This article is tricky, b/c it's a fact-based interview with an attention grabbing headline which has a strong opinionated point to make. So I want to be clear -- the article has a blatant agenda, but it also seems accurate as an interview. But the headline would be better to read, "Interview of Intercept Reporter Ryan Grim". I personally agree with Grim's opinion as well, namely that Pelosi's argument for finding common ground rather than digging in and fighting when it's required is damaging the Democratic Party. But the 'clickbait' misleading title is not helpful to anyone.

Credible, if biased. This is part of our national dialogue of what matters in politics. In this case, a sympathetic interview of a writer with a clear-cut advocacy position. There MUST be a place for advocacy if we are to discuss what really matters to us. I personally don't find THESE arguments particularly persuasive. A selective reading of history could be, and often is, used to justify EVERY political position. I find they do a favor if they lead readers to consider the issue, even if the pragmatism (“we should try something different than the approach that only sometimes worked in the past”) that justifies the argument is in my eye, the weakest approach. That's despite generally agreeing with the principle (as E Warren put it last night: why run for office if you're NOT going to reach for audacious goals?) Anyway, I didn't find anything particularly misleading, assuming the article is read by an even slightly sophisticated reader, who can see the underlying assumptions and strength of arguments. (Insisting those be spelled out for dummies' benefit would be the end of advocacy journalism.)

It's not that I didn't find value in this analysis, but it is an appeal to an authority by only providing context from one person's point of view. Nothing noted this in the headline or the first couple of paragraphs but was apparent when the article transitioned to an interview format.