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

Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#41

Post by pr0zac »

brwck wrote: post #33
jstarfish wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex wa…

[flagged]

I'm really confused how you read that sentence as spinning Rolling Stone's actions positively?

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#42

Post by ribosometronome »

jstarfish wrote: post #27
penultimatename wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the FBI was investigating them for a specific crime. It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections to the accused.

I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex wa…

And yet, the editor was willing to run that classified material had been found on his computer from those same sources and lead the reader to the conclusion he was targeted for national security reasons. Leaving out what has been reported to you as part of an effort to twist the narrative doesn't deserve slack.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#43

Post by tqi »

londons_explore wrote: post #2

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

In the absence of evidence, what is the line between a "reasonable suspicion" and a "conspiracy theory"?

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#44

Post by watwut »

glonq wrote: post #35

I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.

There was never period in history in which there were no media lies. Not because media are uniquely evil, but because media people are kinda like everyone else. There might be more or less lies depending on various factors, but literally every single year in the past, including when we were little, there were some lies being widely read.

That being said, there are whole lawsuits going on about lies in media right now. Pretty big ones and widely reported about ones. So, if you think that nobody noticed, it is just not true.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#45

Post by superkuh »

That's probably because the FBI has a history of making up excuses to get search warrants for journalist and activist's homes. The reasons the FBI gives for getting a search warrant have about as much connection to real life as the daily horoscope.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#47

Post by fortran77 »

wdb wrote: post #7

Rolling Stone magazine has been going down hill for a long time. There reporting of late has been pretty disappointing with slanted views/one sided reporting

They aren't credible anymore. Not since this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r...

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#48

Post by leephillips »

mrandish wrote: post #37
londons_explore wrote: post #2

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate. If the warrant produces actual evidence of wro…

You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life.

The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#49

Post by P_I_Staker »

watwut wrote: post #44
glonq wrote: post #35

I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.

There was never period in history in which there were no media lies. Not because media are uniquely evil, but because media people are kinda like everyone else. There might be more or less lies depending on various factors, but literally every single year in the past, including when we were little, there were some lies being widely read. That being said, there are whole lawsuits going on about lies in media right now…

Yeah, and it was way worse in the era of yellow journalism… but this is all beside the point.

We’re on a backslide where journalists are far more shameless than eg. 10-30 years ago.

Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

#50

Post by waboremo »

glonq wrote: post #35

I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.

That’s always been happening. Only real difference is now you can write a blog post calling it out and nobody cares (and you aren’t assassinated) because everyone is onto the latest hotness.

I also don’t think the public unquestionably consumes everything, getting people to wear a mask has been unfashionably difficult. It’s just that while it’s easier to misinform now, it’s also harder to correctly inform people. There’s a general distrust now of everything, insular bubbles created by algorithms, and rising anti intellectualism to boot. All of this creates the perfect storm to post whatever whenever without much care even if the real world consequences are great.

Post reply on HN