If you have "no place to go," come here!

So, is The Intercept morphing into Gawker?

Today's "front page":

From the Vargas-Cooper/Currier piece:

Sometimes it’s like, what do you give the Drone Queen who has it all? You’re thinking, “yeah, I know you engaged in covert missions in Qatar, but are you sure all you want is The Hangover 3 on DVD?”

Gag me with a spoon. Couldn't Omidyar publish all of Snowden's files first, and then move on to the lighter stuff?

And from the Currier piece:

A Yemeni family was paid $100,000 for the death of relatives in a U.S. drone strike in 2012, according to a remarkable story yesterday from Yahoo News.

Great, but if I want to read yesterday's Yahoo News, I can already read HuffPo. And then there's Froomkin, sandwiched between these two:

“If Udall wants to call me, I can explain this to him,” Gravel, pictured above, said in a phone interview from his home in Burlingame, Calif.

One of these three is not like the others, right? Like Froomkin is doing actual, issue-based reporting, but he's mixed in with the fluff.

I don't know if this is a business model issue -- Omidyar deciding it's profitable to pander -- but I do know it's an editorial design issue: You don't put fluff pieces and day-old rehashes on the par with actual journalism (I mean, unless you think they're the same thing). Your design should reflect the difference, for the sake of your readers, for the sake of the brand, and for the old-fashioned public good of advancing the story. And I thought that Omidyar had also hired some high-priced editorial talent? Where are they on this?

NOTE To be fair, the Vargas-Cooper/Currier prosicle is worked up from yesterday's State Department list of gifts, so there's a news hook, however teeny. But fluff is what it is.

the_intercept.jpg275.13 KB
No votes yet