291–300 of 1001 posts
This is the same journalist who broke news about Mai Lai, reported in-depth on Abu Ghraib, and much more. Serious, serious news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was this included for comic relief? Or did you actually think we should take the CIA or State Department PR seriously?
I will definitely take a random substack blog more seriously. After all, he is citing "unnamed sources"! Very credible!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not good enough. No level of reputation or historical track record should exempt anyone from the basic responsibility of providing evidence for claims they make.
> No level of reputation or historical track record should exempt anyone from the basic responsibility of providing evidence for claims they make. I'm not sure. Bloomberg and Reuters are two media outlets who regularly release information while only citing anonymous sources and not releasing any evidence. Just posting proofster.png [1] doesn't undo America's long history of doing weird stuff to achieve its goals. Thi…
p. 112; The Bloomberg Way: A Guide for Journalists; John Micklethwait, Paul Addison, Jennifer Sondag, Bill Grueskin; John Wiley & Sons; 2017 ed.
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…
Typically three unnamed sources with domain knowledge are required. It's telling that no editor chose to run this and Hersh has to self-publish. I wish you would reconsider the folks flagging this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose this story was written by a "credible" reporter. Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? Would it pass the national security screening?
> Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? If someone had an inside source on deep background with evidence of an American cover-up? Hell yes they would. And if they wouldn't, the Journal would pay a premium.
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…
Dan there’s no sugarcoating this - you’ve got it wrong on this one. I say this as a supporter of your moderation policies in general. The sooner you reverse this decision, the better for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.
The original enron pipelines are still moving product. They still 'be'. Biden wasn't talking about Gazprom. His words are very clear and direct. They are congruent with his body language and tone. He looked down at his notes before speaking.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 "We will put an end to Abbott's attacks on educators, raise teacher pay, improve their retirement benefits, and fully fund our classrooms."
https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-... "we will put an end to the decades of price gouging"
Again, "we'll bankrupt them with sanctions" easily falls under "we will put an end to them".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines. You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.
I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all. Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.
Why ?