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

NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 368 posts

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#91

Post by freedomben »

klmadfejno wrote: post #40
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

It blows my mind that someone would read > 'the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram.' and then decide this was good quality, unbiased journalism worth paying for. And then go on to post that sentence as evidence of its goodness. Looks like anger porn to me.

I think Greenwald uses a lot of snark, and I wish he would restrain himself a bit because I think he turns a lot of people off with that approach. That said, he has a level of authenticity and honesty about his biases that is sorely lacking in many journalists these days. A lot of reporters feel as passionate about the subjects they cover as he does, but they aren't forthright about it.

Regarding journalistic value, his pieces are always loaded with links and references. I like reading his articles because I can easily read the stuff he is referencing to see if I interpret them the same way, and try to see whether I see things differently.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#92

Post by jakelazaroff »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #17

> "But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, sp…

Very ironic that this sentence was planted in the middle of a 3000-word screed comparing someone who tweeted a misheard quote to the Stasi.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#93

Post by [deleted] »

jameslk wrote: post #82
TameAntelope wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only an ad hominem if I say he's wrong because of who he is. This can't be an ad hominem if I don't actually address the argument he puts forward, which I did not do (for better or for worse). The content I've added is, "This article is hard for me to read because of its tone." Agree or disagree, I found it difficult to get through, and hard to see what Glenn was trying to point out as a result of the tone he ch…

> he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality. > I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet In these you attack the author rather his points. Being hard to read for you doesn't discredit the article's arguments either. I'd rather hear what you dislike about the points being made rather than how they read, because the former is more important to having an actual conversation.

[deleted]

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#94

Post by jacquesm »

xoa wrote: post #66
endymi0n wrote: post #15

It's interesting how polemic Greenwald has become, bringing with it the same magnitude of reality denial as the actors he is going after. A title like "The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows" coming from an investigative journalist like himself really sounds like a sore loser's version of "investigative journalism needs to die if it doesn't share my narrative and polit…

> I used to be a free speech absolutist myself back in Snowden times FWIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. When individuals or other fully private entities decide they don't like someone's speech and choose to not associate or support that person/entity any longer,…

Spot on.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#95

Post by eitland »

throwawaysea wrote: post #18
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

Thanks for the reminder on subscribing. I agree good journalism is extremely important, and a diverse set of sources is important as well. I've been feeling like we need alternatives to massive mainstream news media houses that increasingly seem like a battleground for ideological war in the newsroom. Are there any other independent journalists you would recommend?

I subscribe to my local newspaper and one national one.

I also sometimes send a bunch of money to the Guardian when I read something interesting there, probably more than I feel like for just the Guardian, but there's nowhere else I can pay for stories, everyone else want me to subscribe.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#96

Post by passivate »

TameAntelope wrote: post #9

The tone of this article is atrocious, if Glenn had a point it was completely lost when he peppered this article with snark and derision. He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak impartially about this topic. This is an attempted hit piece and he's not subtle about it, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality. I'm honestly surpri…

But what if the subject deserves snark and derision? I don't like to 'both sides' it and claim neutrality/impartiality when one side is wrong, or "more wronger" than the other. I didn't find anything atrocious or objectionable in the article myself, but I'm probably an oddity. 25+ years of online discourse has jaded me. :)

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#97

Post by vorpalhex »

newacct583 wrote: post #74
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

> It seems to seriously scare some folks that there are places where they cannot deplatform whoever they want for anything. If it's really possible for "some folks" to deplatform "whoever they want" "for anything", why is this power not available to me or anyone I know? I know it's glib, but... come on folks. The anti-anti-anti-cancel-culture hyperbole is officially out of control. It should be possible to have a leg…

As Greenwald points out, these journalists work at major outlets and have huge followings which they can use - and have used - to shut down speech.

Cancel culture is real and we must not allow it to be tolerated. I've been told that I'm "problematic" and should reconsider blogging... because I recommended a $40 pair of hair shears.

Greenwald is being a bit melodramatic, but his substance isn't wrong. A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure - and if it wasn't for that conversation being widely heard she likely would of seriously harmed his reputation with her lie.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#98

Post by freedomben »

jameslk wrote: post #10
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

I wonder what Telegram and Signal are hosting on? Is it one of the big cloud providers? Could they be deplatformed for harboring "terrorists" on their platforms?

If you take John Brennan at his word, yes, it is coming. Many powerful Democrat lawmakers are working toward allowing law enforcement (FBI, etc) to have the same tools against "domestic terror" as they do again foreign terror. Greenwald himself did a great write up about it:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-ter...

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#99

Post by macspoofing »

xoa wrote: post #66
endymi0n wrote: post #15

It's interesting how polemic Greenwald has become, bringing with it the same magnitude of reality denial as the actors he is going after. A title like "The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows" coming from an investigative journalist like himself really sounds like a sore loser's version of "investigative journalism needs to die if it doesn't share my narrative and polit…

> I used to be a free speech absolutist myself back in Snowden times FWIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. When individuals or other fully private entities decide they don't like someone's speech and choose to not associate or support that person/entity any longer,…

>there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences.

That's your definition of free speech and censorship. Others use those terms in a more broad sense. But even if you don't like that they do that, you should invoke the principle of charity and actually argue the point that is being made ... Namely, malevolent self-serving actors, sometimes represented by major journalistic institutions, are whipping up the social media mob, during the time of mass hysteria, to destroy the lives of political and cultural opponents, as well as anyone that gets caught up in that drag net.

Is that a problem? Are we OK with that? Do we have permission from you to talk about this as a problem?

The article in question demonstrates examples of this.

"Just take a second to ponder how infantile and despotic, in equal parts, all of this is. This NYT reporter used her platform to virtually jump out of her desk to run to the teacher and exclaim: he used the r word! This is what she tried for months to accomplish: to catch people in private communications using words that are prohibited or ideas that are banned to tell on them to the public"

We know why she did that and what her aims were. Is that OK for a NY Times reporter to do? Is that something to highlight as an issue? Or are you still stuck arguing semantics and definitions of words while missing the entire point.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#100

Post by tehjoker »

stonogo wrote: post #33
eitland wrote: post #6

>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…

> Good journalism is extremely important but much of what we see today is a mix of extreme bias, outright lies and outrage manufacturing. I haven't seen Greenwald do much other than outrage manufacturing in some years. I guess it's paying the bills.

What about the time he broke the story of Sergio Moro in Brazil and flipped the story of the Operation Car Wash corruption investigation (for which he was regularly threatened with bodily harm)?
Post reply on HN