261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that it's not how this works. Media organizations are not interested truth or accuracy of their stories, but simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. And that's not the say they are motivated by greed - even worse, they are often motivated by missionary-like zeal to promote a cause. So of course it would follow that they have no interest in publishing anything disagreeable to their rea…
Seems like if they only cared about clicks and ads they would've ran the article. From my position, they exercised the bare-minimum duties of any good editor to shut down stories they don't believe meet the standards they set for themselves. And for exercising that duty, they are leaving clicks, ad impressions, and probably a good amount of money on the table.
The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak and it's been vouched for by Tony Bobulinski who definitely has close ties to the Biden family, yet it's not publishable?
That's as partisan as it gets and deserves to be called out.
EDIT: Do the downvoters have a reason other than ideology, tribalism, and conspiracy theories?
The first two of the three hours of him being a guest on Joe Rogan yesterday were brilliant. I've never heard someone so eloquently tear down the shiny facades of what passes as high-brow "journalism" these days.
>"Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party)"
It was originally supposed to allow dissent from the mainstream but now toes a particular strain of mainstream orthodoxy.
On the one hand, this is shocking because Glenn co-founded the Intercept as a response to the rampant partisan censorship happening at other media outlets. On the other hand, I had been reading The Intercept regularly since at least 2016 and there was a very noticeable lack of "independent" journalism as the years went by. At some point this year I stopped visiting their website because the worthwhile articles were f…
Who knew that even when you fund a company, if you get qualified people with integrity, they'll stop you from peddling foreign nation misinformation even if you're the boss.
Source?
We are witnessing the biggest concerted censorship effort in the history of the USA. One for the history books, depending on who gets to write it in the future. Regardless of whether or not you believe on Tony Bubolinsky, you should at the very least have the opportunity to hear him and make up your own mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zLfBRgeFFo
How is not publishing an unverifiable story "censorship"? That's what we trust real news organizations to do. And saying that they should at least publish the controversy is absurd -- first of all, the Times did publish the controversy days ago [1], and second of all, it basically allows the peddlers of these unverifiable stories to dictate the news. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and there is tons of evidence to suggest it’s illegitimately sourced by agents directly directed by Trump, from sources with active incentives to try to damage Biden. It is responsible to decline to run this story. It only serves to feed conspiracy theories and dr…
> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round debunking. I realize that the email headers are not available, but have the emails decisively been shown to be illegitimate? Or just difficult to verify?
All of Glenn's accolades are from the reporting around Edward Snowden. I'm a big fan of that reporting and I think that story needed to be told but it was most strategically beneficial to Russia where Snowden eventually took sanctuary. This was also during Obama's presidency.
Now, he seems to be very biased to the point of being a hack, pulls a stunt like this on the eve of an election, has continuously made an effort to discredit the Russian interference in our elections and comes to Trump's aid fairly frequently when it matters (as well as sometimes critiques him and his admin when it doesn't i.e. "he lies")
I don't know what his motives are but it sure doesn't seem like it's about getting out the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. This looks much more like Greenwald trying to capitalize on hype. The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked and there is tons of evidence to suggest it’s illegitimately sourced by agents directly directed by Trump, from sources with active incentives to try to damage Biden. It is responsible to decline to run this story. It only serves to feed conspiracy theories and dr…
> The entire spectrum of details around the Biden emails has been roundly debunked Although I've been following this story, I am not familiar with this round debunking. I realize that the email headers are not available, but have the emails decisively been shown to be illegitimate? Or just difficult to verify?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulins...