We are ecstatic that Betsy Reed, the Executive Editor of the Nation since 2006, will be our new editor-in-chief, beginning January 5.
When, several weeks ago, we sat down to create a list of potential new editors, we placed only one name on it: Reed’s. That’s because we knew she is the ideal editor to lead us into our next phase of development. That she was so excited about the prospect of coming to the Intercept was great news, and the fact that we were all able to make this happen so quickly is even better news.
Reed is a brilliant editor who has shepherded some of the most important investigative journalism of the last decade. At the Nation, she edited investigative articles, columns and books that have won the George Polk Award and the National Magazine Award. She edited both of Jeremy Scahill’s books, the first on Blackwater and the second on Obama’s “Dirty Wars.” She edited AC Thompson’s work on race and Hurricane Katrina, Naomi Klein’s investigations of the BP oil spill, Aram Roston’s exposés on contracting fraud in Afghanistan, and Liliana Segura’s pioneering examinations on the brutal, inhumane and often racist American criminal justice system.
From the first time we spoke with her about working with us, Reed was full of innovative ideas about how to further implement, and greatly strengthen, our original vision for what we wanted to create with a new journalism outlet. She is bringing a wide array of ideas for how to expand the Intercept’s coverage and reach, accompanied by her long-demonstrated ability to make that happen. We could not be more excited about how we will continue to grow under her editorial leadership.
It’s worth remembering that the Intercept, which launched in February, is not even a year old. It’s no secret (because we’ve been quite transparent about it) that we’ve encountered some difficulties in navigating this initial stage of building a new media organization.
But we are more optimistic than ever about the Intercept’s future because those difficulties, largely resolved, are easily outweighed by the great foundation we have been able to build under our outgoing editor, John Cook.
We have assembled a team of truly outstanding journalists, editors, research specialists, and technologists, who are excited about and committed to the Intercept’s future. We have the resources to continue to grow that team and to fuel their passion-driven journalism. And now we have one of the most highly regarded editors in political journalism to oversee and further develop it all.
In addition to Reed, we just welcomed to the Intercept’s staff Ken Silverstein, one of the nation’s best investigative reporters on corporate malfeasance and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Just weeks ago we were joined by our first national security editor, Sharon Weinberger, who helped create Wired’s Danger Room, as well as with our new young reporter, Juan Thompson, whose on-the-scene coverage of Ferguson has been superb. Other equally significant new hires will be announced very shortly.
When a new journalism outlet is created, the most difficult (and important) challenge is producing great journalism. That’s the area where we believe we’ve excelled.
To begin with, more NSA stories have been reported, and more NSA documents published, at the Intercept than any other media outlet in the world, even though we launched eight months after that reporting began. Some of those stories have been among the most significant from the Snowden archive.
On Wednesday, Vanity Fair asked if “First Look Media can create headlines that aren’t about itself,” and less than 24 hours later, Ryan Gallagher answered with one of the most important NSA stories yet (edited by Weinberger): a remarkably well-reported exposé on the NSA’s dangerous attacks on cellphone encryption systems that made headlines around the world. On Wednesday, former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson noted that, in the U.S., only the Intercept continues to do NSA reporting and lambasted U.S. media outlets for all but abandoning the story (even as international media outlets aggressively cover our reporting).
The Intercept has produced ample amounts of great journalism beyond the Snowden archive. We exposed long-sought secrets about the US Government’s terrorist watch lists, published the comprehensively reported account by Jordan Smith of the imminent execution in Texas of a likely innocent man, broke the news of NBC News’ removal of Ayman Mohyeldin from Gaza (which resulted in his quick reinstatement), and told the remarkable story of Jim Bamford’s attacks from the U.S. government for his heroic NSA reporting decades ago.
In sum, while we have a lot of work to do, we are proud of the journalism we have been able to do this past year, deeply excited about the journalists who are at the Intercept, and thrilled that we have such an experienced and innovative editor-in-chief to work with us as we continue to grow.
Contact the author:
Laura Poitras[email protected]fieldofvision.org
I hate the new design at the Guardian.
It kind of reminds me of The Intercept.
Alan Rusbridger once said ‘you won’t have a nice guy around, like Obama, forever’.
I wonder how Alan would find ‘Killer Tuesdays’?
A new look!
Yes, it’s so bland.Put some color in there, liven it up,
format the comments,make it in BOLD, black&red have got to go…
Let me help you.I come free.
I read Pilger, great journalist.
Where can I find Hersh and all the video recordings,
made the past Fri-Sat-Sun at The Logan Foundation(#LoganCIJ14)?
I learn so much from the comments,
it’s a shame I don’t read more often.
Very good news, indeed. Ms. Reed is the kind of accomplished editing talent The Intercept needs and deserves.
How about employing, or giving more of a voice to John Pilger.
This recent article on the responsibilities of journalists is brilliant, and I would be interested to hear a response by some of the journalists that are on staff here.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda
That is one hell of an article by Pilger.
Very good read. True journalism had long been officially dead long before 2001. In 2003, it was buried with the official birth of ” embedded journalism”, midwifed in Iraq. And it is not just with the military that embedded journalism is “inbedded” with ; it is with corporations; the political establishment; intelligence; etc.
As you can see, the “hoe” makes her rounds quite a bit…
The Intercept isn’t fit to shine Pilger’s shoes.
But instead of whining, you could start getting busy. Shining ‘TheIntercept’s shoes !
[snip]
‘Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live.
Those are the words of the senior British official responsible for sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s – a medieval siege that caused the deaths of half a million children under the age of five, reported Unicef. The official’s name is Carne Ross. In the Foreign Office in London, he was known as “Mr. Iraq”. Today, he is a truth-teller of how governments deceive and how journalists willingly spread the deception. “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,” he told me, “or we’d freeze them out.”
The main whistleblower during this terrible, silent period was Denis Halliday. Then Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and the senior UN official in Iraq, Halliday resigned rather than implement policies he described as genocidal. He estimates that sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis.
What then happened to Halliday was instructive. He was airbrushed. Or he was vilified. On the BBC’s Newsnight programme, the presenter Jeremy Paxman shouted at him: “Aren’t you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?” The Guardian recently described this as one of Paxman’s “memorable moments”. Last week, Paxman signed a £1 million book deal..’
ht `green
Thank you green for posting that link.
Applause!
Mr. Pilger is one of my favorites. He is a master of truth purveyance consistently displaying a prescient, thoughtful, proactive literary excellence which is beyond compare.
This article directs the attack exactly where it belongs at a crucial moment in time.
If one is capable of confronting and managing cognitive dissonance, it will be necessary to abandon the handmaiden puppet journalism of the empire continually displayed in publications such as, the NY Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian.
It is my hope that The Intercept will become a journalistic effort that attacks the aforementioned publications with a vengeance; by continually exposing and counteracting the lies that those disgraced outlets promote.
The task is to think outside of the box because the box itself is owned.
Glad you all read it. He really nails it.
This is his speech, of which the above was a transcript. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGyXF80u2g
My disappointment with the Guardian grows daily.
I’d also be interested in a response from journalists here as to what Pilger writes about how Wikileaks had a direct hand in helping Snowden, and is indeed the model for whistleblowing, yet seems to have been dropped from the dominant narrative. The silence around Assange, Wikileaks and Manning is deafening, particularly when some are touring the world on book tours. Is Snowden / Greenwald / Poitras a more acceptable narrative? And if so, why?
I’ve heard Glenn speak of Manning lots of times and also of Sarah Harrison and Julian Assange. But anyway, the story of how Sarah Harrison and Wikileaks helped Snowden receive asylum, and all of what it took to get to that stage, is fascinating, remarkable and heroic. Here is a 30 minute interview of Sarah Harrison by Amy Goodman that took place sometime in July of 2014.
WikiLeaks Editor Sarah Harrison on Helping Edward Snowden, Being Forced to Live in Exile
Thanks for the link Kitt. Great interview. The sheer lunacy of the world governments and corporations is extraordinary right now. It’s as though they have all lost their minds. Closing airspace. Closing Paypal, Visa, etc.
To be honest I don’t have that much hope for this organisation either. Funding from an oligarch doesn’t bode well. The time of oligarchs is well past its due date. Questions remain as to how well TI will cover Russia and the Ukraine given its founders history. And the departure of Taibbi is telling. A rich man would be happy to hear of criticisms of the over-reach of governments, but less happy to publish stories about the sheer inequality of wealth and how individuals like Jamie Dimon hold more power than governments themselves.
Which are the magazines, newspapers and other media outlets doing real investigative work on large corporate and government factions, and who funds them?
As you envision it, we’re refraining from criticizing the Ukrainian regime or the US role in the region because Pierre will get mad at us and tell us to stop it, and then we would, because we don’t want to make him mad? Or we anticipatorily assess what his reaction would be and decide we don’t want to make him mad? Why would any of us possibly care about that? Because he’s funding this outlet where we work? Do you think we couldn’t just go and get other jobs?
When First Look hired Taibbi away from Rolling Stone to start its second digital magazine, do you think they were unaware that his focus is on the corruption and evil of large corporate and banking factions? You think they didn’t know that? Then, they only discovered it months later and thought: “whoa! He writes critically about Wall Street! We can’t have that!”
Also, are you unaware that the majority of people who write for the Intercept – if not all – have a long history of writing and acting against large corporate interests?
Also, the people at Racket who left, including some who are quite angry, have said that they were never interfered with editorially. That was not remotely a cause in why this exploded. Do you think they’re just all lying in coordination?
Also, when he left, Matt went back to Rolling Stone, where he proceeded to publish an article about Morgan Stanley that was originally scheduled to be published at Racket (and which FLM was eager to publish). Rolling Stone is owned by Jann Wenner, an extremely rich individual. How do you explain that?
I’m glad you think things will go well there Glenn. May it be so.
I have been rooting for TI since the inception and feel that this editorial appointment will seal and cement your success; therefore; I share in your delight.
Wishing you the most benevolent outcome for both your publication, staff, and humanity in general.
I am looking forward to Intercept rss/podcast feeds per each journalist or in general. I would love to watch Glenn Greenwald reprise Sam Donaldson attacking whoever the hell the CIA installs in office.
Ken Silverstein…yeah! Great fit for the Intercept.
The Intercept should carry a small weekly message from Snowden. Maybe also some views of Hayden. Then it’ll get interesting. Right now I have to read a lot of bland stuff n the Comments section, as well as pretty ordinary reporting generally.
“Right now I have to read a lot of bland stuff…”
Are you writing from Guantanamo?
Well, they are both free to comment here.
“She is bringing a wide array of ideas for how to expand the Intercept’s coverage and reach.”
Welcome Betsy Reed. If you can accomplish this, The Intercept has a chance of being quoted and referenced more often than we already are. In a positive light, I should add. There are some great people working here at The Intercept who are doing what I consider to be critical(multi-defined) reporting on issues that must be dealt with if we expect to live in a society that values all life equally.
Hopefully, under the new editor-in-chief, when a writer becomes aware that he or she has an incorrect quote in the title (as well as the body) of an article, a correction will be published. (Maybe the editor-in-chief will also inquire as to how the writer could have possibly gotten the quote wrong when he claims to have been standing four feet from the speaker, who shouted the words at least nine times.) Maybe the most basic standards will be observed.
`barn-c..
Standing?!. Appreciating the link. I was under the impression that Juanito was ‘kissing the asphalt w/ his wasabi encrusted lips’..
Ms Reed, welcome.
ps – Note below for the ‘basic standard’ that needs to be rectified.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/25/ferguson-mayhem/
Oh, look – the new ‘Salon’ has a new hairdresser, too!
Good on you guys! Keep it up!
Welcome Betsy and Ken. I look forward avidly to your contributions here!
A good spot to toss this into the mix, perhaps. (My apologies, in advance, for its length.)
“Seymour Hersh attacks ‘useless’ NSA over surveillance”
“Veteran reporter advises young journalists not to run scared of bullying by governments and intelligence agencies”
Stuart Dredge, 12.05.14
The role of investigative journalists remains crucial in holding power to account, even when that power is ‘incompetent’, according to veteran reporter Seymour Hersh.
“The whole purpose of what I think we should be doing is counter-narrative. They have their narrative, and we have to show there is another narrative,” said Hersh, in a keynote session at The Logan Symposium conference in London.
“Even if you can’t publish, the act of asking, the act of doing, the act of putting it down. It’s all about an informed society, and you’re not going to get informed by the leadership. That’s our function.”
Hersh, whose award-winning work include reporting on the My Lai massacre in south Vietnam and more recently the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, gave a sparky speech blending advice for young journalists and hackers with brickbats for the US National Security Agency (NSA).
“My view is very simple: the world since I have been old enough to read has basically been run by idiots, nincompoops, thieves… and unfortunately the solution is the idiots who run most of the mainstream media,” he said.
Hersh, who was interviewed on-stage by author and broadcaster Laura Flanders, said journalists should not run scared of bullying by governments and intelligence agencies.
“Let me say this to you real simple: when you have something like these stolen documents, and you decide you’re only going to publish part of it. We’re not breaking the law. We’re not the guys that are violating the rights around the world,” he said, before referring to the Guardian’s decision to destroy hard drives of files leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
“So why be afraid? Why not write everything? Do it. As the Guardian guy did, why let some thugs come into your office and destroy some documents that you know don’t exist elsewhere?… We shouldn’t hesitate. The guys who should worry are the guys who are violating the laws.”
Hersh had a barb for his former employer, the New York Times, suggesting that young investigative journalists do not need mainstream media accreditation to do valuable work.
“You don’t have to be in the New York Times or something like that. The New York Times is narrative. You want to be counter-narrative,” he said. “Mostly I’m embarrassed for the paper these days, having worked there. And that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best there is.”
He reserved his biggest criticism for the NSA, although he portrayed the agency as incompetent rather than malevolent. “The single most overrated agency in the United States is the NSA,” said Hersh.
“It is so fucked up. They can’t get anything right! It’s just the most useless unproductive agency. It doesn’t get much. Yes, any given day if they decide to go after you, they can do a helluva job. But they always could… But it’s also a question of how do they retrieve it. I’m not worried about them.”
…
Hersh finished by returning to the theme of the role investigative journalism plays in a healthy society.
“We are here to keep them in check, to keep the powers that be in check. That’s the only thing between them, and chaos – fascism if you like. Because they lie. They are frigging liars, because it’s so easy to lie,” he said.
“We have a role to play. We can at least keep them afraid of us.”
Dear Betsy Reed:- Pardon me please my presumption but, what with the bellicose Hillary Clinton more than likely to try to grandstand in 2016, it sure seems to me that The Intercept would do well, right away, to find and hire a journalist suitably informed on all-matters-Russia — including of course Ukraine, by extension — and, at that, one adept at implementing and articulating the kind of erudite (and vis-a-vis the US & EU:) acerbic viewpoints so cogently advocated and elaborated (both in print and on tv) by the likes of John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen (& wife), Ray McGovern, Robert Parry, Max Keiser, and Peter Lavelle. In this general regard, see the astonishing recent interview with the former Assistant to the US Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts: rt.com/op-edge/211579-us-world-hegemony-russia/ All the best with your new job.
Stephen Cohen vis-a-vis a Young Turk, hot off the griddle:- http://www.thenation.com/blog/192073/most-dangerous-time-russian-us-relations-cuban-missile-crisis
To gild the lily, vide Robert Parry @: consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/
And for good measure still:- johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda (re: Russia/Ukraine & Assange/TheGuardian)
PCR for POTUS!I can dream at least of a rational intelligent non bellicose leader.
Welcome Ms. Reed and Mr. Silverstein..
Good news on both counts, and good luck to them both.
This article is far too rosy; it lacks the dramatic tension of the Matt Taibbi story.
I’d like to request that the current reporters start making unreasonable demands on the new editor and maybe begin bickering among themselves.
Focusing on content is an interesting strategy, however. Sometimes contrarian initiatives work because they find a previously unidentified market niche. I hope your gamble pays off.
Still, that’s no reason to abandon a proven formula. As Vanity Fair correctly pointed out, if you want to grab more headlines, you need to ramp up the internal dissent. Please note this request isn’t made for my personal edification, but reflects my genuine support and concern for what is in the overall best interests of The Intercept.
Perhaps this article’s already forcing some rebranding, Duce, in it seems to intentionally and repeatedly drop capitalization from Intercept’s preceeding “the.” So no more “TI” – I guess, which sounded too much like an unpleasant basic training acronym, anyway…
I actually like just “I,” it all sounds so very – “Redemption Song.”
Fantastic news. I am also glad to see that you have Ken Silverstein writing on corporate malfeasance and money in politics, which are to me pivotal issues. I have been very happy to see the growth in TI lately. Congratulations all.
Good news that you’ve got a proper editor now, and that Cook is soon to be out the door. All the accolades aside about the AMAZING work he’s done in just a few months, he’s better at curating a site that specializes in viral videos of farting dogs and the like.
Good luck with the new appointment.
I thought I’d post this link to the story of another journalist, one at the other end of hiring and firing – Nafeez Ahmed .http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-12-04/why-the-guardian-axed-nafeez-ahmeds-blog/
He has been fired from Glenn’s old haunt The Guardian for being too much of an investigative reporter and saying the wrong things about Gaza. Interestingly he is trying out a model of subscription funded journalism to continue his work, which I for one will be following.
The Guardian in 03 was awesome.It.now in the present day,sucks.And its new look(sheesh)sucks.What do they think they are, NYTs East?(Yep)And Freedland is their Friedman.A waste of eye muscles.(Sometimes the quiz’s and pictures are ok)
Wonderful news, thanks — I await the future with baited breath. I just wish you folks would totally re-conceive The Intercept’s website. It is not just that it is graphically bland, it fails to offer any kind of more or less instant overview of what’s on offer. How about a simulated cylinder on screen, with story-cameos thereupon a la The Guardian (pre-Beta-style), which revolves (upwards) as one scrolls downward — until, that is, one decides on a featured story destination and clicks on thereto? In any case, please keep up the excellent work.
I doubt you’d find anyone who disagrees with this. Definitely a priority. And that includes the comment section.
I’m on board with a new layout — as long as it is not a javascript/ajax nightmare, like the new Guardian interface.
It is “innovative” styles like those which are ruining the internet. We don’t need that nonsense here. The Guardian website is the crowning image of the modern culture of internet waste and over-snazzification. The Guardian website is all but inoperable on any low spec computer. I wonder if their market researchers realize this.
I completely agree with you, Luda.
Absolutely agree 110%, Luda and Jerry.
Me too,whats wrong with traditional layouts?
Welcome, Betsy and Ken, with hopes for your success here at TI.
Me too! There is no excuse for relying on Javascript to deliver text and images … and the privacy-conscious readership of this site is particularly aware of it. Besides, you can do some pretty remarkable things with plain CSS layout. Our top priority is that the site continues to flout what seems like a near law that Facebook gets to track whatever you read, wherever you read it. Looking pretty is… in the eye of the beholder.
Some things I’d like to see for this site in the future:
0) Find a way to speed up the connection. I don’t know why but the first time I read an article here it can take 10 seconds or more. (Oddly, commenting is instantaneous) That must be costing you a big chunk of readership.
1) Decide on a clear brand for your site that conveys what kinds of news you cover. Right now, “THE // INTERCEPT” sounds like a nerdy surveillance site, yet you have stories on Ferguson riots and The Newsroom … while missing the boat on the hacking of Sony by North Korea. What is your focus? If it’s that broad, then try to make it clearer that you are a general news site.
1a) Please consider the radical notion of having your name be the same as your domain name?
1b) I think it would be good to make direct access to primary sources be a defining point of the site. You already _do_ it, and this is in line with the wonderfully referenced Nation articles; but there has to be a way to make readers appreciate the difference between your perspective and somebody like AP who exist to play keep-away with the data (e.g. tell you that a landmark new study just came out from some unnamed professor in Norway), because they know the second you find the real source you’re not going to direct anyone to their crummy spam blurb.
2) Find a way to better distance your site’s voice from radical editorials like “Why The Ferguson Riots Are Justified”. I’m not saying censorship, most of us reading hate censorship; I’m saying, consider keeping hands off it as a ‘guest point of view’, or get a panel of responses that run the political gamut, or something so that people don’t turn around in ten years and call you the rag that cheered on arsonists. You get enough flack just for cheering on Snowden!
3) Forums are the lifeblood of modern media, and designing a truly free and fair forum is THE central technical question of democracy. The decisions should be made from more than just a programming perspective – this is a genuine philosophical issue. When evaluating forums, consider the Gini coefficient of the postings — what is the distribution of those read a thousand times versus those read once? Consider ways to have a jury of readers evaluate every posting and consider featuring it fairly, rather than having the first thing posted get a thousand upvotes and everyone else goes to /dev/null. Defy modern convention and allow the least popular post to be read without ‘clicking here for the next ten posts’ two hundred times. Really deep, serious thought is needed here – this is the place where our society needs philosophers today the most. We all want to have a chance to be heard; we all want to read “the best” postings; we all want the General Will to reveal itself, by some definition or other. But who knows how to do that? Become the first.
4) Mostly though, what you need is more content, more stories. If you have to go to featuring “reader editorials” then do it. If you can wangle a deal with The Nation and Vice and other “edgy” sites to cross-feature each others’ content, then do it. But if I come back here three hours from now I want to have new stories to read, let alone three days!
Juan Thompson, the author of that article, doesn’t qualify as “a guest point of view, because he is, as you can read at the link, on staff at The Intercept. I was and am not in agreement with the premise of that article or pleased with the frame chosen to address the goings on in Ferguson and related. But I don’t believe that being concerned about such things as, “the rag that cheered arsonists on” would be time well spent by The Intercept.
What some call arson,some call urban(or suburban)renewal.I seem to remember an ethnic appellation about lightning also.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose. While your beef with the website layout is legit and even acknowledged by GA as such, I tend to engross myself in the content material so much that, in comparison, matters of layout become an indulgence in the luxury of sheer aesthetics.
I’ll be the first to admit to being turned off by a website’s poor layout theme or organization once or twice in the past, but I hope we can treat this problem with a relatively lower priority than we are giving it, and focus more on the site’s content material instead. Until we get the pretty face…
I feel the same way, Pat. I just have one peeve about the typography in that the article titles should not be all caps because it makes them hard to read.
When I worked as an executive at United Media, the guy in charge of the appearance of the website responded to criticism of its interface and appearance with a similarly glib brush-off that what mattered was the content, not the look.
United Media went out of business about a year later, in large part because it borked its online presence.
No doubt, content matters, but this is the Web. It’s a visual medium. Why this ocean of words?
If readers find a website unpleasant to navigate, or frustrating to use, they’ll forget about it in favor of other sites. Repeating “it’s the content, it’s the content” makes people feel good, but it doesn’t change reality.
If I were Ms. Reed, redesign would be my #1 priority.
PS. Also needed: lots and lots of animations, video, photos, charticles, and cartoons (but you knew I’d say that).
And, as a linkblogger, harder to render in NON-SHOUTY fashion. The Intercept and TorrentFreak are the only publications I will do that translation for. It’s annoying and I can’t think that it helps graphically.
“On Wednesday, Vanity Fair asked if “First Look Media can create headlines that aren’t about itself,””
I’m glad that you are open about the inner workings of your organization.
If traditional media don’t understand that by doing so they could regain a part of the public trust they betrayed, it’s their loss.
tl;dr So, there!
Fair enough. Uncle, w/a white flag.
Have to take your word on Reed. The editor’s job is a hard one for readers to gauge. We generally know when something needed an editor, or a better editor, but a brilliant editor is an unsung hero(ine) from where a reader typically sits. All I know, from my own experience, is a good editor can make you look a whole lot smarter than you actually are. So, if y’all are excited, then I’m excited, too.
What has me nearly swooning is: we just welcomed to the Intercept’s staff Ken Silverstein. I am a drooling, unapologetic fan of Ken Silverstein. Was really sad when he left Harper’s. Have limped along catching him where I can, like here**, most recently. Thrilled he’s on the Intercept’s staff.
And, take that(!), Vanity Fair.
**http://www.vice.com/read/evil-llc-0000524-v21n12