The gossip
The Intercept’s staff is pleading with the nonprofit’s board to fire its CEO and Chief Strategy Officer amid a dispute involving allegations of gender bias, the likely departure of two top staffers and the inability to attract a major donor who showed interest in financing the news. place.
In April, Semafor published a story noting that the proudly progressive news organization was on track to run out of money sometime early next year, and that two of its top journalists, co-founder Jeremy Scahill and the Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim, who had been unsuccessful, asked the Intercept board to take over the organization themselves.
Since the story’s publication, internal tensions have pushed the organization to the breaking point, especially on issues related to fundraising and spending.
Following Semafor’s report, the Intercept was approached by what several sources described as a high-level donor who expressed interest in making a significant contribution to keep the publication afloat.
But the board of directors has not yet reached an agreement with the potential donor.
The inability to secure that crucial support alarmed the news site’s remaining employees, who saw it as a further sign of management incompetence. In a letter to the organization’s four-member board on Tuesday, Intercept union staff urged board members to take drastic action “aimed at saving the organization from what we believe will be its inevitable demise.”
The union made three demands: the immediate resignation and resignation of CEO Annie Chabel and Chief Strategy Officer Sumi Aggarwal, a commitment to restructure the company, and transparency about the board’s recent discussions with potential donors.
The newsroom union “does not have any confidence in its current business leadership,” the union said in the letter. “The relationship with the current CEO can no longer be saved.”
The Intercept’s board and leadership have resisted the staff’s push for new leadership. They have pointed to some modest fundraising successes, saying the news station raised $400,000 in major donations in the spring, with a goal of reaching $1 million in contributions. In a May 8 letter from the board of directors, the board said it stood behind the CEO, CSO and other non-editorial leaders, but acknowledged that funding was “declining” and that “platform algorithms are stifling distribution.”
Management also directly addressed other staff complaints. In response to a series of letters the union sent to the board, Chabel and new interim editor-in-chief Ben Mussig said the Intercept’s fate is “uncertain.” But they also accused staff of expressing prejudice against women in leadership positions.
“We are concerned that the union has singled out the salaries of two female executives, but is not concerned about the male executives, nor other high-paying positions. We would also like to note that the management team was the only group to make substantial, voluntary pay cuts, and is also the only group to voluntarily make major donor contributions to the Intercept.”
Knowing more
Staff responded to management this week, saying the accusation was “insulting” and a “cynical ploy that we categorically reject.”
In a statement to Semafor, Chabel said of the potential donor that there are “ongoing conversations about ways this individual could support journalism,” adding that the nonprofit’s board has “repeatedly expressed confidence in management of this company.”
Uncertainty about the future of the publication and friction between the parties have also begun to push out high-profile staffers. Two Intercept writers, Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw, announced last month that they were leaving the organization due to frustrations with the business and some recent editorial moves. Grim and Scahill also appear likely to leave in the coming weeks. Now that their bid to take over the Intercept has stalled, the duo is considering resigning and starting their own project. They are also in talks with Chabel about launching an affiliate spinoff site with a small grant from the nonprofit and donor support. In a May message to staff, Chabel confirmed the discussions and said the Intercept was working on a “win-win” departure for the duo.
The ongoing internal unrest has also put pressure on other parts of the organization. The remaining staff are discouraged by what they see as editorial drift and a lack of vision. Reporters were disheartened by a presentation at a recent meeting that included pitches on the “strangeness” of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and “a historical look at other eccentric Supreme Court cases.” The Intercept also presented a strategic vision to staff, which included nice but empty platitudes, such as “becoming a go-to brand for honest and accurate information.”
