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

141–150 of 170 posts

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

#141

Post by yamtaddle »

AlbertCory wrote: post #131
yamtaddle wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some of that's the difference between high school and college. Even today's more even-tempered history and civics classes in high school really downplay problems in our history and our systems, overall, including problems with the media, but as soon as you hit your first serious media studies textbook or course or just slip into a subculture that's into that sort of thing so assumes some familiarity with it a…

> shitty, partial, divorced-from-scholarship-and-history version of that POV Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn view of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people would be sad that that's not taught in Texas and everywhere. Although as far as I can tell, it IS taught in many blue counties. > I'm just skeptical that we were ever a ton better off in terms of, specifically, news media honesty and…

> Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn view of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people would be sad that that's not taught in Texas and everywhere. Although as far as I can tell, it IS taught in many blue counties.

"That POV", from that sentence, referred to a POV about the nature of the news media informed by the scholarship and history of the field of media studies, not, like, world history. I was noting that perhaps some of the sentiment that we're in some exceptionally-bad media environment, now, is because some folks have recently realized that the media effectively all have some kind of bias and often lie or fail to be skeptical of things Important People tell them, but lack the context to realize that's not a new thing, so may decide it's some new development (beginning, curiously, roughly the time they realized it was a problem). That is, as I wrote, they've come to some of the same conclusions as one might from reading works in media studies, but, because they've come at it via a "shitty, partial, divorced-from-scholarship-and-history" road hyper-focused on recent events (and, ahem, who made them aware of it in the first place? Ahem) it looks to them like it's something that just started.

My observations about the quality of high school history and civics instruction were separate, and no, I don't think they ought to teach Zinn.

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

#142

Post by glonq »

genewitch wrote: post #135
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.

Is it possible that this has seen an uptick after 2013, when the "Domestic Dissemination Ban" was removed from Smith-Mundt, because, well, "the internet, and stuff"? over the last 10 years, i've found myself reading and watching news next to 0 minutes a day. I listen to a news analysis podcast (mostly for the jokes), and i see excerpts on places like reddit, my personal fediverse server (with 1500 journalists followe…

Congrats on 10 years. I stopped routinely reading/watching the news in 2016, and have been much happier because of it. I still remain reasonably informed and aware, but on my own terms.

Is there an accurate, honest, reliable news source for "tell me what happened but don't tell me how to think or feel or react" anymore?

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

#143

Post by bsder »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #76
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 reaso…

> "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.

Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done.

"Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep).

However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life.

> 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.

That is fair and hard to disagree with.

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

#144

Post by genewitch »

glonq wrote: post #142
genewitch wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that this has seen an uptick after 2013, when the "Domestic Dissemination Ban" was removed from Smith-Mundt, because, well, "the internet, and stuff"? over the last 10 years, i've found myself reading and watching news next to 0 minutes a day. I listen to a news analysis podcast (mostly for the jokes), and i see excerpts on places like reddit, my personal fediverse server (with 1500 journalists followe…

Congrats on 10 years. I stopped routinely reading/watching the news in 2016, and have been much happier because of it. I still remain reasonably informed and aware, but on my own terms. Is there an accurate, honest, reliable news source for "tell me what happened but don't tell me how to think or feel or react" anymore?

The only issue with "tell me what happened and that's it" is what if it's not in your wheelhouse? For example, do I personally care about a children's tylenol shortage? Is there an issue with precursors, demand, shipping, bottling? Just reading the headline and the "data and statistics" wouldn't really make me care one way or the other, and again, perhaps that's fine. Perhaps it's useful to just know there's a shortage or whatever the news du jour is.

I find reddit and fediverse good for getting the extremely polarized opinions out in the open on topics i have very little idea about. Don't get me wrong, i realize that i'm getting a lot of bad inputs, here.

But the flip side is i am not seeing advertisements constantly, and since i know where the extreme edges are i can actually have a conversation where someone more knowledgeable than me can correct my understanding - or attempt to.

RE: 10 years, i actually got rid of televisions in my house shortly after "mission accomplished" back in 2002 or 2003. I told myself that recording and going through news about the 9/11 attacks wasn't doing me any favors. So i'm technically 20 years without a "TV" connected to OTA or any other service. I mostly watch youtube reviews and my personal copies of TV shows and whatnot.

I tried around the start of the pandemic to get an OTA setup on my projector. I ended up just using it to record me.tv or whatever it's called, the "oldies" station. Wasn't worth the disk i was using for it.

Anything "national" or international, i got a friend that will set up an RTMP stream off their cable box and send me a link. This has worked fine for 5 years.

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

#145

Post by watwut »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #49
watwut wrote: post #44

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.

This case is hardly an instance showing that. You could maybe argue by Alex Jones stuff for that. But the sort the the missing reasons like this did happened in 1990-2010 too.

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

#146

Post by Smoosh »

Balgair wrote: post #121
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.

> We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed It's been around forever. As good recent-ish example is the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: " Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and…

I agree about this with Michael Crichton, author of the novel State of Fear, and famous Climate Change denier.

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

#147

Post by thakoppno »

mikeyouse wrote: post #132
thakoppno wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Manafort has not been charged with any crimes related to the Trump campaign or Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-manafort-witness-mu...

The core allegation against Manafort in the Mueller report is that he was paying debts back to the Russian billionaire who bankrolled his life [this is undisputed, the tens of millions of dollars in unreported income came directly from Deripaska] by having clandestine meetings with an associate of Deripaska's, Konstantin Kilminik [This is also undisputed, they met regularly including at the famous cigar bar in NYC],…

To boil it down as much as possible, I’m not persuaded Trump (or anyone else) conspired with Russia to win the presidency.

The prosecution of Gates and Manafort would not have proceeded had the election swung the other way.

In totality it seems to me the Special Council investigation was a political hatchet job more than anything resembling a pursuit of justice.

For whatever it’s worth, I do not support Trump but feel compelled to note perceived injustices when observed.

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

#148

Post by legitster »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #137
legitster wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the whole laptop story was clearly held back and conveniently timed by political actors in an attempt to manipulate the media. I have my problems with NPR, but I'll go on the record and respect them for not playing ball and doing proper due diligence.

Sure, but they certainly seemed to apply less scepticism and due diligence to the Trump Russia stuff.

FWIW: NPR was also pretty hands off on the Steele dossier.

But I don't know what level of due diligence you need on the other stuff. Most of the incriminating connections between Trump's orgs and Russian agents were pretty largely substantiated - sometimes by Trump's own words and actions.

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

#149

Post by mikeyouse »

thakoppno wrote: post #147
mikeyouse wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core allegation against Manafort in the Mueller report is that he was paying debts back to the Russian billionaire who bankrolled his life [this is undisputed, the tens of millions of dollars in unreported income came directly from Deripaska] by having clandestine meetings with an associate of Deripaska's, Konstantin Kilminik [This is also undisputed, they met regularly including at the famous cigar bar in NYC],…

To boil it down as much as possible, I’m not persuaded Trump (or anyone else) conspired with Russia to win the presidency. The prosecution of Gates and Manafort would not have proceeded had the election swung the other way. In totality it seems to me the Special Council investigation was a political hatchet job more than anything resembling a pursuit of justice. For whatever it’s worth, I do not support Trump but fee…

How in the world is it an injustice when criminals are found guilty in the court of law? Wouldn't the real injustice have come if you were right and Manafort and Gates didn't face consequences for their wanton criminality due solely to their friend winning power? There is absolutely no dispute that both embezzled millions of dollars from a Russian billionaire and then committed massive amounts of tax fraud on top of it. Describing it as an "injustice" is just the silliest thing.

This description of "poor Donald Trump" is insane. I'd really, really recommend you actually read the Mueller report. The investigation you are describing is 100% divorced from what they actually found.

It's likely that if they do that deep of an investigation into any campaigns, they'd fine dirt -- but that doesn't excuse the dirt!

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

#150

Post by drewcoo »

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.

> willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity

Doing that without punishment is what American Constitutional freedom of speech is all about. We have freedom of speech and incredibly lax libel laws specifically to protect press fabrications.

Post reply on HN