11–20 of 27 posts
A "headfake" implies it achieves nothing if one's opponent ignores it. In this case, if there was no pushback, then he would have successfully banned green card holders from seven nations. Then it would receive even less coverage/reaction when he adds an eighth nation, a ninth, a tenth, and so on... Pretty soon, you'll only have legal immigration from nations Steve Bannon deems worthy.
This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York Times, after trying to avoid paying anything for news for years. It makes sense to me to think of a subscription not so much as product-purchase, but more like a patreon-like pledge of support.
I kinda wish I could get one to the WSJ too, but their prices seem too high :/
> Second, pay journalists to watch for the head fake. That’s their job. Become a paying subscriber to news outlets, then actively ask them to more deeply cover moves like the NSC shakeup. We can no longer breathlessly focus media attention on easy stories like the immigration ban. The real story is much more nuanced and boring — until it’s not. This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York T…
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...
Before November I would not have upvoted this story. But given that Steve Bannon is in WH to come up with ideas to 1) end international co-operation 2) destroy existing democratic institutions 3) create a nation state on the shared heritage identity (descendants from a specfic group of European countries practicing a specific religion), such theories do not seem out of place
> Second, pay journalists to watch for the head fake. That’s their job. Become a paying subscriber to news outlets, then actively ask them to more deeply cover moves like the NSC shakeup. We can no longer breathlessly focus media attention on easy stories like the immigration ban. The real story is much more nuanced and boring — until it’s not. This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York T…
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...
> Second, pay journalists to watch for the head fake. That’s their job. Become a paying subscriber to news outlets, then actively ask them to more deeply cover moves like the NSC shakeup. We can no longer breathlessly focus media attention on easy stories like the immigration ban. The real story is much more nuanced and boring — until it’s not. This finally convinced me to get an online subscription to the New York T…
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...
What would HN recommend for a news source that is worth paying for lately?
As far as US papers go The NY Times has a pretty spotty history. It is still a very good paper, just gotta be aware of its short comings.
I hear The Wall Street Journal is also very good but never really read it personally - usually pickup The Economist instead (despite all its problems).
As far as free stuff goes Democracy Now is up there with any news I've seen on television and since it refuses corporate, advertising or government funding is entirely reliant on donations to remain as unbiased as possible. Very good indeed and worth supporting.
One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President "removed a permanent military presence from the NSC".
The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that.
SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021
Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real issues, and divides the country on YOUR Headfake.
HN readers deserve better. Much better.
This should be downvoted as horribly misleading. This idiot is FACTUALLY and PROVABLY wrong. One instance which is easy to demonstrate is the line that the President "removed a permanent military presence from the NSC". The military is on the Council according to LAW. No president can change that. SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 Now stop repeating crap that isn't true. It takes away from real…
This is a reference to Trump downgrading the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as the director of national intelligence) from the principals committee of the NSC. Rather than attending every meeting, they'll only be asked to attend if the topic of discussion pertains to their area. They're no longer permanently in attendance: just occasionally.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-...