441–450 of 1001 posts
Don’t listen to all the voices here seeking to discredit him. They are playing defense. Just go to original sources and make up your own mind.
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…
That's a big 'if'. The 'media's value prop is not to promote a free press. Those that believe that to be the case are quickly going extinct.
> This does mean that there's a huge opportunity if you assume trust is something people will pay for. [...] I think the market will correct this error
If it's true (I don't think it is), and to the degree that you can sustain a business over many years. I don't think it's even possible to be true, because the money itself is corrupting. The market cannot correct what doesn't require correction.
I think where your analysis fails is that you presume that the media has shifted their position on their own. They haven't; they've reacted to the public. It's actually a positive feedback loop, not negative -- it's just that it's positive in the direction you dislike. We cannot depend on or hope for market correction. A free press in modern times requires public funding.
The media exists primarily for its own purposes and agendas and only incidentally to promote the honest interplay of facts and ideas.
Regardless of the actual authenticity of the Hunter emails, stuff like this is fairly easy to plant. So even if Greenwald got it right this time (maybe, maybe not), I can assure you that he will get it very wrong at least once in the future by the hands of a foreign intelligence officer (assuming he still has an audience).
Folks who aggressively advocate for the verification of authenticity of documents, especially digital documents, have a very good reason for taking the stance that they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their rea…
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.
Your position is the same as everyone here: You haven't read the story and have no information whatsoever to claim that they are being good editors or not.
Until we have a story to look at, it's anyone's guess if he's being a good journalist or they are being a good editor.
"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…
You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their rea…
Why do you believe Glenn is immune to this interest? The entire point of this is to promote his newsletter.
> I think Glenn hoped to create a media entity that regarded truth as the measure of merit of a story vs. how well it promoted a cause and ads/subscriptions. Now that the experiment has failed so obviously, good for him for moving on.
How do you know that "truth" is not the measure of merit for this story? You haven't read it; you're simply taking Glenn at his word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the entire editorial team and his peers rejected it, it seems pretty clear.
There was an almost mutiny from the NYT when they published Tom Cotton's article in their op-ed, which forced the editor to resign. They couldn't bear hearing from the other side, and this is just another example of the same mentality. This is exactly what Greenwald and Tabbiti have been reporting about, the fascist left censoring or wanting to censor the news to only those opinions that they want to hear. EDIT: For…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This appears to be correct. Most media outlets now are activists pretending to be journalists, run by businesspeople who care about revenue more than truth.
The Intercept has long been an activist paper. That's why Glenn joined. That doesn't mean they care about revenue over truth though