mast, who had introduced the bill, to backtrack on the proposal. That same month, The Intercept was the first news organization to report that the U.S. attacked an alleged drug boat multiple times, known as a double tap strike, in order to kill survivors of its first attack. In November 2025, The Intercept reported that in response to U.S. Department of State sanctions, YouTube had deleted more than 700 videos from three major Palestinian human rights organizations documenting alleged human rights violations by Israel.

In late 2025, The Intercept was among the first outlets to detail the case of a retired police officer in Tennessee who was jailed for more than a month because of a meme he posted on Facebook in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. An investigation by The Intercept found no evidence that anyone in the public had expressed concern about danger in response to the meme, contradicting the claims of the county sheriff whose office arrested the man. The story drew widespread attention; within a week, the man was released and charges were dropped.

In March 2026, NYC Health + Hospitals canceled a contract with Palantir following reporting from The Intercept sharing details of the contract and showing almost $4 million in payments since November 2023.

• Break this section into two subsections: "2014–2022: Founding, early years, and The Intercept Brasil" for the first two paragraphs, and "2023–present: Independent organization" for the remainder.

Sources

Thank you for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Done Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

COI edit requests for Activities/Edward Snowden archives

Hi again! As noted above, I'm a COI editor for The Intercept through my employer Porter Novelli, sharing requests for this article piecemeal to facilitate review. Today I'm just sharing a few requests, primarily for the "Edward Snowden archives" section of "Activities":

• I think it would make sense to move the entire "Activities" section above "Finances" in the article, based on what I'm seeing in other articles about news organizations.

• Update "Edward Snowden archives" subsection title to "Edward Snowden reporting and archives".

• Add to beginning of "Edward Snowden archives" section:

In its early years, The Intercept published extensive investigations on the Snowden disclosures' revelations about surveillance activity in the U.S. and globally. In March 2014, Der Spiegel and The Intercept jointly reported on a list of world leaders, including German chancellor Angela Merkel, subject to U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance. Five months later, The Intercept shared details on ICREACH, the NSA's search engine giving access to hundreds of millions of records about both American citizens and non-Americans to 23 U.S. governmental agencies, including the CIA and FBI.

In July 2014, The Intercept reported how the British spy agency Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) was covertly manipulating internet content and activity with tactics like artificially increasing website traffic and interfering with online polls. The Intercept also alleged that GCHQ used Regin malware in cyberattacks on Belgacom and other EU computer systems. In February 2015, The Intercept reported that the NSA and GCHQ had hacked French-Dutch digital security company Gemalto in order to surveil calls and data secretly, an apparent violation of international law. A follow-up in June 2015 detailed how GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group worked to discredit specific targets online through the use of impersonation, fake websites, YouTube videos, and other tools. A story in September 2015 covered Karma Police, GCHQ's surveillance program established seven years earlier to record the search, browsing, and chat activities of every internet user with the goal of identifying patterns and relationships rather than targeting specific users.

Sources

Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Since you reviewed my previous edit requests above, just giving you a ping in case you'd be interested in looking at these. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I have made the requested changes. The only problem I found was that the archive for the Business Insider source pointed to a DW article. I removed the archive from the source. Burrobert (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that, and for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

COI edit requests for Podcasts

Hi! As I mentioned above, I'm a COI editor for The Intercept proposing a series of updates to this article. Today I'm sharing some new proposed subsections to be added after Deconstructed in the "Podcasts" section of the article:

Extended content

Murderville

Murderville is an investigative true crime podcast hosted by The Intercept journalists Liliana Segura and Jordan Smith. Season one, released in 2018, covered the 1998 murder of Donna Brown in Adel, Georgia, and the subsequent conviction and sentencing of Devonia Inman, who maintained his innocence. New DNA evidence and claims that police pressured or coerced three of the four criminal witnesses led to Inman's exoneration in 2021. The judge also found that prosecutors had withheld evidence, including DNA and witness testimony, supporting Inman's claims of innocence.

Season two focused on the 1992 murder of Edna Franklin in Texas and the conviction of Charles Raby, who was sentenced to death for the crime in 1994 despite a lack of physical evidence. Its first episode was released in February 2022. The season uses the specifics of one case to inform a broader critique of capital punishment in the U.S.

Somebody

Main article: Somebody

Somebody is a seven-part investigative podcast about what happened to Courtney Copeland, a gunshot victim who died after being found outside a Chicago Police station. Copeland's mother, Shapearl Wells, narrates the podcast, released in 2020. At the 2020 Scripps Howard Awards, Somebody won the top prize for Excellence in Radio/Podcast Coverage. Adweek named Wells the best podcast host of 2020, and the Third Coast International Audio Festival named Somebody as the year's "Best Serialized Story". In 2021, the series, produced in conjunction with Topic Studios and the Invisible Institute, was a Pulitzer Prize for Audio Reporting finalist.

American ISIS

Journalist Trevor Aaronson hosted American ISIS, an eight-part documentary podcast about the life of Russell Dennison, an American convert to Islam who fought for the Islamic State, dying in 2019. The podcast features audio Dennison secretly recorded and sent to Aaronson over a period of six months in 2018. Released in 2021, American ISIS uses Dennison's story as a starting point to explore how ISIS functioned in Syria.

The Intercept Briefing

Debuting in November 2024, The Intercept Briefing is a weekly podcast sharing reporting and analysis. It was nominated for a 2026 Webby Award in the "News & Politics" category.

Sources

Thank you for your feedback and time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Reply 8-JUN-2026

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y Somebody was added to the podcasts section.
2. N The other podcasts were not added because they are not independently notable in Wikipedia.

Regards,  Spintendo  02:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Hi! Thanks for your feedback and help. Can you please help me understand why the independent RS coverage cited doesn't demonstrate the independent notability of the other podcasts? Mary Gaulke (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Seems you're mis-applying it. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken in that the section is mentioning notable podcasts. I would think only notable podcasts would need to be placed there, otherwise, we open the door to listing any podcast. Content requirements demand independent reliable WP:SS WP:SECONDARY sources. When the proposed reference includes a trailer for the podcast and a 2 minute clip to the podcast (as mrt.com does, with the clip provided through a widget on their website provided by Everlit Media) raises sincere questions regarding how independent they are, why they're running the story, and what—if any—renumeration are they receiving. We can't know any of that for sure, but we can err on the side of caution and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards,  Spintendo  02:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC) and 00:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Spintendo here. Marquardtika (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The section in the article is mentioning podcasts. There's no dispute on that. But "Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" and The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles" are facts. How is it appropriate to flaunt that advice? "The other podcasts were not added because they are not independently notable in Wikipedia" seems strongly in conflict with those facts about PAG.

What is "Content requirements demand independent reliable WP:SS." supposed to mean? Wikipedia:Summary style is relevant how? Odd that Marquardtika agrees with comments that don't make sense, and provides no argument. Gives off puppetry/cabal vibes. I don't have a COI, but I'm reopening it for others to consider. RememberOrwell (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"Gives off puppetry/cabal vibes" excuse me? Have a dose of AGF. This article actually has a disclosed paid editor working on it, MaryGaulke, so it highly reasonable that other editors weigh in here to ensure the article stays encyclopedic and non-promotional. It only makes sense to list notable podcasts (notable being podcasts that are mentioned in reliable sources independent of the article subject). We're not their website per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:NOTPROMO is relevant. The test for whether something is worth mentioning is "is it covered in sources not connected with the subject?" So yes, include podcasts that meet this test, but don't include podcasts that don't. Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, "is it covered in a source not connected with the subject?" seems reasonable to me. Though the claim that The test for whether something is worth mentioning is "is it covered in sources not connected with the subject?" sources to Bawolff, not a PAG I can find. Demanding they meet the notability standards that would need to be be met for them to have their own article certainly was NOT. Which "The other podcasts were not added because they are not independently notable in Wikipedia" and " I would think only notable podcasts would need to be placed there" did. As Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Per others points out, "I agree" is not an argument and to be avoided. We're not their website per WP:NOTDIRECTORY -agreed. WP:NOTPROMO is relevant. Yes. Seems to me including the podcasts not covered in a source not connected with the subject by name only is reasonable. How 'bout that? Which is (... takes a look at the citations...) none of them, as they all seem to meet even your high "is it covered in sources not connected with the subject?" bar. You're saying not even 2 of Murderville's 6 citations are independent? Really? Evidence? RememberOrwell (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

MaryGaulke was asking to add newsworthy anouncements about these podcasts, referenced by the news sources which announced them. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy announcements do not qualify for inclusion, as routine news coverage is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. That is why, to allow for inclusion of this information in the article, I ask COI editors to establish the notability of the subjects being mentioned.  Spintendo  00:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)