Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

61–70 of 170 posts

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

#61
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.

This is basically how the media has operated forever, in America during the debates on ratification of the constitution there were federalist and anti-federalist newspapers and they published outright lies and whatever accusation they could find about people on the other side every week in order to make their case.

As far as I can tell, this idea of newspeople as morally pure monk-like defenders of the truth is isolated to a handful of decades in post-war America, mostly confined to a few personalities and outlets, and was far from universally-held even then (lots of people blamed, or still blame, the media for our losing the Vietnam War, for instance—Agnew and others were openly attacking them as corrupt and biased for those and related reasons, in the 70s).

Their traditional depiction in fiction is, and long has been, as about one step up from pimps, con-men, and used car salesmen, as far as ethics and trustworthiness are concerned. I doubt some Golden Age of news objectivity ever existed, really, though the perception of it may have, among some set of people, for a time—hell, you can find people today who think Fox News does great journalism, so the perception of that clearly doesn't require it to be a fact. I'm fairly sure it's exactly the same kind of longing for a past that never existed that one can see all around.

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

#62
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.

[flagged]

It's interesting that this particular CJR report is being cited when its editor has engaged in the very same conflict-riddled, shady practices being criticized at Rolling Stone. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, who was commissioned to write a precursor to the cited piece, has more details [1].

[1] https://bylinetimes.com/2023/02/07/who-watches-the-watchdog-...

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

#63
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.

>(2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces.

What? The predominate pattern today is nobody believing anything the media says. Nothing is true. The earth isn't even fucking round.

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

#64
post #43

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"?

You said it yourself -- it's the difference between a suspicion, aka hypothesis, and theory, aka explanation based on evidence.

The problem with conspiracy theorists isn't that they think unlikely things might have happened, it's that they are 100% convicted that unlikely things are the only possible explanation, and (typically) that any evidence to the contrary is just part of the conspiracy.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically how the media has operated forever, in America during the debates on ratification of the constitution there were federalist and anti-federalist newspapers and they published outright lies and whatever accusation they could find about people on the other side every week in order to make their case.

As far as I can tell, this idea of newspeople as morally pure monk-like defenders of the truth is isolated to a handful of decades in post-war America, mostly confined to a few personalities and outlets, and was far from universally-held even then (lots of people blamed, or still blame, the media for our losing the Vietnam War, for instance—Agnew and others were openly attacking them as corrupt and biased for those a…

> I doubt some Golden Age of news objectivity ever existed

Maybe that's because you haven't read any of it? I mean, it's hard to find on the Web these days. And easy to find counter-examples even from that period.

Just like it's easy to find some Victorian-era pornography and leap to the conclusion that everything then was just like now.

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

#66
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...

That's incredibly damning and everyone involved should be ashamed.

That said, is there any organization in the world, let alone a media outlet, that has never had any catastrophic failures? Are we supposed to be one-strike to forever irredeemable for every org?

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

#67
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.

>(2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. What? The predominate pattern today is nobody believing anything the media says. Nothing is true. The earth isn't even fucking round.

The media became untrustworthy before people stopped trusting it.

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

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat some of the government's claims: > Sources familiar with the matter say feder…

> The sources are trustworthy or not

Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it.

The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say.

What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it.

If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, this idea of newspeople as morally pure monk-like defenders of the truth is isolated to a handful of decades in post-war America, mostly confined to a few personalities and outlets, and was far from universally-held even then (lots of people blamed, or still blame, the media for our losing the Vietnam War, for instance—Agnew and others were openly attacking them as corrupt and biased for those a…

> I doubt some Golden Age of news objectivity ever existed Maybe that's because you haven't read any of it? I mean, it's hard to find on the Web these days. And easy to find counter-examples even from that period. Just like it's easy to find some Victorian-era pornography and leap to the conclusion that everything then was just like now.

I've read good reporting, sure. Good reporting isn't mythical. People worried about modern journalism's lack of objectivity or reliability just strike me as folks learning for the first time what journalism's usually like, is all, and being surprised and thinking that it's a new development because they just learned about it.

I'm not claiming there's no such thing as good reporting.

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

#70
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.

[flagged]

> The whole entire "Russiagate" thing was straight up just a hoax

Uhhh, what? The Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S. Senate [published][1] a nearly 1,000 page report on this. Volume 5 begins with these findings:

> The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

> The fifth and final volume focuses on the counterintelligence threat, outlining a wide range of Russian efforts to influence the Trump Campaign and the 2016 election.

I highly recommend you [read][2] this yourself, but including a few top-level items of the counter intelligence threats:

> Taken as a whole, [Paul] Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.

> The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-rus...

[2]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...

Post reply on HN