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

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131

Post by AlbertCory »

yamtaddle wrote: post #120
adamrezich wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 integrity than we are now

I think I've already dealt with that, including a proposal on how we'd test that. Just saying, "no, it was never any better" is otherwise untestable.

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

#132

Post by mikeyouse »

thakoppno wrote: post #127
mikeyouse wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from being convicted at trial in two separate Federal jurisdictions and agreeing to forfeit tens of millions of dollars he illicitly earned while working for the Russian billionaire in question you mean? What specific corroboration are you looking for?

> 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], where Manafort passed confidential campaign data to Kilminik [also undisputed] which Kilminik then shared with Deripaska.

Perhaps the 'shared with Deripaska' part is disputed? But I don't even think that is.. again, what specific corroboration are you looking for?

Is your contention that Trump's campaign manager, who was twice convicted of laundering tens of millions of dollars for a Russian billionaire, and who admitted to providing confidential campaign information to that same billionaire via a cutout, needs to be convicted of some specific crime related to that before we believe all of their admissions?

Read the Mueller report! Or the Senate report! They are very detailed and highlight exactly where they have unanswered questions. None of their questions involve Manafort's behavior or intentions.

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

#133

Post by yamtaddle »

AlbertCory wrote: post #106
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…

Please reread the point about Victorian porn, and how that "proves" sexual mores have never changed (it doesn't). If we actually wanted to argue this: citing a few stories from back when, in which one really cannot discern the reporter's politics, will not do it. You can just argue, "that's one example. Look, here's this biased shit from the same period, see? Nothing's changed!" No, if we wanted to argue if things ha…

I'd actually be pretty interested in a kind of statistical study of new media bias over the decades. I think that'd be hard as hell to construct, owing in part to there being a lot of ways news media can introduce bias, some of which are really hard to spot without a great deal of context, but it might be interesting.

I do think some of the shift has been not in the availability of quality news media, but in the kind of news media people actually "consume". It's not like doctor's waiting rooms were playing 24/7 cable "news" in 1965—because there was no such thing, and because the doctor's office waiting room probably didn't have a TV in it. AP Wire and several news periodicals and a few papers of more-or-less decent quality do exist, but if you don't seek them out your ambient, if you will, exposure to "news" will mostly be shit, that much I'd agree with. I do think there's been some "the medium is the message" effect in news becoming a 24/7/365 product rather than something more focused, but I also think that's more on top of or in addition to the decent aspects of older news media, not instead of.

But, you might be right, and I might be wrong. Maybe our news media really was wildly better than it is now, in a narrow window of time in post-war America. Or maybe we're just interpreting "100 'units' of news available, 40 of which are pretty good" versus "10,000 'units' of news available, 1,000 of which are pretty good" differently—depending on one's perspective, either of those could be regarded as worse than the other. Or—I can see this being the case, for sure—maybe I'm not giving enough weight to what's popular, versus what's available, when evaluating differences in the news media landscape. What's popular now is, kinda, a product that didn't even exist before the late '80s or so. A new category of news that needs, as raw material, almost more "news" than actually exists, and needs to compete with hyper-palatable available-on-tap entertainment, for eyeballs and attention. Maybe the expansion of entertainment-availability in general deserves some consideration, when it comes to what media's like now. Maybe too many options are a bad thing, actually (see: Fox News insiders fretting that reporting the truth might lose them some of their audience, and so, money—because there are plenty of other outlets willing to lie, readily available at the click of a mouse)

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

#134

Post by TylerE »

legitster wrote: post #118
hersko wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to point out how NPR dropped the ball [1] on the Hunter Biden story, but then found this followup [2] and i'm not sure how i feel. Is it a correction? A copout? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...

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.

It was being manipulated from both sides.

If you had serious evidence against the son of the sitting president, your first reaction should not be to mail the thing, untracked and uninsured to TUCKER CARLSON.

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

#135

Post by genewitch »

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 followed), and HN.

I also currently am possibly hallucinating from food poisoning. The wikipedia article for smith mundt doesn't decry in large letters that one of the more important rules it set out doesn't apply anymore.

in fact it says "the smith-mundt act has been used to show that Voice of America doesn't have to reply to FOIA transcript requests"

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

#136

Post by JeremyNT »

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.

> the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces.

Is this part true? I thought the public's faith in journalism was at historic lows.

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

#137

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

legitster wrote: post #118
hersko wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to point out how NPR dropped the ball [1] on the Hunter Biden story, but then found this followup [2] and i'm not sure how i feel. Is it a correction? A copout? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...

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.

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

#138

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

JeremyNT wrote: post #136
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.

> the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. Is this part true? I thought the public's faith in journalism was at historic lows.

The difference between "what I answer to a pollster with a clear mind" and "what I consume and allow to influence my opinions and emotions throughout the day".

I also suspect people answer the trust stuff while thinking of the opposition's news sources.

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

#139

Post by AlbertCory »

yamtaddle wrote: post #133
AlbertCory wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please reread the point about Victorian porn, and how that "proves" sexual mores have never changed (it doesn't). If we actually wanted to argue this: citing a few stories from back when, in which one really cannot discern the reporter's politics, will not do it. You can just argue, "that's one example. Look, here's this biased shit from the same period, see? Nothing's changed!" No, if we wanted to argue if things ha…

I'd actually be pretty interested in a kind of statistical study of new media bias over the decades. I think that'd be hard as hell to construct, owing in part to there being a lot of ways news media can introduce bias, some of which are really hard to spot without a great deal of context, but it might be interesting. I do think some of the shift has been not in the availability of quality news media, but in the kind…

I've thought of another test, actually, and that one is easier to carry out: what are journalists today saying on the topic?

https://nationalpress.org/topic/objectivity-journalism-new-n...

https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/31/major-news-outlets-object...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-regain-trustthe-n...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms...

So obviously they themselves are aware that they're doing something differently.

>Nonpartisanship was particularly important for a paper that was a national leader in covering politics and government. As the final gatekeeper for Post journalism, I stopped voting or making up my own mind about issues. As Bradlee had, I insisted on noninvolvement of Post journalists in political activity or advocacy of any kind, except voting. I also worked to make The Post newsroom more diverse, and encouraged everyone to have a voice in our decision-making.

The bit about not voting is something that today's "journalists" would reject completely, I'm pretty sure. I wouldn't lie down on the tracks for "objectivity" if instead we got "nonpartisanship."

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

#140

Post by glonq »

Rapzid wrote: post #126
legitster wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS. While I agree that NPR News bats above average they are not without their blind spots. While they may not chase clickbait or obvious ragebaiting trash, their journalists still latch onto convenient or lazy explanations all of the time.

I recall that NPR had the "Weed is actually bad" book guy on and was pretty much letting him say whatever unchallenged. No opposing viewpoint guest, a bunch of softball questions, and no pushback in general. This guy totally gave off vibes of using this kernel of truth, these studies on THC in developing brains, and wrapping it in a bunch of FUD to sell his personal brand and books. Oh, and his wife is the scientist…

Yeah I'm also sad that the Fairness Doctrine is dead. It's healthy to hear dissenting viewpoints, even if it makes people uncomfy.
Post reply on HN