Live data from Hacker News

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

theintercept.com

101–110 of 133 posts

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

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humor me for a minute here: 1) Google Atrazine (I get 1.7m hits) 2) Google "making frogs gay" (I get 4.9m hits) I'm pretty sure this means Alex Jones did a better job of informing humanity that atrazine might be a problem than the NYT or any other news organization. I'm assuming Alex Jones is the source, or at least the main popularizer of the meme "making frogs gay." I could be wrong about that, and maybe it was som…

Quality matters a lot in raising awareness of facts. You can't just say comicbooks are better at raising for showing everyone the dangers of radiation when basement levels of radon is depicted as causing people to melt into goo because lung cancer is also dangerous.

You have to communicate with Alex Jones fans somehow if you believe in Democracy. I mean, what are the other options? Not telling them anything? Sending them LaTeX formatted papers?

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

#102
post #44
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disappointing coming from the man who campaigned on the promise "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

Obama was one of our better Republican presidents....

That's a pretty fatuous statement when you consider the goals of the GOP over the past 38 years. Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? Did he pass a major tax cut? Did he appoint pro-life judges? Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants?

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

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The United States killed its own citizens in military operations long before Obama.

Well, Obama OLC's legal memo advocated it explicitly, though.

From Wikipedia: 'Barron's memo was described by The New York Times Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."[7] A lawyer for the ACLU described the memo as "disturbing" and "ultimately an argument that the president can order targeted killings of Americans without ever having to account to anyone outside the executive branch."[8]'

One could say it "became executive doctrine" then.

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

#104
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wron…

I think, actually that the region would have had its melt-down one way or the other. The Arab spring would have happened anyway. And he most likely would have swept Hussein away. Vietnam told us, that in the long run, no foreign power projection prevails against local interests aligned with local powers.

And it will happen again, in about 1.5 generations- waving over a region, who will be very much beyond peak oil. Which will have all those in power at that moment, trying to vent the tension the good old European style- by sending those revolutionary's with all the emotional words and no plans on how to make the world a better place into endless ditch wars.

So the board for the great game is been lay out- now the most relevant game piece has to be determined. Who is the Germany of the middle east?

As in a currently disassembled power-house without resources, that reassembled is capable of innovation and thus is a danger for all current major players.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure that contradicts what I said? For example, Richard Nixon was a social conservative that ran on a backlash against socially progressive causes, but was still a left wing president. Supported industrial regulation with the EPA, instituted price controls, governed fully within the Keynesian framework of the day. He was to the left of most of the modern day Democratic party.

You're claiming the leadership of both parties are right wing, and elites inside and outside of government are right wing. Why, then, has the right wing lost so much ground on those issues I listed over the past 50-100 years?

Do you deny the issues I listed are issues where the right wing has lost ground in the past 50-100 years? If so, what do you even mean by "right wing"?

If not, then your position is that the elites have been losing on those positions for the past 50-100 years. Is that what you think?

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

#106
post #94

The author, James Risen, has had a long trajectory as a reporter. The OP (which I admit I have not read all of yet) touches on Risen's reporting on the Wen Ho Lee case while at the NYT. Risen and Gerth's story, and their later follow-up story, was based on "leaks" from "senior intelligence officials" that were either false or slanted. It was a disgrace. The case was eventually thrown out of court, and a mealy-mouthed…

James Risen has a checkered reporting background, to be sure. [1] There are all kinds of attacks on the press these days, and we are told to be afraid of attacks on the press. But the devaluation of the press is owed more to its own behavior than to that of its enemies. (In the U.S. Less so in Saudi, China, Russia) [1] https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/is-james-rise...

Here we seem to disagree. I think it's clear that this "devaluation of the press" is being pushed far beyond reason by people who have their own reasons to cloud the notion of an objective truth.

My caveat was more circumscribed - just that one needs to be careful of thinly sourced NYT stories, even when they are said to be from reliable sources, especially when they mirror administration talking points. I say this as a longtime subscriber to the NYT.

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

#107
post #91

I think it's fair to say the majority of the US "Mainstream Media" is overwhelmingly pro-interventalist and by extension pro-military. MSNBC had a clear conflict of interest in the run-up to the Iraq war, with its parent company being a defense contractor, yet ran overwhelmingly pro-invasion stories. A more modern example was the run-up to our involvement with Syria, where you had major network personalities like Jak…

> MSNBC had a clear conflict of interest in the run-up to the Iraq war, with its parent company being a defense contractor I'd be grateful if you could elaborate - I'm having trouble following the ownership chain, since there was a merger with Comcast I think after the Iraq War.

General Electric owned what ultimately became NBCUniversal between 1986-2009, after which Comcast bought 51% of NBCUniversal and finally fully acquired it in 2013.

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

#108
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States killed its own citizens in military operations long before Obama.

Well, Obama OLC's legal memo advocated it explicitly, though. From Wikipedia: 'Barron's memo was described by The New York Times Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."[7] A lawyer for the ACLU described the memo as "disturbing" and "ultimately an argument that the president can ord…

What "doctrine" is this? Since World War 1, when the military has deemed it necessary to kill combatants who happen to be American citizens abroad, it has done so.

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

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that contradicts what I said? For example, Richard Nixon was a social conservative that ran on a backlash against socially progressive causes, but was still a left wing president. Supported industrial regulation with the EPA, instituted price controls, governed fully within the Keynesian framework of the day. He was to the left of most of the modern day Democratic party.

You're claiming the leadership of both parties are right wing, and elites inside and outside of government are right wing. Why, then, has the right wing lost so much ground on those issues I listed over the past 50-100 years? Do you deny the issues I listed are issues where the right wing has lost ground in the past 50-100 years? If so, what do you even mean by "right wing"? If not, then your position is that the eli…

The perception that right wing has lost ground is an illusion. There is dramatically less dissent in America today than there was in the past, much less threat of any social movement that would endanger the status quo.

To a large extent, the right wing policies of decades past have worked incredibly well to focus authoritarian force where it is most useful to right wing goals:

- Suppression of the black population, the crack epidemic, and destruction of the black power movement.

- Massive increases in the number of people in prison, but most notable is the successful campaign to make Americans view prisoners as subhuman and deserving of extremely cruel and unusual treatment.

- The dramatic increase in the ideas of American Exceptionalism and the associated force projection after the cold war. It was not certain this was possible, but it has been achieved thanks to successful fear mongering PR about terrorism and militant Islam.

- Dramatic increases in social inequality. There are many reasons for this, but foremost among them is a loss of social power by the have nots relative to the haves, and the resulting shift in wealth patterns.

- Low voter turnout rates. Americans have been made to feel absurdly proud to live in a democracy, yet only around half see any value in casting a vote. This is akin to convincing the people that pine needle tea is delicious and contains many essential nutrients.

- Broad support for unprecedentedly generous corporate welfare. More and more industries are viewed as too important to fail, and significant societal resources are allocated to the preservation of the status quo. Chieftains in those industries have captured massive upside gains while successfully foisting downside risks onto society as a whole. There is no serious consideration among regulators or officials that the incentive system is remotely unjust, and we are told to be grateful that the industries were saved.

- Widespread hero worship of cops, military, and other projections of authoritarian force. The NFL is sponsored by and heavily promotes the US military, and police departments use aggressive PR stories about kitten rescues, etc., to help whitewash their image in the face of more and more examples of profound misconduct. Further, there are rarely any investigations into such misconduct (abuse of power, etc.) that reach beyond low level participants.

Those are just a few examples, but most of the increasing trends are broadly right-wing in their nature and are supported by various groups. Consider the example of US military intervention in foreign lands. Some support it because the "evil" regime oppresses women, some support it because the regime is brown-skinned, some support it to help "ensure stability" in the region, etc. There is now a grab bag of reasons to support American Exceptionalism and glorification of military force projection, which is broadly right wing, yet the options appeal to people across the entire American political spectrum, including the so-called left that seemingly believes that smart bombs are the best way to improve womens' rights worldwide.

Consider the rhetoric around gentrification for a host of other examples of the built-in right wing bias in American culture.

In other words, right wing views have become so utterly dominant in American culture that there is no longer any real need to add oxygen to it, so the political right wing appears to be losing ground.

Consider all the laws that prohibit employees from accepting jobs in the same industry, laws that extent patent protection to absurd time durations, the general public complacency about unauthorized wiretapping and more broadly the Snowden revelations. Nobody cares about this stuff because the right wing view considers it normal and appropriate/acceptable.

Even something as gut wrenching as the ICE camps for children was a major issue only because it offered partisan benefit. Obama took no heat for doing essentially the same kind of detention system. Then magically a few months later everyone has forgotten about it now that it's no longer politically useful.

The illusion of left vs right makes people feel that there is actually dissent in the US. There is very little.

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

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that contradicts what I said? For example, Richard Nixon was a social conservative that ran on a backlash against socially progressive causes, but was still a left wing president. Supported industrial regulation with the EPA, instituted price controls, governed fully within the Keynesian framework of the day. He was to the left of most of the modern day Democratic party.

You're claiming the leadership of both parties are right wing, and elites inside and outside of government are right wing. Why, then, has the right wing lost so much ground on those issues I listed over the past 50-100 years? Do you deny the issues I listed are issues where the right wing has lost ground in the past 50-100 years? If so, what do you even mean by "right wing"? If not, then your position is that the eli…

I'm not really sure what to say. I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post?
Post reply on HN