I’m a huge fan of the Intercept. Yuge. Their detailed, organized pieces offer a context you won’t find elsewhere. That said, I read an article recently and it really chapped my ass. The most abrasive parts were the misrepresentation of sources and relying on popular opinion to make its point: I expect better quality from the Intercept.

Let’s start with the most blatant offense of misuing a source. The claim the article hinges on: When Mark Zuckerberg was asked if Facebook had influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the founder and CEO dismissed the notion that the site even had such power as “crazy.”

Sam Biddle, the author of the ass-chapping Intercept article, gives us the link to what supposedly is Mark Zuckerberg admitting Facebook cannot influence elections. The source quote of the single quoted word Biddle uses: “Personally, I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way — I think is a pretty crazy idea, Here you can see that Zuckerberg is saying that fake news on Facebook cannot influence elections, not Facebook itself. The distinction is Facebook, a crazy popular social media platform, can influence elections through legitimate means of posting, sharing, and organizing events. A claim as bold as “Facebook says it can’t advertise” from the CEO of a company that sustains itself off ad revenue should raise suspicion.

Biddle uses the rest of the article to vaguely insinuate wrongdoing in Facebook’s “hidden” success stories. I bet any marketer worth their salt could find these “hidden” stories. As a developer, I like to read a product’s reviews and see if it works before using it. I would go to the “hidden” readme that’s on a project’s Github repository. I can’t imagine marketing is different. “Facebook’s work with the Scottish National Party, a political party in the U.K., was described as ‘triggering a landslide.’” Any ad company ever is going to spin things their way. That’s the nature of their work. If you were already against Facebook, you’ll come away thinking that the company blatantly inflates its success and feel righteous in your hate for the company. Exaggeration isn’t a move that only Facebook pulls though. If you want to hate Facebook in this article, hate all skeezy advertising techniques. Don’t just go with popular opinion to lynch a company and score an easy article, Mr. Biddle.

Is it wrong for a private company to not announce removing controversial material from one of its main product lines? I don’t think so. Is it wrong to throw a few “facts” at readers and let their biases fill in the blanks left by empty writing? I think so. I think that’s called dogwhistling, a tool of yellow journalism. The article may consist of facts, but they’re hardly news.