Just another example of Rolling Stone literally being the worst of the worst in terms of unethical media. It’s not the first time they’ve been caught like this, nor will it be the last. Their newsroom is honestly so prolific in terms of producing lies that you’d think the political parties would be paying attention to them, they could be a great batch of future politicians.
Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
81–90 of 170 posts
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
At what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their job? How does the government intend to prove that the CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like these are insufferable.
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#83Earlier 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…
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…
Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#84I 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 and I and a huge fraction of humanity noticed, but not a large enough fraction to make such unprofitable?
There is a huge difference between noticing abuses of the media and being able to immunize your self to the effects of such behavior. Many of use on this site like to think we are purely logical being but we are fooling ourselves. We are fuzzy logical beings full of emotions and complex human psychological traits. Just because we intellectually understand the problems around advertising and click bait does not make us immune.
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 gasligh…
I usually see it associated with Cronkite's era on TV, about '60-'80. Such strong association with him is part of why it smells like nostalgia and selective memory, to me. And, again, you'd find plenty of people who think he was biased and doing slanted anti-American reporting in the second of those two decades. I would hope most people wouldn't regard the '90s and '00s as part of any kind of even-imaginary golden era of reporting.
I've got some half-formed notion of this sentiment coming from a kind of hang-over from WWII propaganda and tight media control involving much more direct action by US government through media, but haven't exactly researched it and wouldn't stand behind that firmly. Just a hunch. Broadly, my suspicion, if that does indeed have anything to do with it, is that the fallout of that propaganda effort coupled with a crushing victory for the US resulted in a durable credibility for sufficiently official-looking news personalities, that took some time (and the loss of a war in Vietnam, and a huge shift in politics that really took shape starting with Nixon's campaigns) to erode, but was never especially real, as in, wasn't strongly related to some actual difference in circumstances and quality in news media in postwar America compared with the first half of the century.
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Not a single person from the U.S. Government ever reached out to me.
- Konstantin Kilimnik
What kind of investigation doesn’t interview the primary suspects?
How did Mueller not know about Fusion GPS when questioned by Congress?
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
At what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their job? How does the government intend to prove that the CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like these are insufferable.
I'm not the person you're arguing with, but please refer back to me an hour ago saying "Seems a fool's errand."
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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-...
[flagged]
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#89I 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. :-)
Do you know what the truth is? Because I sure don't.
The problem with blaming 'the public' for being stupid is that we're both the public and we might be the stupid ones. Media outlets lie, they also tell the truth sometimes. I think the biggest mistake we can make is to think that the media we're paying attention to is the 'right' media.
The simple fact of the matter is that we're being lied to almost constantly and the only amazing consequence of that is that any of us have any sanity left at all. And the main reason for that is because we all think that we're right and those other people are wrong. But what if we're wrong? What if I'm the stupid sucker that believes the lie.
Or maybe I've just read one-too-many Philip K Dick novels :-)
Re: Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their job? How does the government intend to prove that the CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like these are insufferable.
I'm not the person you're arguing with, but please refer back to me an hour ago saying "Seems a fool's errand."
Right. Best to walk way.