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

71–80 of 170 posts

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

#71

Post by burkaman »

derefr wrote: post #68
burkaman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own.

Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer.

Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

jstarfish wrote: post #58
ribosometronome wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point. 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…

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by adamrezich »

AlbertCory wrote: post #65
yamtaddle wrote: post #61

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.

when was this Golden Age of News Objectivity, then? because from where I'm standing, it sure seems like it was more of a Golden Age of There Only Being A Few Accessible Sources of News, Most If Not All of Whom Were On The Same Page When It Comes To Major Stories, i.e., The Time Before Smartphones.

case in point: the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. the entire United States media apparatus united to gaslight the populace into consenting to an foreign-soil military invasion on incredibly shaky grounds, that were later proven to be completely false. they even gaslit us into disapproving of our own allies choosing to not join us in the invasion—remember "freedom fries"?

yet the only lesson the majority of the public seemed to learn from this is "George W. Bush is a bad guy", which is also true, but misses the point entirely—plus, in recent years, now that's not even entirely true, because look, he's bffs with Michele Obama, see, he's not that bad of a guy, right?

the cycle continues unabated.

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

#74

Post by kunalgupta »

penultimatename wrote: post #11
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.

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 don’t believe the reason for an FBI raid is a notable fact at all, that’s just politics. A notable fact would be evidence discovered, and even that needs to be verified

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

#75

Post by vuln »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #57
ipaddr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The poster insinuated that the FBI planted CSAM on a reporter's devices.

Well at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_ and report it.

> "how does the government intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504

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

#76

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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.

> We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars.

"The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Based on other comments it seems like the accusations are a bit more substantial than a low effort frame. Nevertheless, there's a reason that the rest of the journalism industry basically dismissed it flat out.

That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.

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

#77

Post by mcguire »

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.

You missed the third leg of that particular stool: the public's urge to deny the truth of anything because it comes from the media.

Source: Do your own research. -- a grumpy old man. :-)

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

#78

Post by adamrezich »

jackmott42 wrote: post #63
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.

>(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 predominate pattern today is nobody believing anything the media says.

perhaps in your social circles. plenty of people, especially older people, get 100% of their news nightly, out of habit, by watching cable television, and are aware of the existence of "bias" in the news they consume only insofar as, hey, if I watch CNN and MSNBC and FOX, then I'm getting a balanced news diet!

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

#79

Post by _gabe_ »

romellem wrote: post #70
ChickenNugger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 an…

> The Select Committee on Intelligence in the U.S. Senate

Ah yes, the senate. How could we forget the paragons of truth? They absolutely have no incentives to lie or make hyperbolic claims to support any agendas. They're the epitome of our humble faithful civil servants.

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

#80

Post by 93po »

stusmall wrote: post #55
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.

If it helps you feel better, this is in a thread about them getting caught and called out. There are some horrifically bad actors in our media landscape right now who are more than happy to lie or label opinion shows as "news" if makes their stock price goes up. It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN