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

Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 227 posts

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#121

Post by unclebucknasty »

This article is confused. Its assertion is that the press's reputation has been destroyed due to its reporting on Russiagate, yet it goes on to cite U.S. intelligence officials, politicos like HRC, and others who suggested that Russiagate is a thing.

Now, which is it? If the press is essentially reporting what prominent people--presumed to have inside information--are saying, then is it the press whose reputation has been destroyed?

I'll be the first to say that their breathless reporting and the 24-hour news cycle are exhausting, as is their click-baity ratings chase. But, with regard to reporting the substance, what else are they supposed to do when many believe POTUS is breaking laws in plain sight, and so-called experts are corroborating that crimes are being committed?

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#122

Post by joveian »

There is a different (and shorter) excerpt from his book on Rolling Stone that is also quite good:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

It notes the recent issue with Venezuela coverage at the end, although not noting that it took the New York Times more than two weeks to issue a correction while others outside the mainstream media pointed out the video evidence the day of the event.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#124

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

auntienomen wrote: post #112
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your first point, it's easy to fall into a perjury trap. Noone in the campaign was indicted for conspiracy, they were indicted for lying. Planning to build a hotel in a country is not a crime, even if it's Russia. It's smoke in the scheme of things, but if he's not guilty, then it's perfectly okay. Meeting with a Russian ambassador is not a crime, setting up a backchannel is not a crime. Many campaigns have done s…

Meeting with the Russian ambassador can indeed be a crime under the Logan Act. Private citizens don't get to make foreign policy, and none of Trump's team was in office at that point.

I suggest you read up on the Logan Act and the accusations that have been made under it previously. It's from 1799 and far too general. There's been many instances that technically fall under it. It's not just private citizens, it's unauthorized persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Accusations_of_viola...

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#125

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #87
leereeves wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gist of the news is: Trump never had anything similar in scope either. It was a fiction, invented by the Democrats and the media.

How many Obama campaign managers did they indict? How many Obama National Security Advisors did they indict and force to resign over Russian ties? How many times did Obama deny that the Russians attacked American interests during an election only to be rebut by the FBI with a string of foreign indictments?

Well, the Obama administration were the ones who ignored the Russia meddling. They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election.

They also ignored violations of the nuclear treaty, various previous hacking attempts, cancelled missile defenses in Eastern Europe, allowed Russia to sell air defenses to Iran. The Obama Administration was extremely soft on Russia.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#126

Post by npc_geroge123 »

leereeves wrote: post #61
astrodust wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huffington Post pretends to be very socially liberal, but really it's all about preserving the status quo which is ultimately a conservative position. Also have you read any of those New York Times "editorial" pieces they crank out? "Trump isn't so bad" and "Why I voted Trump and I'd do it again, gosh darn it, and you should too" are typical fare. The term "conservative" has shifted dramatically in the last 50 years.…

> Also have you read any of those New York Times "editorial" pieces they crank out? "Trump isn't so bad" and "Why I voted Trump and I'd do it again, gosh darn it, and you should too" are typical fare. I haven't seen those, and I can't find them with a search. Do you have links?

You can find them because they don't exist.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#127

Post by jayd16 »

mc32 wrote: post #111
jayd16 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The Trump administration has done everything from secretly meet in Trump tower with Russian officials and lie about it to firing the head of the FBI because of the Russian investigation. In my mind, these two acts alone have warranted the last two years of coverage and investigation. Simply imagine a world where these things were ignored. How untrustworthy would the press seem then?

Don’t most campaigns, senators, etc., meet with foreign diplomats? Kerry went and met with foreign leaders despite not being part of the government. Carter does the same albeit with tacit or explicit approval. Also after Comey’s restart of the email investigation many Dems wanted him fired.

Do most candidates have clandestine meetings with diplomats, lie about their existence, then once discovered lie about the matters discussed? No, it's not very common. The closest would probably be Nixon extending the Vietnam war.

>Also after Comey’s restart of the email investigation many Dems wanted him fired.

Irrelevant.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#129

Post by Theodores »

dTal wrote: post #101
Theodores wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a pity you have to put the big disclosure at the top of your comment. But our media have made things very binary black and white. Not buying into the 'red scare' means that in the eyes of some you must be a Trump supporter. This is a failure of critical thinking and far too many people fall into this trap, thereby perpetuating things like 'RussiaGate' when it no longer makes sense to do so. The suspicions won't…

Okay, but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... That's 496 citations and a warning "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably". In other words, there's overwhelming evidence that Russia interfered. Like, not even a question. Suggesting it's a made-up media frenzy is just... alternate universe.

I said what I needed to say with my original comment, however there is an important lesson here.

I can find you 496 citations that the Loch Ness Monster ate Freddie Starr's hamster. If this mattered as a matter of national security, would you prefer to simply ask Freddie Starr if someone is having a laugh?

There are precisely zero citations on that page to any Russian sources. There should be. With the original Russian and English translation. With those sources being official.

Why is this?

When I was at school my history teacher told me that we always had to check sources.

Am I to believe that it is beyond the wit of the journalist to link to words uttered by the Kremlin, posted onto an official Kremlin blog? So we can read the original denials verbatim and in context?

I checked the citations and I am only seeing articles by the media that have been advancing the RussiaGate agenda. Quality is not the same thing as quantity, 496 articles written by Western pundits does not magically make something true.

Not all of the people in those citations are Mother Theresa types. Luke Harding from the Guardian gets a mention in those citations but some Guardian readers know what Luke Harding's game really is. It has something to do with propaganda.

Any story can be made into something it isn't by being economical with the truth. Then we start believing and regurgitating our own falsehoods.

There were a few quips on there about what Putin and Lavrov had to say. Are these cherry picked to support a given narrative? Without links to the source words and the context, who can say?

We need to listen and understand our global neighbours, not live in a world where we only listen to the journalists that Tabibbi is lampooning.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#130

Post by ALittleLight »

arcticbull wrote: post #120
ALittleLight wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And at the same time, the Pentagon is required to sign off on every movie script that shows any military buildings, or the White House. And they do make edits. You're omitting a crucial detail and by doing so you make the situation you describe sound much more totalitarian. You're required to get the military to sign off on your script IF you want to use free or discounted military personal, equipment, or locations…

I think that’s the crux of my point. Yes of course it’s optional to make a movie with the White House in it. It’s optional to use war footage to report on the war. It’s optional to interview officials in your coverage. However if you don’t, nobody’s going to pay attention so your only choice in effect is to play ball. Who would watch media coverage of the war from the only network without footage/boots on the ground/…

Either you have misunderstood something or I have.

You absolutely do not need government permission to show the White House or to show war footage. You need government permission to get to use their hardware for free.

If I want b-roll of the White House I can just walk over there and record or buy some online. I don't have to ask anybody anything and the government doesn't get to see my script. If I want tanks or planes in a movie that has a script the government doesn't like, I can always use the hardware from a different country, from a state militia, or private owner - or CGI or get the props department to build one, etc.

The government does have a subtle influence. If it's not important to your film, you may as well except minor edits and make the military look good - that way you get some expensive props for free (or for a small price). It's not as insidious as what you're describing though.

Post reply on HN