51–60 of 170 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 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.
In this case the accused had top secret document on his computer but more importantly is being investigated for images of child sexual abuse which was redacted by Rolling Stone.
You have to read the article, otherwise I would think you're defending an accused pedophile just because you have some imaginary beef with the FBI.
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.
It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be had with these people who don't require evidence in order to make bold claims?
Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well. It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts
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…
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.
I would argue that the general public does not give a single shit about the latest individual being accused of vague national security drama on any given day. A reporter possessed classified material on his personal laptop? Someone wake the President!
...oh, wait. The President's kid possessed classified material on his personal laptop too.
There's nothing really defamatory about it; if anything it might help his career. Nobody gives a shit about victimless white-collar crimes.
But child porn? You're radioactive once painted. That accusation causes actual damages.
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…
> Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid.
Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just pick which of their claims you like.
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.