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

91–100 of 170 posts

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

#91

Post by 93po »

fortran77 wrote: post #47
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...

Should we also not call the NYT credible anymore after they supported the invasion of Iraq (and associated WMD BS) and admitted their reporting "had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon [biased] information"? That one of their reporters had to retire in shame, but only after a generous severance package deal, and all of the editors and people who allowed this were allowed to stay?

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

#92

Post by mcguire »

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…

This is the article in question: https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...

"Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed."

So, according to Siegel, Rolling Stone had information that the raid was not related to Meek's journalism. That first sentence is a lie.

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

#93

Post by celdon25 »

scythe wrote: post #40
jstarfish wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of those cases. The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on page 3. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...

So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP. Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload pictures. Basic parallel construction. In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked. Harder to fake. Hi…

Thank you, it’s hard to find reasonably good arguments like this in the HN comments these days.

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

#94

Post by adamrezich »

yamtaddle wrote: post #85
adamrezich wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 er…

I completely agree with your assessment, but my point was, in the 90s and 00s, we were still in the bubble. we still thought of our news media as being completely trustworthy. even the post-9/11 invasions being predicated upon news media consent manufacturing wasn't enough to shake us out of it—nobody blamed the news media, Bush (and some of his cabinet) "took the fall" for the whole thing. we can look back on it now and obviously it's almost hilarious how terribly complicit the news media was in manufacturing consent for war crimes, but at the time, we didn't think about it that way. nobody thought about it that way. it was The News, which we had trust in, because we (90s millennials) had grown up watching it, and so had our parents.

the popular idea that the news is largely full of shit did not come about until Trump popularized the term "fake news", and then they threw it back at him, and so on and so forth. (hopefully it's uncontroversial to state that Trump would not have been likely to be elected if people didn't have smartphones with which to consume sources of news other than that of the mainstream legacy news media.) before that, people still generally trusted the news media, even while still actively having boots on the ground in the Middle East due to the previous round of gaslighting. both Obama administrations, as far as I can recall at least, were still in an era where most people more or less trusted the media. sure, maybe you weren't a fan of FOX News or MSNBC or whatever, but you still felt like, no matter what your political affiliation was, you could tune into a cable TV news program and more or less get the truth about what was going on in the world. I had a one-semester Current World Affairs class in high school in 2007, and we spent most of it watching cable news, reading newspapers, and talking about it, without any of the default critical position you'd (hopefully??) expect today.

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

#95

Post by mcguire »

InCityDreams wrote: post #32
bleuchase wrote: post #21

They lied. That’s what it’s called. Not left out.

>They lied. There are several 'theys' in the story. Which 'they'?

"Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed." (https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...)

The editor of Rolling Stone had information saying that first sentence, which he introduced, was false.

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

#96

Post by immanentize »

_gabe_ wrote: post #79
romellem wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

You could just believe Trump on his word but that seemed to change.

Unless there is a perjury penalty involved, and suddenly there was little to go on.

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

#97

Post by boomboomsubban »

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…

Russiagate was not about the Russian interference in the 2016 elections, it was the claim that the Trump team was explicitly coordinating with Russian interference in the 2016 election. The interference happened, the evidence of coordination is weak at best.

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

#98

Post by the_why_of_y »

93po wrote: post #80
stusmall wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear" group for more than a year and caught them pretty much live on camera while they hacked the Democratic Party.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...

Wow, I wasn't aware how far the tentacles of the DNC establishment reach if they paid for that as you say!

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

#99

Post by avianlyric »

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…

The use of the word “allegedly” is standard practice for reputable new organisations reporting on an individual being charged, but not yet convicted.

A core tenet of the justice system is the idea that your innocence until proven guilty. Hence the use of the word “allegedly”, by default any claims made by the government shouldn’t be treated as proven, until they’ve proved them in a court of law.

To assume that a law enforcement official, or prosecutors charges are true before they’ve proven them in a court of law would be to ignore due process. To publish those charges as facts, would be libel.

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

#100

Post by mikeyouse »

_gabe_ wrote: post #79
romellem wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

The Republican Senate report verified nearly all of the points in the Mueller report. Their incentives were 100% aligned with finding nothing and yet..

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

The irony of people in this thread not reading primary sources and instead relying on weird "news" reports that nothing was found is a bit much.

Post reply on HN