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

My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#71

Post by creaghpatr »

losvedir wrote: post #43
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UniParty. However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did. That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be a…

That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans. You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will l…

It's definitely not bluster, he fired his Secretary of Defense over his refusal to pull out of the conflict. It's one of the most consequential decisions of his tenure so far.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#72

Post by tivert »

resters wrote: post #17

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture. It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force. It's no accident that the paper ran the Ju…

> but ultimately [the NYT is] a big budget right wing PR operation, intent on preserving the status quo.

I think that's misleading, bordering on libel. Even this article cited cases (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy...) where the NYT ran stories that challenged powerful interests and the status quo, directly against the personally stated wishes of a conservative president.

The truth is that things are more complicated than black and white. Some might be disappointed that the NYT doesn't always gleefully poke at the eyes of a particular power whenever it can, but like every human and human organization, it doesn't always live up to its own ideals or the ideals that have been applied to it.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#73

Post by pm90 »

ngngngng wrote: post #20
rdtsc wrote: post #9

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I…

During the Obama administration it became legal to assassinate US citizens without trial as long as they are presumed "terrorists" and aren't currently on US soil. It was a deeply flawed presidency that deserves much more critique than it has ever received. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

I have a suspicion that any American President would have had to do this. Its true that these things did happen under Obama, but I am hesitant to think that someone else could have done better.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#74

Post by turingcompeteme »

Is there any 'wall' between the owners and editors of a newspaper?

Does someone like Bezos now have access to similar information that the Times was hiding from the public shown here?

That information would appear to be worth a lot more than the 250 million he paid for the Post.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#75

Post by ALittleLight »

verall wrote: post #63
losvedir wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans. You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will l…

I'm curious, why do you believe Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one? I support the eventual withdrawal from Syria, but packing up now will place a large burden on Kurdish minority groups in the region, who deserve better. It will not be the first time we supported the Kurds while they advanced US goals and then pulled out ASAP. It also seems the decision was motivated by conversations between Trump…

I think a basic problem with your analysis is that there will always be an emotionally compelling reason to commit troops to enterprises like this. We have to support our allies, the Kurds. Saddam Hussein and his sons are cruel dictators. Iranian theocrats are intent on destroying Israel. There are concentration camps in North Korea. Gaddafi is a dictator and sponsor of terrorists. Etcetera.

These reasons aren't wrong, those things are true. The problem is that they lead down a path of interventionism which hasn't worked very well. For example, Iraq. Hussein really was a cruel dictator but by invading and destabilizing the region the conflict killed a million or more people, generated ISIS, and left the area tumultuous.

I also want good things for the people of Syria. I don't think it's fair for them to be ruled by Asad. Where I disagree with people who advocate continued military intervention is that I don't think this is the right way to help them.

I think the right way to help people is by exemplifying the virtues of our system of governance and economics. We should become a country that others want to emulate. We should spread good ideas, like the rule of law, human and civil rights, regulated but mostly free markets, etc. Other countries will desire our prosperity and change of their own accord to become more like us, not because we're pointing guns at them, but because they genuinely want to live the way we've shown is possible.

I see this approach as unraveling the networks of evil in the world. Russia changing to be less of an oligarchy, permit more free press, better cooperation with the world, more Democratic will likely entail less support of Assad.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#76

Post by Gibbon1 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #12

I discovered that there was, in effect, a marketplace of secrets in Washington, in which White House officials and other current and former bureaucrats, contractors, members of Congress, their staffers, and journalists all traded information. This is why I left that world. The US Government and policy makers decide that it is sometimes necessary to do things that put US Govt employees at mortal risk. It is important…

Guy I went to school with in the late 80's had an internship at Lockheed working on the video recorders used in fighters to record bombing runs. They were designing a new system because the old system had some defects that the Soviets found out about. The reason they found out about them was the Reagan Administration released the full bombing run tapes to the press after Operation El Dorado Canyon. Which then made it onto national TV and was copied as well.

Air force was livid but wasn't going to publicly go after the Reagan Administration officials responsible. If you did that you'd get 25-life.

Lockheed probably wasn't unhappy though.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#77

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

blindwatchmaker wrote: post #50
justaman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its narrow minded to assume a tool of the government is right wing, or left wing for that matter.

I think it's pretty fair to say that the leadership of both major parties, elites in and outside the government, and the military/intelligence services are right wing, and have been historically so in the United States barring the brief period between the New Deal and the destruction of Keynesianism in the 80s.

How do you explain the policies where the right wing has been steadily losing ground for the past 50-100 years? For example on immigration, on gender equality, or sexual liberation? Are the elites just losing those battles? Because it doesn't seem like they mind.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#78

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

syedkarim wrote: post #47
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UniParty. However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did. That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be a…

If the GOP has such disdain for Trump, then why do traditional conservatives in Congress continue to support him?

Because they are more closely aligned with the populist wing of the Republican party than the neo-conservative/elitist/globalist wing of the Republican party. The elitist wing has been the dominant force in the Republican party for decades at least.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

scottlocklin wrote: post #69
bm1362 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is important, Alex Jones was using that study to say that the government was turning people gay intentionally.

Probably so, but nobody else with his reach was covering this. Seems kind of important to me!

That's simply false.

NYT in 2003: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/us/popular-pesticide-faul...

BBC in 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1930658.stm

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#80

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

vkou wrote: post #65
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't. He's a constitutional law professor! He loves his blackberry! Those girls that campaigned and danced around for Obama were hot. Yay his skin color doesn't matter - except it totally matters! He'll stop the wars! He's so cool he tweets out things! Because you were sold on an extremely effective misinformation c…

History is written by the victors, and his scandalous policies did not lose in the court of law. As it turns out, all the shitty shit he did was perfectly legal[1] (And also supported by most of the country.) The current crop of scandals is, ah, personal failings and run of the mill conflicts of interest. Obama's cabinet picks were a bit better then the current crop, in that respect. Well, except for Hillary's email…

>Well, except for Hillary's email server.

Or the fact that she was the Secretary of State while her husband's charity was accepting millions of dollars in donations from leaders of foreign countries (the very same people who the American people were relying on her to oppose whenever their interests conflicted with those of the American people).

Post reply on HN