341–350 of 1001 posts
Why not share details of what he wanted to publish and what they barred and let people make up their own minds?
He says in this letter that he will publish it soon on Substack, but that sort of takes the wind out of the sails of his "liberals are censoring me" argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is about emails which have no headers, that are impossible to verify, that were “known to fbi” for a long time but didn’t produce any action (because likely fake), and that are specifically being pushed to change outcome of election despite, again, no real evidence of their veracity.
One could simply ask the people in the email if they are real. "Impossible to verify" is just lazy excuse-making. This is basic journalism.
Why was this removed from the front page? https://youtu.be/YCLkTYwN7VQ Edit: I'm a moron and it just dropped a bunch suddenly. Was not removed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article. From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor to shut down stories they don't believe meet the standards they set for themselves. And for exercising that duty, they are leaving clicks, ad impressions, and probably a good amount of money on the table.
They're free to make that choice if that's their true assessment of it. But when Greenwald publishes his piece, if it actually is not in fact a garbage piece, they're going to look extremely bad and biased.
Edit; he did: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-b...
The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement, if you want your media company to survive if its value proposition is providing journalism and the usual benefits that come with a free press. Unfortunately, not only is engagement the wrong metric, but it's also one which incentivizes the undermining of the actual metric you need to…
I agree there is a huge opportunity for a trusted institution to do journalism. But who would anyone trust? The incentives in the media point towards pandering and outraging. Left to the shareholders a news organization is mandated to maximize short term profit in whatever way it can. So capitalism is out. Perhaps a benevolent billionaire could support such an effort? But again, who would trust him? Its a pikle.
There are new media organizations that do very good work, independently. But you have to look for them, and most people are too lazy to bother seeking out quality journalism when the garbage is forced in front of them every waking second by social media.
The other problem is that most of the good work is regional. WTTW in Chicago, The Texas Tribune in Texas, various public radio stations around the country. There's plenty of good journalism. But it's an effort to piece it all together.
Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…
Even Fox News wouldn't run the story because it wasn't supported by facts.
And last I heard, there still has been no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Tucker Carlson claims that his evidence "got lost in the mail". In the age of the internet, they didn't snap any photos of this so-called proof?
There is no "there" there. Just a bunch of internet sleuths with MS paint red circles and theories about deep states. And your comment falls into this category.
The response on HN to this is a disgrace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who knew that even when you fund a company, if you get qualified people with integrity, they'll stop you from peddling foreign nation misinformation even if you're the boss.
>foreign nation misinformation Source?
There is no source that disputes the authenticity of the Hunter Biden documents. On the contrary, there are many pieces of evidence (such as Secret Service travel logs) that support them.
The liberal media spreads disinformation as often as it condemns it, this is just one example. They will happily bend over backwards and contort themselves into the most bizarre logical positions in order to do so: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1320358217382268934
> "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren't."
Publications (and social networks) are free to only host speech they agree with. However, advertising in the same forum supposedly has value. If a company is promoting stories for a certain candidate or issue, and banning all stories/posts/accounts against, why does that not count as an in-kind donation, worth as much as the equivalent ads would cost?
(Not arguing that this practice is illegal per se, but it seems like it should be acknowledged/reported.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you be a bit more specific on what you believe to be so important/surprising/relevant about this story that would make an entire journalistic career? What is the story that is not being told, and actively being suppressed? I have been following this quite closely and can't see it.
Did you watch the Tony Babulinksi interview with Tucker Carlson? It shows that Joe Biden had an ownership stake in and was directly involved with his son's company that received a 5-10 million forgivable loan from a top member of the Chinese Communist party. This directly contradicts claims Joe Biden has made throughout his campaign and at the last debate.
My question to you is: are you arriving with an appropriate amount of skepticism?
Tucker Carlson is not a credible source, and nothing aired on that program "showed" anything definitive except accusations that were made. The Wall Street Journal ran their own story on these allegations and found no link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partn...