Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#51

Post by hendersoon »

r3bl wrote: post #47
hendersoon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note to readers: From a post in the other Pentagon Papers thread on HN, r3bl claims to be a web dev at one of the sites reporting on these leaks, ICIJ, Guardian, BBC, etc. So he isn't guessing!

Best proof I can provide at the moment: https://tech.occrp.org/about/ (members of our tech team on our lame tech blog) and, of course, our affiliation: https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/ . Also: https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716754286059864065?s=09 and https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716325999785418753?s=09 Our journalists have already started posting this on Twitter, kind of like we did yesterday when we war…

@smegal: Yes it is. They're actual journalists working on this. It's not illegal for most people to locate assets offshore, and just as importantly, most of that simply isn't newsworthy.

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#52

Post by Quanttek »

lumberjack wrote: post #28
Quanttek wrote: post #22

That article is bullshit. Yes, we can't access the raw data - true, but understandable. The editor in-chief of the SZ says they are still working on it and will expose more and more "in waves", often getting statements from the accused before or sharing it with law enforcement agencies. And no, they didn't focus on Russia or Assad, one of the main revelations was that three members of Iceland's government (PM, financ…

>That article is bullshit. I found the article useful actually. I mistakenly assumed, very naively, that these people handling the leaks were wikileaks kind of people and not these other kind of people: >The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders inc…

The thing is, it's just a network. It's not an institution by itself doing all the work, just a platform for investigative journalists from different outlets to work together. Do you think that Hotel owner in Bavaria was, just because he organized the stay of the head of states, able to influence or even steer, as accused here, the conversation of the G8 group? The idea seems laughable.

I mean the criticism would probably be kinda useful and interesting to consider, would it have been published after the participating journalists said "that was it. That's all we got", but no, the publification of the leak just started and you can be sure, as confirmed by SZ, there's more to come. Most western countries have been implicated (https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/716740923615350784) and the db will be made searchable next month.

Also, most of the Wikipedia page on criticism of the Center for Public Integrity is filled with accusation of being "liberal biased" and being "anti-Koch brothers"

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#53

Post by notahacker »

force_reboot wrote: post #12
bloat wrote: post #6

The Guardian has its faults of course, but should it really be described as corporate media? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited Compared to say the Telegraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay Or the Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp

It's hard to characterize this movement that this article is critiquing, because it is diffuse. But I think it's fair to say that events in Syria and Iraq, and the anti-Russian stance taken by the liberal media, show that there is some consensus among liberals and conservatives in the US and UK around ideas that used to be called "neoconservative". The basic idea is that liberals want to spread liberal ideas in Russi…

It's hard to characterise the "movement" the article is critiquing because it isn't a movement, still less a neoconservative conspiracy against Russia. (personally if I wanted to facilitate the spread of liberal ideas in Russia, the very last thing I'd do is boost US power to be a convenient bogeyman for Russians to unite against)

The idea that the Guardian is reluctant to publish anything likely to unduly upset multinational corporations or powerful Westerners - as expressed in the original article - is a bit hard to take seriously if you've ever read the Guardian.

The idea that liberals are actually part of some general movement to orchestrate a "move to a unipolar world" because they have the temerity to criticise Russian policy (as well as US policy, especially US interventionism) is lunacy.

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#54

Post by [deleted] »

Quanttek wrote: post #22

That article is bullshit. Yes, we can't access the raw data - true, but understandable. The editor in-chief of the SZ says they are still working on it and will expose more and more "in waves", often getting statements from the accused before or sharing it with law enforcement agencies. And no, they didn't focus on Russia or Assad, one of the main revelations was that three members of Iceland's government (PM, financ…

[deleted]

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#55

Post by dbcooper »

Quanttek wrote: post #22

That article is bullshit. Yes, we can't access the raw data - true, but understandable. The editor in-chief of the SZ says they are still working on it and will expose more and more "in waves", often getting statements from the accused before or sharing it with law enforcement agencies. And no, they didn't focus on Russia or Assad, one of the main revelations was that three members of Iceland's government (PM, financ…

Standby for Australian news too ...

Panama Papers: Tax office investigating 800 Australians identified in financial record leak

>You can watch 'The Secrets of the Super Rich' on Four Corners on ABC TV at 8.30pm tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/tax-office-investigati...

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#57

Post by [deleted] »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #42
hendersoon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Wikileaks released a dump of everything Chelsea Manning sent them, including diplomatic cables that only served to hurt innocents across the globe. That's a great example of what not to do. The Guardian and Washington Post handled Snowden's leaks very differently, sourcing and verifying each article, then releasing quite a lot more than 10 major headlines over the course of a year or so. I trust the ICIJ wi…

Wikileaks released the 'insurance file' encrypted. The release of the password seems to be some kind of bizarre mix-up, the Guardian journalists released it in a book... See: https://unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-passw...

[deleted]

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#58

Post by tobltobs »

force_reboot wrote: post #12
bloat wrote: post #6

The Guardian has its faults of course, but should it really be described as corporate media? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited Compared to say the Telegraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay Or the Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp

It's hard to characterize this movement that this article is critiquing, because it is diffuse. But I think it's fair to say that events in Syria and Iraq, and the anti-Russian stance taken by the liberal media, show that there is some consensus among liberals and conservatives in the US and UK around ideas that used to be called "neoconservative". The basic idea is that liberals want to spread liberal ideas in Russi…

Ah' wait, what?

Re: Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak

#59

Post by not_kurt_godel »

ddp wrote: post #16

I pretty much figured that out from banksy: https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/716740923615350784

Off-topic, but what is going on with the I in "reaI"? When I replace it with L, it resolves to the same account. Odd...
Post reply on HN