711–720 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and they are published either by socialites from a group that hates the group being exposed, or by "freaks" like Greenwald that no one with a public persona wants near them because they know he's a time bomb.
Long live the freaks of the world. We need them more than ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 e…
I'm not sure what the solution will be. But we'd better think of something fast, before people lose all faith in the news.
It seems impossible to hold a strong opinion on this without reading the article, and in particular, seeing how it is sourced. The elephant in the room (which Greenwald barely acknowledges in this essay) is that many mainstream news organizations have concluded that the evidence for this story was too weak to publish, and some believe it was fabricated by Russian intelligence. If Greenwald has evidence to the contrar…
Does this explain why the tried to stop him from publishing elsewhere? Relevant section: >Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM…
I think you can suggest it was careful pressure or negotiation, but it didn't read as a demand to me.
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…
> The media has fallen into the well-known trap of optimizing the wrong KPI. You want to maximize trust with the public, not engagement KPI for whose benefit? Shareholders or the 'public good'? Why would a for-profit entity optimize for the public good over profits? Fox news is crushing all their competitors optimizing for engagement. Who is winning optimizing for trust?
Maybe we need to have more strict regulations on what can call itself a "news agency", when most of its programming is entertainment opinion commentary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist is quickly losing that reputation. I cancelled my subscription. The FT is still pretty good, though they shy away from anything critical of powerful corporations/individuals.
What about the economist made you cancel? My impression is that they're still doing a great job of providing trustworthy news which avoids sensationalism
In 2015, the publishing house Pearson sold their majority stake to a bunch of globalists: the Agnelli family, the Rotschilds, Cadbury, etc.[1]
I was not aware of this at the time, but noticed the change of direction a year or so later. Cancelled my subscription - sadly there are few real journalists left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facts all rely on a hard drive no one has seen and no one will offer forensic evidence of
There is corroboration of at least some of the laptop's from Tony Bobulinski, who worked with the Bidens and has turned over devices with copies of the emails to the authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glenn Greenwald is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist. He broke the Snowden story--another sensational-sounding scoop which likely sounded like total bullshit at first. Is it possible that Mr. Greenwald is a better judge of whether or not there is a story here?
Here’s what his own (ex-) colleagues say: > We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. FYI this sob story has some precedent: In 2014: "I absolutely refuse to be exiled from my own country for the crime of doing journalism and I'm going to force the issue just on principle. And I think going back for a ceremony like the Polk Awards or other forms of journalistic awards would be a…
> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid- ... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. Intercept's decision has nothing to do with this nbc article. Here's the emails exchange between Greenwald and Intercept editors: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...