Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#121

Post by redis_mlc »

donohoe wrote: post #79
redis_mlc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-2010, the MSM was often wrong but only slightly biased: journalists made an effort to find 2 sources. Sure, owners and local real estate developers had a lot of influence. Today, the MSM is literally fake news that conforms to leftist/DNC dogma. See my other post in this thread for why. You can see this in the common use of narrative keywords like "no widespread election fraud" and "insurrection" across multiple…

"no widespread election fraud" But, there wasn't. This has been backed up in courts and by various gov and independent agencies - and then reported in the news. "insurrection" The Capitol was stormed. You can even watch the video. There is evidence of advance planning by some groups involved (see Proud Boys and Oath Keepers etc.). It disrupted sessions of the House and the Senate. VP was evacuated by Secret Service.…

> This has been backed up in courts and by various gov and independent agencies - and then reported in the news.

No, most of the courts declined on standing. Chief Justice John Roberts also admitted in a recording to being personally biased against Trump.

So far 2 elections have been overturned, and in Michigan the last-minute voting rule changes have been overturned.

> The Capitol was stormed.

By whom? Not Trump. Pelosi refused to pay for Capitol security, so the buck stops with her.

Also, leftists stormed the Capitol in 2018.

> 5 people died, one of those shot as she tried to get into the barricaded doors of the House.

Some died of natural causes. Who shot the woman (entering a window) - was it Capitol police? Her family is suing, so that's the only way we'll find out - again, leftist politicians and the MSM can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Most of the Capitol entrance news has been walked back at this point.

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#122

Post by redis_mlc »

donohoe wrote: post #90
mc32 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key is inserting “widespread” as a qualifier. It’s like saying, did you steal a million dollars? No, I didn’t steal a _million_ dollars! (leaving blank they stole ten thousand thousand). A member of the police force died. It’s uncertain he was killed. If you listened to the media it was an armed insurrection. In reality it was a bunch of idiots a half dozen of whom had weapons. If you believed the media hundreds…

I stand by what I said. The media reports are based on extensive first-hand evidence, coverage, social media. I do not need MSM to tell me that an insurrection was happening. I see it for myself. And here you are down-playing, ignoring facts, ignoring the other points I made that counter yours, and generally being mis-leading. I think you should refresh your history. Often it can be opportunistic armed goons that top…

> insurrection

There's that narrative keyword again.

Trump was a sitting President at the time, so what insurrection?

Note that the first person arrested for entering the Capitol was BLM/antifa.

> Often it can be opportunistic armed goons that topple governments.

You mean like Democratic mayors refusing to allow the National Guard to counter BLM/antifa terrorists for 8 months, and allowing them to burn downtowns? Got it.

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#123

Post by Udik »

lamontcg wrote: post #111
vannevar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, only a single email was verified this way, and it is innocuous, only suggesting that a Burisma executive met Joe Biden sometime through Hunter. https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim Graham notes upfront: "Remember that while the email is validated, the context isn't. It's possible this reflects a secret meeting to conspire with Vice President Biden. Or, it's possible the guy attended one of the many…

Yeah that's what happened with the "Climategate" e-mails as well. A bunch of scientists were being attacked for political reasons and their hacked, leaked e-mails showed a certain amount of us-vs-them bunker mentality. Go figure. That was spun into a narrative about how they were conspiring to manipulate public opinion using statements pulled out of context.

I read them and they definitely proved an attitude very far from that of the dispassionate scientific enquiry. Had the scientists been involved in any other less politically charged research (say, Alzheimer's research) nobody would have questioned the existence of a certain amount of scientific malpractice. So you're right, that's exactly as Hunter Biden's laptop case.

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#124

Post by danielscrubs »

chopin wrote: post #78
brodouevencode wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha my buddies and I have this debate. BNW to me is scarier for a couple of reasons: 1) it's more likely to happen 2) it will happen and you won't even realize it: there's no mustachioed man that is the antagonist.

I think we get (got?) both. You have your televisor already in the pocket. Here in Germany there are strong tendencies to use this for all-encompassing tracing to fight COVID (Luca-App).

It’s not widely known but I know of telecoms that sell analytic platforms. It’s processed so it’s anonymous when sold, but your phone is always connected to the telecom provider so they where good at tracing you even before the tracing apps where made.

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#125

Post by danielscrubs »

scarmig wrote: post #60
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #58

This takes a very Boolean attitude to truth. Like if I said "the current president of the United States 's family name is Bidden" then that's as false as "Santa Clause's middle name Elvis, is in tribute to his mother's favourite singer". But you could argue that there's measures by which one is more true than the other. In this case, these "lies" all seem to be vaguely within shouting distance of the truth, and his r…

It's at least somewhat odd that some lies are widely spread on Twitter and the media because they're true-in-spirit despite being false, while some truths are banned on Twitter and the media because they're false-in-spirit despite being true.

You mean they are discussing in good faith?

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#126

Post by imwillofficial »

jerkstate wrote: post #119
monkeydreams wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it odd when people deny the extremely obvious signs that foreign allies are buying influence in DC. I'm sure that happens on both sides of the aisle. That corruption exists on both sides - this is understood by pretty much everyone who isn't wildly partisan. That there is both legal (meaning that it does break specific laws but is instead privilege accessible by those in circles of power) and illegal corrupt…

>anyone who disagrees with my worldview is mentally ill >the world needs fewer partisans

They can both be true

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#127

Post by thu2111 »

lamontcg wrote: post #111
vannevar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, only a single email was verified this way, and it is innocuous, only suggesting that a Burisma executive met Joe Biden sometime through Hunter. https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim Graham notes upfront: "Remember that while the email is validated, the context isn't. It's possible this reflects a secret meeting to conspire with Vice President Biden. Or, it's possible the guy attended one of the many…

Yeah that's what happened with the "Climategate" e-mails as well. A bunch of scientists were being attacked for political reasons and their hacked, leaked e-mails showed a certain amount of us-vs-them bunker mentality. Go figure. That was spun into a narrative about how they were conspiring to manipulate public opinion using statements pulled out of context.

I read the full emails. The statements weren't out of context. I don't think it quite rose to the level of 'conspiring to manipulate public opinion' but they were absolutely conspiring to manipulate the data and the conclusions of the "science".

They also lied repeatedly about it, including to Parliament, and generally engaged in all kinds of BS behaviour that would be fatal to people in the private sector - regulators and lawsuits would take down any company that tried those things - but because it's academia and climatology they just ignored the entire scandal and told the world to go fuck itself. And because the media have a massive blind spot for academics, everyone just sort of forgot about it and pretending it never happened.

In other words they were attacked for entirely justifiable reasons, by people who aren't even in politics to begin with.

There's a long retrospective on the Climategate emails here that goes into a lot of background and context, as well as the subsequent fallout. Suffice it to say, when even the Guardian admits the behaviour of these people was bad, it must be really, really bad.

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#128

Post by monkeydreams »

jerkstate wrote: post #119
monkeydreams wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it odd when people deny the extremely obvious signs that foreign allies are buying influence in DC. I'm sure that happens on both sides of the aisle. That corruption exists on both sides - this is understood by pretty much everyone who isn't wildly partisan. That there is both legal (meaning that it does break specific laws but is instead privilege accessible by those in circles of power) and illegal corrupt…

>anyone who disagrees with my worldview is mentally ill >the world needs fewer partisans

> >anyone who disagrees with my worldview is mentally ill

No, but someone who invests so much anger in the idea that all journalists are corrupt because they do not buy into their fantasies of persecution and corruption is almost certainly either unwell or pretending to have an actual grievance.

It's like the Fox News, OAN, etc drama over the "poll observer" or the "Hunter Biden laptop" fiascos. The journalists wailed and moaned about how other press agencies were ignoring the stories, or dismissing them. This was all political theatre, in these cases, as none of them really seemed to believe the stories they were peddling and gave them up the moment that all political value was wrung out of them. Greenwald hasn't let these themes go - and he appears to hate the journalists who just won't buy into his fantasy.

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#129

Post by sennight »

donohoe wrote: post #98
sennight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also worked with "journalists" (can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?). They are not well adjusted individuals, so I guess they aren't technically lying once they've sufficiently deluded themselves.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "journalists" (quotes and all)? I like you you take an entire profession and just say they are "not well adjusted individuals" - thats not just a strong argument. I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word. When I use the term its with trained news gatherers, who go to great lengths to cover a subject, and have an approach to objectivity and…

> Maybe you can explain what you mean by "journalists" (quotes and all)?

I don't know how to be any more clear than "can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?", without getting very specific. I'll make another generalization that you'll hate: "journalists" are incredibly vindictive. So I'll not be getting specific.

> I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word.

Oh, you mean people like Kurt Eichenwald... well I have, but not to the same extent.

It is accurate to describe the events leading up to Greenwald's departure as the "journalistic process", but that doesn't reflect as positively on the profession as you seem to think:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

Re: Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter

#130

Post by donohoe »

sennight wrote: post #129
donohoe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "journalists" (quotes and all)? I like you you take an entire profession and just say they are "not well adjusted individuals" - thats not just a strong argument. I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word. When I use the term its with trained news gatherers, who go to great lengths to cover a subject, and have an approach to objectivity and…

> Maybe you can explain what you mean by "journalists" (quotes and all)? I don't know how to be any more clear than "can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?", without getting very specific. I'll make another generalization that you'll hate: "journalists" are incredibly vindictive. So I'll not be getting specific. > I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word. O…

We disagree then.

Separate from all that, in terms of the phrase "can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?" - I have zero idea what this reference is - can you explain?

Post reply on HN