Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.