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

My Resignation from the Intercept

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#391

Post by ffggvv »

bachmeier wrote: post #20

"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…

lol thank god we have censors like you to determine what articles the greatest, most impactful journalist of our lifetimes can publish. how would we he know whats newsworthy otherwise.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#393

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

meowface wrote: post #221
ivalm wrote: post #86

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.

They should be treated with caution and skepticism, but you seem to be using motivated reasoning without an impartial look of the actual probabilities. There's no hard proof they're real and no hard proof they're doctored. This requires a rigorous analysis, not dismissal.

> This requires a rigorous analysis, not dismissal.

a distraction so to speak. This is exactly why they're doing it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#394

Post by dmix »

lordnacho wrote: post #316
gfodor wrote: post #6

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…

This is why the Economist, FT and the WSJ still have a somewhat positive reputation. They're expensive and tend to write about things that are important, not sensational. All other publications are slowly falling victim to the parametdynamicser of the entertainment game, including ones that were also in that bracket not long ago. Mind you I'm not saying WaPo and NYT are trash now, they did start with a high rep and t…

> Mind you I'm not saying WaPo and NYT are trash now

WaPo and NYT aren't trash but they have fallen mightly. Which sucks because NYT easily has one of the best web design teams on the internet IMO and I used to look forward to reading it daily for over a decade.

I'm still angry that they chose to go all Buzzfeed and hammer it everywhere politicially on their website.

WSJ has been a fine replacement, but it's not as extensive or big as NYT. I just hope things return to a bit more normal after the US election.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#395

Post by watermelonhead »

whimsicalism wrote: post #233
watermelonhead wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media is completely sold out in the country. A purge is incoming.

What is the "real" media in your view?

There is no real media anymore. Report facts, report views/opinions, that fine.. passing off biased hitjobs as "news" isnt media.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#396

Post by blumomo »

SamBam wrote: post #173
RspecMAuthortah wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who defines what is misinformation and by what standard? it seems any opinion that doesn't conform to mainstream ideologies are now labeled as misinformation. the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.

Misinformation is factually-incorrect information that is spread to push an agenda. That's no so hard. A news organization has a responsibility to find out if the news they are reporting is factually correct, and if it's important. If they can't verify the facts, then they may just publish the people's claims, but again, the matter of importance comes in -- is the fact that someone is making the claim important? If s…

I do think it _is_ hard as in: it is very hard to find out the truth. “Misinformation is factually-incorrect information that is spread to push an agenda. That's no so hard.”

Given enough power you can make look any “fact” as the truth. This has been accomplished a couple of times in the past. I.e. the war against Iraq started with the “fact” that there are mass destruction weapons. All mainstream media supported this “fact” when the war began. Turns out later there was no mass destruction weapon. Publicly admitted by the US government. So a “fact” for one person isn’t a “fact” for the other because both have a different perception of truth. But again, given enough power, you can manufacture consent and thus manufacture a “wrong truth”.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#397

Post by kilroy123 »

burlesona wrote: post #373

Honest question: is it just me or is it getting harder to determine what is factual and what is not? It seems like the US has begun to splinter such that there are two different sets of "facts" on many issues, but of course that is not how facts work. Nevertheless, when doing research and investigation is it often hard for me to pin down the truth behind any of the "facts" that are thrown at me, whether that's by the…

It's certainly getting harder and I have this sinking feeling that's by design.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#398

Post by LeifCarrotson »

gameswithgo wrote: post #127
bachmeier wrote: post #20

"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…

Greenwald has never operated in a way that concerns itself with the consequences of actions. The philosophy is "we report, freely, what we believe to be true and fair, and whats comes of it does not matter". I am personally torn on this kind of philosophy. Would that everyone was like this, but since they are not, surely there are times when too much is on the line to behave this way? He explicitly talks about this a…

I completely agree. He notes that "Everything gets interpreted through this lens of, ‘Which side are you helping, and which side are you on?’" It's absolutely true that this framework is unhelpful for comprehending the situation, that it makes it difficult to forming a coherent philosophy, and and that it makes it impedes the process of learning about and sharing complex ideas.

But there is an obvious outcome where this gets published, people realize that Biden has flaws, and choose to elect Trump instead as if he did not have flaws. There is no chance of an outcome where people realize that Biden has flaws and elect a different candidate without flaws instead. If Greenwald was actually concerned about presidential emoluments clause violations, nepotism, and corruption, it would be unwise to publish a hack job against the candidate less guilty of these infractions.

Now, I do think that awareness of progressive causes and systemic shortcomings were advanced during Trump's presidency; perhaps Greenwald is playing the extremely long game, hoping that in 2024 the system is able to make a more permanent reform? But it seems more like he's angry that the game is rigged and is destructively flipping the game board over instead of playing - please don't do that, Glenn, I live here.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#399

Post by luckylion »

jrs235 wrote: post #218
jpadkins wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. I don't think this is actually right. I think owners of news media companies want influence more than profit. I don't think Bezos is buying news media for the profits... The influence helps for their other goals.

>helps for their other goals To profit?

Power. You can profit from power, but you could also genuinely believe that the world will be a better place if only everyone did what you said. In both cases you need power.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#400

Post by Wistar »

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #312
ivalm wrote: post #86

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.

The emails have literally been verified by people on the emails and further their authenticity has never been denied by the Biden campaign. To claim that they are fake or disinformation at this point is either an act of extreme ignorance or duplicitous intent.

No denial other than Joe Biden saying, "I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life," during the 3rd Presidential debate.

It's not Biden's to deny, it's Giuliani's to prove.

Post reply on HN