[HN Gopher] Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided jou...
___________________________________________________________________
Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
Author : leephillips
Score : 144 points
Date : 2023-03-21 17:10 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| decapita wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Just another example of Rolling Stone literally being the worst
| of the worst in terms of unethical media. It's not the first time
| they've been caught like this, nor will it be the last. Their
| newsroom is honestly so prolific in terms of producing lies that
| you'd think the political parties would be paying attention to
| them, they could be a great batch of future politicians.
| wdb wrote:
| Rolling Stone magazine has been going down hill for a long time.
| There reporting of late has been pretty disappointing with
| slanted views/one sided reporting
| ffhhj wrote:
| At least they keep the stones rolling, down the hill that is.
| fortran77 wrote:
| They aren't credible anymore. Not since this:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r...
| brookst wrote:
| That's incredibly damning and everyone involved should be
| ashamed.
|
| That said, is there any organization in the world, let alone
| a media outlet, that has never had any catastrophic failures?
| Are we supposed to be one-strike to forever irredeemable for
| every org?
| 93po wrote:
| Should we also not call the NYT credible anymore after they
| supported the invasion of Iraq (and associated WMD BS) and
| admitted their reporting "had not been as rigorous as they
| should have been, and were insufficiently qualified,
| frequently overly dependent upon [biased] information"? That
| one of their reporters had to retire in shame, but only after
| a generous severance package deal, and all of the editors and
| people who allowed this were allowed to stay?
| paulpauper wrote:
| Disturbing stuff
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Meek#Investigatio...
|
| Shame on Rolling Stone for omitting this
|
| It's hard to find any way to defend Rolling Stone's actions. It's
| actions in 2014 showed it cannot be trusted as a reputable
| source.
| droptablemain wrote:
| I'm incredibly skeptical of the machine, as well as NPR, which
| mostly exists to support the narrative of the ruling elite.
| However, I recommend everyone skeptical of this to read the full
| affidavit -- or at least as much as you can stomach.
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...
| londons_explore wrote:
| We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in
| convenient places to get people put behind bars.
|
| I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit
| images claim may not be as true as it appears.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Based upon NPR's telling it seems like the editor was trying to
| hide details about a friend's story as long as possible, and
| not present the details of the story with skepticism like
| you're implying.
| [deleted]
| version_five wrote:
| It's fucked up that a conspiracy theory gets the top post and
| actual criticisms of the reporting are at the bottom.
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| First day on HN?
|
| When you ask for examples of this happening they get really
| mad and try to hide your question by downvoting it.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| So then report on that?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > the investigation into James Gordon Meek, 53, of Arlington,
| was initiated from an investigative lead sent by Dropbox and
| ultimately received by the FBI Washington Field Office's Child
| Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as
| an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a
| refutation.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| To the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be
| had with these people who don't require evidence in order
| to make bold claims?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to
| dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is
| fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is
| known as well.
|
| It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the
| facts
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The poster insinuated that the FBI planted CSAM on a
| reporter's devices.
| vuln wrote:
| Well at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_
| and report it.
|
| > "how does the government intend to prove beyond any
| reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves
| didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| At what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their
| job? How does the government intend to prove that the
| CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like
| these are insufferable.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I'm not the person you're arguing with, but please refer
| back to me an hour ago saying "Seems a fool's errand."
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Right. Best to walk way.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Honestly, no idea. Seems a fool's errand.
| tempsy wrote:
| yikes, though not the first time I've thought people on HN has
| shown bizarre sympathy for pedophiles.
| lalopalota wrote:
| The journalist quit after the pedophilla charges were edited
| out of the article.
| tqi wrote:
| In the absence of evidence, what is the line between a
| "reasonable suspicion" and a "conspiracy theory"?
| brookst wrote:
| You said it yourself -- it's the difference between a
| suspicion, aka hypothesis, and theory, aka explanation based
| on evidence.
|
| The problem with conspiracy theorists isn't that they think
| unlikely things _might_ have happened, it 's that they are
| 100% convicted that unlikely things are the only possible
| explanation, and (typically) that any evidence to the
| contrary is just part of the conspiracy.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| > We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found'
| in convenient places to get people put behind bars.
|
| "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross
| them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross
| them" trope but for a different group of people. Based on other
| comments it seems like the accusations are a bit more
| substantial than a low effort frame. Nevertheless, there's a
| reason that the rest of the journalism industry basically
| dismissed it flat out.
|
| That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media
| "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of
| the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title.
| That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their
| double standard.
| bsder wrote:
| > "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you
| cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you
| cross them" trope but for a different group of people.
|
| Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that
| the TLAs can do and have done.
|
| "Child Porn" charges should _ALWAYS_ be acknowledged with
| great skepticism given just how much damage even the
| accusation will do-- _especially_ if the investigation is
| focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting
| or sweep).
|
| However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning.
| I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man
| deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and
| reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is
| found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the
| reporting will destroy his life.
|
| > That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the
| media "club" the media would not have extended them the
| benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation
| in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw
| them and their double standard.
|
| That is fair and hard to disagree with.
| jstarfish wrote:
| I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of
| those cases.
|
| The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on
| page 3.
|
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...
| TylerE wrote:
| To split the difference a bit...
|
| They have him "on tape" IMing multiple other suspects,
| talking extremely graphically about pedophilia, and
| exchanging images and video of same.
| briantakita wrote:
| "on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a
| computer engaging in the conversation?
|
| I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim.
| It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to
| deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's
| there?
| martinjacobd wrote:
| They don't claim to have video of him engaging in the
| conversation, but they do claim to have a pretty damning
| picture of him.
|
| To support the idea that it was he who engaged in these
| messages, they claim that you can only be logged in to
| kik on one device at a time and have evidence that he was
| using the device for other purposes around the same time
| and in the same location as kik for at least one of these
| conversations.
|
| That's my reading, anyways. Not a lawyer and have trouble
| with the stilted language in these kinds of things.
| TylerE wrote:
| On tape as in they have the phone with messages on it,
| and the ip addeess and device info used to send the
| messages.
|
| (As opposed to testimony, where you have someone else
| testifying that they SAW him doing it, but no way of
| proving that post facto)
| recyclelater wrote:
| FYI to anyone curious, do not read the affidavit if you do
| not want to have pretty horrific images of infants etc in
| your mind.
| scythe wrote:
| So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP.
| Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To
| there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload
| pictures. Basic parallel construction.
|
| In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed
| himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included
| in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked.
| Harder to fake. His face does not seem to be visible in any
| of the images. Some legitimate communications of Meek are
| also on the phone, corresponding with his known whereabouts
| (and might be checked against the other end if possible).
|
| Conclusion: if this is a frame, it's a _very_ well-made one.
|
| _Why_ would he be framed, though? He made a documentary
| about a military embarrassment (the Tongo Tongo ambush), and
| many years ago he documented a case of apparent manslaughter
| (of an American) by a captain in Iraq. In short, he was not
| exactly a Seymour Hersh or a Glenn Greenwald. I just don 't
| see the 3LAs going to this much trouble to bag a guy who
| wrote a story about Niger.
|
| So I conclude the case is probably real.
|
| Thought I'd put this down and save someone else the trouble.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| Thank you, it's hard to find reasonably good arguments like
| this in the HN comments these days.
| mrandish wrote:
| In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media
| being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and
| skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in
| support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced
| assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences
| of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be
| disproportionate.
|
| If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will
| later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's
| the more appropriate time for media to consider those
| allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples
| of government (or individuals wielding the power of government)
| using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally
| inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting
| 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage
| doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment -
| when and if it happens.
| burkaman wrote:
| It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find
| trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a
| replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what
| grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably
| retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations
| should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat
| some of the government's claims:
|
| > Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents
| allegedly found classified information on Meek's laptop
| during their raid.
|
| Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about
| the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just
| pick which of their claims you like.
| derefr wrote:
| > The sources are trustworthy or not
|
| Read that quote carefully -- there's two layers to it.
|
| The _source_ is "familiar with the matter" -- the
| journalist trusts what they have to say.
|
| What the source says, though, is that federal agents
| _allegedly_ found classified information. In other words,
| the source claims _that the federal agents themselves are
| claiming this_ ; but the source does not put any credence
| in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in
| such a way that the journalist would put credence into it.
|
| If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no
| need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would
| do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the
| journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.
| avianlyric wrote:
| The use of the word "allegedly" is standard practice for
| reputable new organisations reporting on an individual
| being charged, but not yet convicted.
|
| A core tenet of the justice system is the idea that your
| innocence until proven guilty. Hence the use of the word
| "allegedly", by default any claims made by the government
| shouldn't be treated as proven, until they've proved them
| in a court of law.
|
| To assume that a law enforcement official, or prosecutors
| charges are true _before_ they've proven them in a court
| of law would be to ignore due process. To publish those
| charges as facts, would be libel.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly,
| but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged
| allegations from the same source you include, and replace
| their unverified allegations with your own.
|
| Source: Federal agents found classified documents and
| CSAM on his computer.
|
| Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified
| documents on his computer. The question looms on what
| grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He
| appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security
| apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate
| reporting activities?
| wytewulf wrote:
| [dead]
| leephillips wrote:
| You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that
| people will remember accusations and not subsequent
| exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the
| kind of accusation that will ruin a person's life.
|
| The problem is that _Rolling Stone_ plays favorites. In a
| recent incident they ran the false headline "CPAC Speaker
| Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated," about someone
| that they didn't like and who wasn't a friend of the editor
| in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this
| libel, they changed the headline. I don't think they can be
| trusted.
| mcguire wrote:
| Seems like that article is currently titled much more
| accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of
| 'Transgenderism' -- and Somehow Claims He's Not Calling for
| Elimination of Transgender People".
| penultimatename wrote:
| Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the
| FBI was investigating them for a specific crime.
|
| It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's
| extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections
| to the accused.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| If you think the government only reports facts, stop reading
| Rolling Stone. Read the FBI report.
| jstarfish wrote:
| I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one.
|
| The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead
| of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for
| defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent
| altogether.
|
| I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw
| this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does _not_
| mean the subject is automatically guilty.
|
| My wife's ex was "being investigated by CPS" at one point. He
| didn't do anything, but it is/was humiliating for him
| nonetheless.
| brwck wrote:
| > The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists
| ahead of any sort of actual trial
|
| You mean the time where they intentionally sought out and
| then made up a rape because they wanted to peddle mass
| campus rape propaganda as part of the culture war?
|
| Crazy how you spin that into a positive. That the rolling
| stone is even in business or has any defenders truly
| puzzles the mind.
| pr0zac wrote:
| I'm really confused how you read that sentence as
| spinning Rolling Stone's actions positively?
| tedunangst wrote:
| Was Rolling Stone sued for defamation for accurately
| reporting what an FBI affidavit said?
| mcguire wrote:
| This is the article in question: https://web.archive.org/we
| b/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...
|
| "Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-
| security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-
| enforcement officers actually removed him from the
| building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining
| to the case remain sealed."
|
| So, according to Siegel, Rolling Stone had information that
| the raid was not related to Meek's journalism. That first
| sentence is a lie.
| whatshisface wrote:
| "Appears," "no one can say for certain," "a riddle,"
| "documents [...] remain sealed."
| ribosometronome wrote:
| And yet, the editor was willing to run that classified
| material had been found on his computer from those same
| sources and lead the reader to the conclusion he was
| targeted for national security reasons. Leaving out what
| has been reported to you as part of an effort to twist the
| narrative doesn't deserve slack.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Fair point.
|
| I would argue that the general public does not give a
| single shit about the latest individual being accused of
| vague national security drama on any given day. A
| _reporter_ possessed _classified material_ on his
| _personal laptop_? Someone wake the President!
|
| ...oh, wait. The President 's kid possessed classified
| material on his personal laptop too.
|
| There's nothing really defamatory about it; if anything
| it might _help_ his career. Nobody gives a shit about
| victimless white-collar crimes.
|
| But child porn? You're radioactive once painted. That
| accusation causes actual damages.
| [deleted]
| kunalgupta wrote:
| I don't believe the reason for an FBI raid is a notable fact
| at all, that's just politics. A notable fact would be
| evidence discovered, and even that needs to be verified
| john15 wrote:
| [flagged]
| glonq wrote:
| I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm
| not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's
| willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2)
| the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything
| that such media produces.
|
| We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky
| hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.
| waboremo wrote:
| That's always been happening. Only real difference is now you
| can write a blog post calling it out and nobody cares (and you
| aren't assassinated) because everyone is onto the latest
| hotness.
|
| I also don't think the public unquestionably consumes
| everything, getting people to wear a mask has been
| unfashionably difficult. It's just that while it's easier to
| misinform now, it's also harder to correctly inform people.
| There's a general distrust now of everything, insular bubbles
| created by algorithms, and rising anti intellectualism to boot.
| All of this creates the perfect storm to post whatever whenever
| without much care even if the real world consequences are
| great.
| falcrist wrote:
| Regarding point #2,
|
| How have you vetted the NPR article? Is there some ultimate
| source for this information that would reveal gross negligence
| or omissions by the author of the article?
|
| I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. It's just that it's
| incredibly hard to properly fact-check anything you can't look
| up in an encyclopedia. It feels like this has been a major
| issue since time immemorial.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > It's just that it's incredibly hard to properly fact-check
| anything you can't look up in an encyclopedia.
|
| You can't even use that. Encyclopedias only put the facts
| they think are important and have space for in the book -
| it's possible they omit or obfuscate information that would
| change how one views a person, place, thing, or event.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| [flagged]
| romellem wrote:
| > The whole entire "Russiagate" thing was straight up just a
| hoax
|
| Uhhh, what? The Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S.
| Senate [published][1] a nearly 1,000 page report on this.
| Volume 5 begins with these _findings_ :
|
| > _The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in
| an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt
| to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election._
|
| > _The fifth and final volume focuses on the
| counterintelligence threat, outlining a wide range of Russian
| efforts to influence the Trump Campaign and the 2016
| election._
|
| I highly recommend you [read][2] this yourself, but including
| a few top-level items of the counter intelligence threats:
|
| > _Taken as a whole, [Paul] Manafort 's high-level access and
| willingness to share information with individuals closely
| affiliated with the Russian intelligence services,
| particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska,
| represented a grave counterintelligence threat._
|
| > _The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin
| ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and
| accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
| information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for
| president. Moscow 's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign,
| tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help
| the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive
| Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic
| process._
|
| [1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-
| finds-rus...
|
| [2]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-
| sele...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Russiagate was not about the Russian interference in the
| 2016 elections, it was the claim that the Trump team was
| explicitly coordinating with Russian interference in the
| 2016 election. The interference happened, the evidence of
| coordination is weak at best.
| [deleted]
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| The reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35251387
| was posted 12 minutes after the 25,228 word article I
| linked. They didn't read it.
| _gabe_ wrote:
| > The Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S. Senate
|
| Ah yes, the senate. How could we forget the paragons of
| truth? They absolutely have no incentives to lie or make
| hyperbolic claims to support any agendas. They're the
| epitome of our humble faithful civil servants.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The Republican Senate report verified nearly all of the
| points in the Mueller report. Their incentives were 100%
| aligned with finding nothing and yet..
|
| https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/d
| ocu...
|
| The irony of people in this thread not reading primary
| sources and instead relying on weird "news" reports that
| nothing was found is a bit much.
| thakoppno wrote:
| > While the Committee does not describe the final result
| as a complete picture, this volume provides the most
| comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities
| and the threat they posed.
|
| Subsequent to the Senate report, has any information
| corroborated the allegations about Manefort?
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Aside from being convicted at trial in two separate
| Federal jurisdictions and agreeing to forfeit tens of
| millions of dollars he illicitly earned while working for
| the Russian billionaire in question you mean? What
| specific corroboration are you looking for?
| thakoppno wrote:
| > Manafort has not been charged with any crimes related
| to the Trump campaign or Russian meddling in the 2016
| presidential election.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-manafort-
| witness-mu...
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The core allegation against Manafort in the Mueller
| report is that he was paying debts back to the Russian
| billionaire who bankrolled his life [this is undisputed,
| the tens of millions of dollars in unreported income came
| directly from Deripaska] by having clandestine meetings
| with an associate of Deripaska's, Konstantin Kilminik
| [This is also undisputed, they met regularly including at
| the famous cigar bar in NYC], where Manafort passed
| confidential campaign data to Kilminik [also undisputed]
| which Kilminik then shared with Deripaska.
|
| Perhaps the 'shared with Deripaska' part is disputed? But
| I don't even think that is.. again, what specific
| corroboration are you looking for?
|
| Is your contention that Trump's campaign manager, who was
| twice convicted of laundering tens of millions of dollars
| for a Russian billionaire, and who admitted to providing
| confidential campaign information to that same
| billionaire via a cutout, needs to be convicted of some
| specific crime related to that before we believe all of
| their admissions?
|
| Read the Mueller report! Or the Senate report! They are
| very detailed and highlight exactly where they have
| unanswered questions. None of their questions involve
| Manafort's behavior or intentions.
| thakoppno wrote:
| > Not a single person from the U.S. Government ever
| reached out to me.
|
| - Konstantin Kilimnik
|
| What kind of investigation doesn't interview the primary
| suspects?
|
| How did Mueller not know about Fusion GPS when questioned
| by Congress?
| immanentize wrote:
| You could just believe Trump on his word but that seemed
| to change.
|
| Unless there is a perjury penalty involved, and suddenly
| there was little to go on.
| timmytokyo wrote:
| It's interesting that this particular CJR report is being
| cited when its editor has engaged in the very same conflict-
| riddled, shady practices being criticized at Rolling Stone.
| Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who was
| commissioned to write a precursor to the cited piece, has
| more details [1].
|
| [1] https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/07/who-watches-the-
| watchdog-...
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| [flagged]
| fullshark wrote:
| This is basically how the media has operated forever, in
| America during the debates on ratification of the constitution
| there were federalist and anti-federalist newspapers and they
| published outright lies and whatever accusation they could find
| about people on the other side every week in order to make
| their case.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| As far as I can tell, this idea of newspeople as morally pure
| monk-like defenders of the truth is isolated to a handful of
| decades in post-war America, mostly confined to a few
| personalities and outlets, and was far from universally-held
| even then (lots of people blamed, or still blame, the media
| for our losing the Vietnam War, for instance--Agnew and
| others were openly attacking them as corrupt and biased for
| those and related reasons, in the 70s).
|
| Their traditional depiction in fiction is, and long has been,
| as about one step up from pimps, con-men, and used car
| salesmen, as far as ethics and trustworthiness are concerned.
| I doubt some Golden Age of news objectivity ever existed,
| really, though the _perception_ of it may have, among some
| set of people, for a time--hell, you can find people today
| who think Fox News does great journalism, so the perception
| of that clearly doesn 't require it to be a fact. I'm fairly
| sure it's exactly the same kind of longing for a past that
| never existed that one can see all around.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > I doubt some Golden Age of news objectivity ever existed
|
| Maybe that's because you haven't read any of it? I mean,
| it's hard to find on the Web these days. And easy to find
| counter-examples even from that period.
|
| Just like it's easy to find some Victorian-era pornography
| and leap to the conclusion that everything _then_ was just
| like now.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I've read good reporting, sure. Good reporting isn't
| mythical. People worried about modern journalism's lack
| of objectivity or reliability just strike me as folks
| learning for the first time what journalism's _usually_
| like, is all, and being surprised and thinking that it 's
| a new development because they just learned about it.
|
| I'm not claiming there's no such thing as good reporting.
| adamrezich wrote:
| when was this Golden Age of News Objectivity, then?
| because from where I'm standing, it sure seems like it
| was more of a Golden Age of There Only Being A Few
| Accessible Sources of News, Most If Not All of Whom Were
| On The Same Page When It Comes To Major Stories, i.e.,
| The Time Before Smartphones.
|
| case in point: the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and
| Iraq. the entire United States media apparatus united to
| gaslight the populace into consenting to an foreign-soil
| military invasion on incredibly shaky grounds, that were
| later proven to be completely false. they even gaslit us
| into disapproving of our own _allies_ choosing to not
| join us in the invasion--remember "freedom fries"?
|
| yet the only lesson the majority of the public seemed to
| learn from this is "George W. Bush is a bad guy", which
| is also true, but misses the point entirely--plus, in
| recent years, now _that 's_ not even entirely true,
| because look, he's bffs with Michele Obama, see, he's not
| _that_ bad of a guy, right?
|
| the cycle continues unabated.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >case in point: the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and
| Iraq. the entire United States media apparatus united to
| gaslight the populace into consenting to an foreign-soil
| military invasion on incredibly shaky grounds, that were
| later proven to be completely false
|
| The invasion of Afghanistan was over their harboring of
| Bin Laden, and there's very strong evidence he was there
| until shortly after the start of the war. I have plenty
| of criticism of the Afghanistan war, for starters the
| invasion was illegal under international law, but the
| "reason" we invaded was likely true.
| adamrezich wrote:
| bro they gaslit the whole country into being islamophobes
| for a solid few years there so we'd agree with the
| invasion of Afghanistan, predicated upon a former CIA
| asset supposedly having had some hand in 9/11, and then
| got us to invade Iraq because of unsubstantiated and
| ultimately false claims as to the existence of "WMDs,"
| and _then_ , afterward, they told us how shamefully evil
| we were for having spent half of the 00s being
| islamophobes (which was the case only because they gaslit
| us into being as such).
|
| and we just rolled with it, blamed Bush at the end and
| called it a day, because hey, look, this hip young black
| senator is running for office and he's gonna Hope and
| Change everything and make it better (which didn't end up
| happening).
|
| the news media has not been a force for good in my entire
| lifetime, but almost nobody (myself included) started
| seriously questioning it until a few years ago.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >bro they gaslit the whole country into being
| islamophobes for a solid few years there so we'd agree
| with the invasion of Afghanistan, predicated upon a
| former CIA asset supposedly having had some hand in 9/11
|
| The invasion of Afghanistan started like a month after
| 9/11, and there's basically no evidence Bin Laden himself
| had CIA connections. The Afghans that harbored him did,
| but not Bin Laden.
|
| I am very critical of the US in these matters, but in a
| discussion about the importance of facts you should aim
| to be factual.
| adamrezich wrote:
| that's easily the least-interesting part of my post
| though (and a quick web search will show plenty of
| evidence both for and against it).
|
| again: our news media _temporarily gaslit the entire
| country_ into _being bigoted against an entire major
| world religion_ (not to mention other groups who were
| unfortunate enough to resemble, at a glance, the
| caricatures we were gaslit into hating--like Sikhs),
| solely to further the agenda of _foreign-soil invasions_
| , and _then_ told us we were wrong for having ever held
| these beliefs after the fact, _when they were the ones
| who instilled those beliefs in us in the first place_.
| when you sit down and examine how crazy this all was, it
| 's mind-blowing, both the actual series of events _and_
| how quickly we forgot and moved on from it as though it
| never happened. most people forgot they ever held these
| beliefs at the time (understandable, as it was quite
| shameful--even if it wasn 't our fault), and, I assume,
| people who were not born yet will never truly know what
| it was like, because I _guarantee_ that shit ain 't going
| in the history books. even saying "freedom fries" or
| playing American Idiot on Spotify today rarely truly jogs
| people's memory and makes them remember that chapter of
| their lives and how quickly our beliefs shifted as the
| result of blatantly state-backed media indoctrination
| enacted on a susceptibly trusting populace.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I usually see it associated with Cronkite's era on TV,
| about '60-'80. Such strong association with him is part
| of why it smells like nostalgia and selective memory, to
| me. And, again, you'd find plenty of people who think he
| was biased and doing slanted anti-American reporting in
| the second of those two decades. I would hope most people
| wouldn't regard the '90s and '00s as part of any kind of
| even-imaginary golden era of reporting.
|
| I've got some half-formed notion of this sentiment coming
| from a kind of hang-over from WWII propaganda and tight
| media control involving much more direct action by US
| government through media, but haven't exactly researched
| it and wouldn't stand behind that firmly. Just a hunch.
| Broadly, my suspicion, if that does indeed have anything
| to do with it, is that the fallout of that propaganda
| effort coupled with a crushing victory for the US
| resulted in a durable credibility for sufficiently
| official-looking news personalities, that took some time
| (and the loss of a war in Vietnam, and a huge shift in
| politics that really took shape starting with Nixon's
| campaigns) to erode, but was never especially _real_ , as
| in, wasn't strongly related to some actual difference in
| circumstances and quality in news media in postwar
| America compared with the first half of the century.
| adamrezich wrote:
| I completely agree with your assessment, but my point
| was, in the 90s and 00s, we were still in the bubble. we
| still thought of our news media as being completely
| trustworthy. even the post-9/11 invasions being
| predicated upon news media consent manufacturing wasn't
| enough to shake us out of it--nobody blamed the news
| media, Bush (and some of his cabinet) "took the fall" for
| the whole thing. we can look back on it _now_ and
| obviously it 's almost hilarious how terribly complicit
| the news media was in manufacturing consent for war
| crimes, but at the time, we didn't think about it that
| way. nobody thought about it that way. it was The News,
| which we had trust in, because we (90s millennials) had
| grown up watching it, and so had our parents.
|
| the popular idea that the news is largely full of shit
| did not come about until Trump popularized the term "fake
| news", and then they threw it back at him, and so on and
| so forth. (hopefully it's uncontroversial to state that
| Trump would not have been likely to be elected if people
| didn't have smartphones with which to consume sources of
| news other than that of the mainstream legacy news
| media.) before that, people still generally trusted the
| news media, even while still actively having boots on the
| ground in the Middle East due to the previous round of
| gaslighting. both Obama administrations, as far as I can
| recall at least, were still in an era where most people
| more or less trusted the media. sure, maybe you weren't a
| fan of FOX News or MSNBC or whatever, but you still felt
| like, no matter what your political affiliation was, you
| could tune into a cable TV news program and more or less
| get the truth about what was going on in the world. I had
| a one-semester Current World Affairs class in high school
| in 2007, and we spent most of it watching cable news,
| reading newspapers, and talking about it, without any of
| the default critical position you'd (hopefully??) expect
| today.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I think some of that's the difference between high school
| and college. Even today's more even-tempered history and
| civics classes in high school really downplay problems in
| our history and our systems, overall, including problems
| with the media, but as soon as you hit your first serious
| media studies textbook or course or just slip into a
| subculture that's into that sort of thing so assumes some
| familiarity with it as a background (politics nerds,
| certain flavors of history buffs, basically any leftist
| movement) you get a rather different idea of how things
| are going, and have gone, and realize that contemporary
| media criticism is part of a _long_ tradition that 's
| advanced similar complaints and made similar observations
| about structural problems with the media (access-related
| conflict of interest, slant via selection of what's
| "newsworthy", bias toward reporting violence or the
| otherwise shocking, ownership- or advertiser-related
| conflict of interest, susceptibility to lazily repeating
| propaganda from official sources, et c.) for pretty much
| the entire time this has been a field of study.
|
| High school history class might cover e.g. yellow
| journalism as some temporary historical phenomenon, but
| won't usually dig into, say, the fact that the idea of
| "unbiased reporting" or "just presenting the facts" or
| "we report, you decide" are all kinda questionable to
| begin with--which facts? Which stories? When and how
| ought media provide context for a story, or leave it out?
| I can lie with facts all day long, it's not even hard.
| Half the lies on the actually-kinda-news segments of Fox
| News (yeah, sorry, still picking on them because they're
| an easy target) are just them reporting things without
| the context that makes it plainly a non-story--they're
| "just" reporting the facts, but it's slanted as hell, and
| they're deliberately _implying_ things that aren 't true
| by leaving out the context you need to tell that they're
| wrong. Take it another direction, and you can lie by
| providing the _wrong_ context (not a lie in the sense of
| an outright falsehood! Just selective presentation). The
| history of media as largely explicitly partisan for much
| of the country 's history will likely also barely be
| covered, and will almost certainly not be connected to
| the current state of media.
|
| ... but not everyone ends up seeing that expanded view.
| Maybe what I'm not accounting for is a recent
| popularization of a kind of shitty, partial, divorced-
| from-scholarship-and-history version of that POV, through
| the mechanisms and circumstances you mention, the holding
| of which might convince someone that this is a recent
| development, for lack of the rest of that context. "Now
| the media _lies_ sometimes! That 's new!"
|
| I don't think the media landscape's wholly unchanging,
| and do thing some things like the loss of the fairness
| doctrine and our allowing some pretty incredible levels
| of media ownership consolidation has had some ill effects
| (though the death of the fairness doctrine would have
| little effect on the Internet, anyway, and the main
| outcome of losing it was the rise of partisan _commentary
| and opinion_ without balancing counter-point, not more-
| slanted news--basically, it allowed the current much-
| maligned "media bubble" effect to get a running start
| way back in the 1980s, well before the rise of the Web as
| something normal people used, but that was mostly
| accomplished through _commentary shows_ , not reporting).
| I'm just skeptical that we were ever a _ton_ better off
| in terms of, specifically, news media honesty and
| integrity than we are now.
|
| > I had a one-semester Current World Affairs class in
| high school in 2007, and we spent most of it watching
| cable news, reading newspapers, and talking about it,
| without any of the default critical position you'd
| (hopefully??) expect today.
|
| Schools have to be damned careful how they treat current
| events. Parents get pissed off in a hurry over some
| really, really dumb shit, like "acknowledging basic
| things about reality that definitely shouldn't be
| controversial" sorts of shit, and if there's one thing
| schools hate dealing with, it's pissed-off parents. Start
| analyzing slant in media reporting in high school, as a
| teacher, and you're courting a reprimand even if you do
| your job perfectly and entirely objectively (somehow).
| "The closest thing to a widely-agreed-upon-to-be-neutral
| source we can find, presented with minimal commentary" is
| often the best they can realistically manage, and even
| that will get angry phone calls from time to time.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > shitty, partial, divorced-from-scholarship-and-history
| version of that POV
|
| Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn view
| of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people would
| be sad that that's not taught in Texas and everywhere.
| Although as far as I can tell, it IS taught in many blue
| counties.
|
| > I'm just skeptical that we were ever a ton better off
| in terms of, specifically, news media honesty and
| integrity than we are now
|
| I think I've already dealt with that, including a
| proposal on how we'd test that. Just saying, "no, it was
| never any better" is otherwise untestable.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn
| view of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people
| would be sad that that's not taught in Texas and
| everywhere. Although as far as I can tell, it IS taught
| in many blue counties.
|
| "That POV", from that sentence, referred to a POV about
| the nature of the news media informed by the scholarship
| and history of the field of media studies, not, like,
| world history. I was noting that perhaps some of the
| sentiment that we're in some exceptionally-bad media
| environment, now, is because some folks have recently
| realized that the media effectively all have some kind of
| bias and often lie or fail to be skeptical of things
| Important People tell them, but lack the context to
| realize _that 's not a new thing_, so may decide it's
| some new development (beginning, curiously, roughly the
| time they realized it was a problem). That is, as I
| wrote, they've come to some of the same _conclusions_ as
| one might from reading works in media studies, but,
| because they 've come at it via a "shitty, partial,
| divorced-from-scholarship-and-history" road hyper-focused
| on recent events (and, ahem, who made them aware of it in
| the first place? Ahem) it looks to them like it's
| something that just started.
|
| My observations about the quality of high school history
| and civics instruction were separate, and no, I don't
| think they ought to teach Zinn.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Please reread the point about Victorian porn, and how
| that "proves" sexual mores have never changed (it
| doesn't).
|
| If we actually wanted to argue this: citing a few stories
| from back when, in which one really _cannot_ discern the
| reporter 's politics, will not do it. You can just argue,
| "that's one example. Look, here's this biased shit from
| the same period, see? Nothing's changed!"
|
| No, if we wanted to argue if things have changed, we'd
| have to find someone who practiced journalism back then
| (as I did not). OR - we'd look at what the Journalism
| schools were teaching, except that many working
| journalists didn't get degrees in Journalism. OR maybe
| the manuals that media outlets gave to their reporters,
| if such things existed.
|
| As for "post-9/11", you're already 30-40 years too late.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I'd actually be pretty interested in a kind of
| statistical study of new media bias over the decades. I
| think that'd be hard as hell to construct, owing in part
| to there being a _lot_ of ways news media can introduce
| bias, some of which are really hard to spot without a
| great deal of context, but it might be interesting.
|
| I do think some of the shift has been not in the
| availability of quality news media, but in the kind of
| news media people actually "consume". It's not like
| doctor's waiting rooms were playing 24/7 cable "news" in
| 1965--because there was no such thing, and because the
| doctor's office waiting room probably didn't have a TV in
| it. AP Wire and several news periodicals and a few papers
| of more-or-less decent quality _do exist_ , but if you
| don't seek them out your ambient, if you will, exposure
| to "news" will mostly be shit, that much I'd agree with.
| I do think there's been some "the medium is the message"
| effect in news becoming a 24/7/365 _product_ rather than
| something more focused, but I also think that 's more _on
| top of_ or _in addition to_ the decent aspects of older
| news media, not instead of.
|
| But, you might be right, and I might be wrong. Maybe our
| news media really was wildly better than it is now, in a
| narrow window of time in post-war America. Or maybe we're
| just interpreting "100 'units' of news available, 40 of
| which are pretty good" versus "10,000 'units' of news
| available, 1,000 of which are pretty good" differently--
| depending on one's perspective, _either_ of those could
| be regarded as worse than the other. Or--I can see this
| being the case, for sure--maybe I 'm not giving enough
| weight to what's _popular_ , versus what's _available_ ,
| when evaluating differences in the news media landscape.
| What's popular now is, kinda, a product that didn't even
| exist before the late '80s or so. A new category of news
| that needs, as raw material, almost more "news" than
| actually exists, and needs to compete with hyper-
| palatable available-on-tap entertainment, for eyeballs
| and attention. Maybe the expansion of entertainment-
| availability in general deserves some consideration, when
| it comes to what media's like now. Maybe _too many_
| options are a bad thing, actually (see: Fox News insiders
| fretting that reporting the truth might lose them some of
| their audience, and so, money--because there are plenty
| of other outlets willing to lie, readily available at the
| click of a mouse)
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I've thought of another test, actually, and that one is
| easier to carry out: what are journalists _today_ saying
| on the topic?
|
| https://nationalpress.org/topic/objectivity-journalism-
| new-n...
|
| https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/31/major-news-outlets-
| object...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-regain-
| trustthe-n...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsro
| oms...
|
| So obviously they themselves are aware that they're doing
| something differently.
|
| >Nonpartisanship was particularly important for a paper
| that was a national leader in covering politics and
| government. As the final gatekeeper for Post journalism,
| I stopped voting or making up my own mind about issues.
| As Bradlee had, I insisted on noninvolvement of Post
| journalists in political activity or advocacy of any
| kind, except voting. I also worked to make The Post
| newsroom more diverse, and encouraged everyone to have a
| voice in our decision-making.
|
| The bit about not voting is something that today's
| "journalists" would reject completely, I'm pretty sure. I
| wouldn't lie down on the tracks for "objectivity" if
| instead we got "nonpartisanship."
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I looked back on Google news and Twitter in Oct 2022 to see
| contemporary news stories and tweets related to James Gordon
| Meek to confirm this. While the Daily Beast and the Independent
| ran stories in this timeframe saying he wasn't raided by the
| FBI for his work, nearly everyone on Twitter was just tweeting
| the same clips from Fox News or parroting Tucker Carlson
| verbatim.
|
| It really goes to show how that aspect of the media just takes
| over the thinking for their viewers. I wonder how many of these
| viewers eventually connected the dots that they were so
| outraged over someone getting arrested for CP.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| >(2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume
| everything that such media produces.
|
| What? The predominate pattern today is nobody believing
| anything the media says. Nothing is true. The earth isn't even
| fucking round.
| mwint wrote:
| The media became untrustworthy _before_ people stopped
| trusting it.
| myko wrote:
| Not really. There was a concerted effort by media figures
| (Limbaugh, Fox, Beck, etc.) to push a false narrative that
| media is untrustworthy, in order to push their radical
| views. In a way it was self fulfilling prophecy as more and
| more folks listened to them it became apparent that media
| is failing, and other orgs have slid down that path as
| well.
| juve1996 wrote:
| I disagree with that in general. Most people distrust some
| media, not all, and typically it's the "other side's" media.
|
| The fact is most people are stupid and woefully
| undereducated. That's why media gets away with this - the
| populace is dumb, and therefore so too is its media. It's
| just moral panics all the way down, on both sides.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > The predominate pattern today is nobody believing anything
| the media says.
|
| perhaps in your social circles. plenty of people, especially
| older people, get 100% of their news _nightly_ , _out of
| habit_ , by watching cable television, and are aware of the
| existence of "bias" in the news they consume only insofar as,
| hey, if I watch CNN _and_ MSNBC _and_ FOX, then I 'm getting
| a balanced news diet!
| stusmall wrote:
| If it helps you feel better, this is in a thread about them
| getting caught and called out. There are some horrifically bad
| actors in our media landscape right now who are more than happy
| to lie or label opinion shows as "news" if makes their stock
| price goes up.
|
| It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR
| doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS.
| 93po wrote:
| [flagged]
| myko wrote:
| Sadly your comment is an example of the problem, as it is
| known fact that Russia was part of the DNC hack. Beyond the
| media the Mueller investigation covered this, you can read
| related transcripts:
| https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6887586/Yared-
| Tam...
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency
| AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear"
| group for more than a year and caught them pretty much live
| on camera while they hacked the Democratic Party.
|
| https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-
| provide-...
|
| Wow, I wasn't aware how far the tentacles of the DNC
| establishment reach if they paid for that as you say!
| 93po wrote:
| Ah yes, the same Dutch intelligence agency that release
| from custody a person that stole nuclear weapons
| technology which enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear
| bombs. And did so at the behest of a foreign country. I
| wonder what else they'd do for a foreign country when
| asked?
|
| 1. All of the reporting on this in 2016 relied on the
| auditing I'm mentioning. Whether there was other evidence
| is beside the point - it wasn't something they used to
| influence their reporting
|
| 2. If it was known in 2014 that Cozy Bear was targeting
| the DNC and AIVD already had full access and knowledge of
| all of Cozy Bear's actions, why did they let them hack
| the DNC?
|
| 3. All sources say there were multiple people who had
| illicit access to DNC servers. There was clearly a
| vulnerability that multiple groups were able to exploit,
| and the exploiters were clearly doing nothing to prevent
| others from doing the same. Why are we so confident it
| was Cozy Bear?
|
| 4. Why did the DNC, after being told in summer 2015 that
| they were hacked, do nothing about this? Even the article
| points this out: "It is not clear why the hacks at the
| DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch
| warnings." They continued to be allegedly hacked for more
| than a year since the leaked emails date as far as May
| 2016.
|
| 5. We're also completely ignoring that the journalist who
| published the emails explicitly said it was an insider
| who provided it, and there is no evidence that this
| journalist received information from Russian officials.
|
| Literally none of this adds up to anything remotely close
| to conclusive.
| BryantD wrote:
| I may be misunderstanding this; can you help me out and be
| specific about what you mean by DNC email leaks?
|
| If we're talking about the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, it seems
| relevant to note that in October of 2016, the US
| intelligence community stated that they were confident that
| Russia was involved. Mueller also indicted 12 Russian
| nationals on related charges. There is currently a fair bit
| of evidence that yes, the Guccifer leaks were Russian
| based.
|
| Now, perhaps your objection is that media outlets reported
| this prior to those findings. For politically charged
| questions like these, I'd recommend that you still include
| the post-facto findings I reference, since otherwise your
| audience could wind up with the understanding that our
| knowledge about the hacks is limited to the reporting you
| mention.
|
| Back to the question of "auditors" -- let's once again be
| specific. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to investigate the
| hack. Their initial response and follow ups are here:
| https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-
| democ...
|
| CrowdStrike used stronger words than "likely." Some of
| them:
|
| "We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately
| identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network -
| COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR."
|
| "At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back
| to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the
| network in April 2016."
|
| The report does not go into detail on methods, for obvious
| reasons. But that is the statement of a company that is
| positive about identifications. It is reasonable for a news
| agency to report that CrowdStrike was certain.
|
| It's harder for me to track down whatever NPR article you
| mean. I'm open to a specific reference here! In the
| meantime, though:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-
| pen...
|
| The first paragraph states the Russian source as fact, but
| the remainder of the article is very clear that CrowdStrike
| is the source. It links to this WaPo article:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
| security/russi...
|
| The first paragraph specifies "according to committee
| officials and security experts who responded to the
| breach."
|
| So... if I'm right about the hack you mean, I think you've
| chosen a bad example of media gullibility.
| legitster wrote:
| > It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like
| NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS.
|
| While I agree that NPR News bats above average they are not
| without their blind spots. While they may not chase clickbait
| or obvious ragebaiting trash, their journalists still latch
| onto convenient or lazy explanations all of the time.
| stusmall wrote:
| It's a human institution. It absolutely isn't without flaw.
| I can think of a couple stories they did I wasn't a big fan
| of. But this is part of how the system works and why well
| funded, ethical, serious media is crucial to a functioning
| society. News agencies will report on each other and help
| raise the standard of how they are run. Some, NPR included,
| with have news desks that are devoted to just that and will
| even report non-flattering news on themselves.
|
| The author of this article is really good about it. He's
| aired some pretty unflattering, dirty laundry about
| NPR/PBS, not just other news orgs. Sometimes his pieces are
| a bit too inside baseball for me, but I appreciate the
| value they bring to the system as a whole.
|
| An introspective news ecosystem is a healthy one. A healthy
| news ecosystem helps build a healthier society by rooting
| out corruption, waste and injustice.
| Rapzid wrote:
| I recall that NPR had the "Weed is actually bad" book guy
| on and was pretty much letting him say whatever
| unchallenged. No opposing viewpoint guest, a bunch of
| softball questions, and no pushback in general.
|
| This guy totally gave off vibes of using this kernel of
| truth, these studies on THC in developing brains, and
| wrapping it in a bunch of FUD to sell his personal brand
| and books. Oh, and his wife is the scientist not him..
|
| Honestly it felt like a paid advertising spot or a bit of
| propaganda. At the time I was wondering about the latter
| because it seemed that NPR had somehow taken a stance
| AGAINST legalization around the time all that activity was
| occurring a couple years ago.
| glonq wrote:
| Yeah I'm also sad that the Fairness Doctrine is dead.
| It's healthy to hear dissenting viewpoints, even if it
| makes people uncomfy.
| fsckboy wrote:
| [flagged]
| hersko wrote:
| I was going to point out how NPR dropped the ball [1] on the
| Hunter Biden story, but then found this followup [2] and i'm
| not sure how i feel. Is it a correction? A copout?
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
|
| [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-
| not-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-
| details-emerg...
| legitster wrote:
| I mean, the whole laptop story was clearly held back and
| conveniently timed by political actors in an attempt to
| manipulate the media. I have my problems with NPR, but I'll
| go on the record and respect them for not playing ball and
| doing proper due diligence.
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| Sure, but they certainly seemed to apply less scepticism
| and due diligence to the Trump Russia stuff.
| TylerE wrote:
| It was being manipulated from both sides.
|
| If you had serious evidence against the son of the
| sitting president, your first reaction should not be to
| mail the thing, untracked and uninsured to TUCKER
| CARLSON.
| watwut wrote:
| There was never period in history in which there were no media
| lies. Not because media are uniquely evil, but because media
| people are kinda like everyone else. There might be more or
| less lies depending on various factors, but literally every
| single year in the past, including when we were little, there
| were some lies being widely read.
|
| That being said, there are whole lawsuits going on about lies
| in media right now. Pretty big ones and widely reported about
| ones. So, if you think that nobody noticed, it is just not
| true.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Yeah, and it was way worse in the era of yellow journalism...
| but this is all beside the point.
|
| We're on a backslide where journalists are far more shameless
| than eg. 10-30 years ago.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Have we checked old media for it's shamelessness now that
| we have hindsight? Easy to say that they weren't shameless
| back then, when we didn't have a global network feeding us
| updated information on what they were reporting.
| watwut wrote:
| This case is hardly an instance showing that. You could
| maybe argue by Alex Jones stuff for that. But the sort the
| the missing reasons like this did happened in 1990-2010
| too.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| You and I and a huge fraction of humanity noticed, but not a
| large enough fraction to make such unprofitable?
| vanattab wrote:
| There is a huge difference between noticing abuses of the
| media and being able to immunize your self to the effects of
| such behavior. Many of use on this site like to think we are
| purely logical being but we are fooling ourselves. We are
| fuzzy logical beings full of emotions and complex human
| psychological traits. Just because we intellectually
| understand the problems around advertising and click bait
| does not make us immune.
| mcguire wrote:
| You missed the third leg of that particular stool: the public's
| urge to deny the truth of anything _because_ it comes from the
| media.
|
| Source: Do your own research. -- a grumpy old man. :-)
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| Do you know what the truth is? Because I sure don't.
|
| The problem with blaming 'the public' for being stupid is
| that we're both the public and we might be the stupid ones.
| Media outlets lie, they also tell the truth sometimes. I
| think the biggest mistake we can make is to think that the
| media we're paying attention to is the 'right' media.
|
| The simple fact of the matter is that we're being lied to
| almost constantly and the only amazing consequence of that is
| that any of us have any sanity left at all. And the main
| reason for that is because we all think that we're right and
| those other people are wrong. But what if we're wrong? What
| if I'm the stupid sucker that believes the lie.
|
| Or maybe I've just read one-too-many Philip K Dick novels :-)
| genewitch wrote:
| Is it possible that this has seen an uptick after 2013, when
| the "Domestic Dissemination Ban" was removed from Smith-Mundt,
| because, well, "the internet, and stuff"?
|
| over the last 10 years, i've found myself reading and watching
| news next to 0 minutes a day. I listen to a news analysis
| podcast (mostly for the jokes), and i see excerpts on places
| like reddit, my personal fediverse server (with 1500
| journalists followed), and HN.
|
| I also currently am possibly hallucinating from food poisoning.
| The wikipedia article for smith mundt doesn't decry in large
| letters that one of the more important rules it set out doesn't
| apply anymore.
|
| in fact it says "the smith-mundt act has been used to show that
| Voice of America doesn't have to reply to FOIA transcript
| requests"
| glonq wrote:
| Congrats on 10 years. I stopped routinely reading/watching
| the news in 2016, and have been much happier because of it. I
| still remain reasonably informed and aware, but on my own
| terms.
|
| Is there an accurate, honest, reliable news source for "tell
| me what happened but don't tell me how to think or feel or
| react" anymore?
| genewitch wrote:
| The only issue with "tell me what happened and that's it"
| is what if it's not in your wheelhouse? For example, do _I_
| personally care about a children 's tylenol shortage? Is
| there an issue with precursors, demand, shipping, bottling?
| Just reading the headline and the "data and statistics"
| wouldn't really make me care one way or the other, and
| again, perhaps that's fine. Perhaps it's useful to just
| _know_ there 's a shortage or whatever the news du jour is.
|
| I find reddit and fediverse good for getting the extremely
| polarized opinions out in the open on topics i have very
| little idea about. Don't get me wrong, i realize that i'm
| getting a _lot_ of bad inputs, here.
|
| But the flip side is i am not seeing advertisements
| constantly, and since i know where the extreme edges are i
| can actually have a conversation where someone more
| knowledgeable than me can correct my understanding - or
| attempt to.
|
| RE: 10 years, i actually got rid of _televisions_ in my
| house shortly after "mission accomplished" back in 2002 or
| 2003. I told myself that recording and going through news
| about the 9/11 attacks wasn't doing me any favors. So i'm
| technically 20 years without a "TV" connected to OTA or any
| other service. I mostly watch youtube reviews and my
| personal copies of TV shows and whatnot.
|
| I tried around the start of the pandemic to get an OTA
| setup on my projector. I ended up just using it to record
| me.tv or whatever it's called, the "oldies" station. Wasn't
| worth the disk i was using for it.
|
| Anything "national" or international, i got a friend that
| will set up an RTMP stream off their cable box and send me
| a link. This has worked fine for 5 years.
| Balgair wrote:
| > We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates
| "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody
| noticed
|
| It's been around forever. As good recent-ish example is the
| Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect:
|
| " Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
| You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
| well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
| read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
| understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
| article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
| reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause
| rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with
| exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and
| then turn the page to national or international affairs, and
| read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate
| about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the
| page, and forget what you know. -- Michael
| Crichton"
| Smoosh wrote:
| I agree about this with Michael Crichton, author of the novel
| State of Fear, and famous Climate Change denier.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume
| everything that such media produces.
|
| Is this part true? I thought the public's faith in journalism
| was at historic lows.
| Wolfenstein98k wrote:
| The difference between "what I answer to a pollster with a
| clear mind" and "what I consume and allow to influence my
| opinions and emotions throughout the day".
|
| I also suspect people answer the trust stuff while thinking
| of the opposition's news sources.
| johnklos wrote:
| News that cares this much about sensationalizing isn't news.
| While I'm entirely for unfettered protection of free speech, free
| speech doesn't include the right to lie, at least not in a
| professional capacity. Perhaps we need to start punishing
| intentionally deceptive reporting by not allowing these people to
| call themselves journalists and / or not allowing these sources
| of information to call themselves news.
| nradov wrote:
| Free speech generally does include the right to lie. There are
| only very limited legal circumstances where a lie could be a
| criminal offense or cause for civil liability. Even if you
| could somehow ban people from calling themselves "journalists"
| that would be meaningless under US federal law as journalists
| enjoy no more rights or privileges than any other common
| citizen.
| blowski wrote:
| Indeed, the current Fox vs Dominion case is highlighting that
| very point.
| version_five wrote:
| I think it's a problem that can take care of itself. People
| need to be incredulous. Why would anyone reading Rolling Stone,
| Teen Vogue, Ars Technica, Vice, Buzfeed, or any of the other
| publications clearly in the realm of entertainment imagine that
| they actually do "journalism" in the usual sense.
| usednet wrote:
| Ever watched a police interrogation?
| [deleted]
| bleuchase wrote:
| They lied. That's what it's called. Not left out.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >They lied. There are several 'theys' in the story. Which
| 'they'?
| mcguire wrote:
| "Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-
| security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-
| enforcement officers actually removed him from the building.
| And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case
| remain sealed." (https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/h
| ttps://www.rolli...)
|
| The editor of Rolling Stone had information saying that first
| sentence, which he introduced, was false.
| superkuh wrote:
| That's probably because the FBI has a history of making up
| excuses to get search warrants for journalist and activist's
| homes. The reasons the FBI gives for getting a search warrant
| have about as much connection to real life as the daily
| horoscope.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You could write an interesting article about that, with
| intervews and history supporting that possibility. That is not
| what they did. They ignored the reason and wrote a completely
| different and misleading article.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| The reasons are extremely clear here, secondly, judges issue
| warrants based on facts, it's not perfect, but most warrants
| are obtained 100% legally.
|
| In this case the accused had top secret document on his
| computer but more importantly is being investigated for images
| of child sexual abuse which was redacted by Rolling Stone.
|
| You have to read the article, otherwise I would think you're
| defending an accused pedophile just because you have some
| imaginary beef with the FBI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-21 23:02 UTC)