A year or so ago I was about to donate to the Interept and went to their website to do so. There, together with Bolsonaro investigations I was quite surprised that a lot of Greenwald's stance was quite pro Russia, anti democrats. Not sure in what parallel universe he lives where he thinks that one week before the election Trump needs his help with anti Biden op-eds. What is he thinking?
My Resignation from the Intercept
371–380 of 1001 posts
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have anything to support this accusation? I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to join the Russiagate bandwagon. In the end that was clearly the correct choice, but the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative.
I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It was a choice, and one he was allowed to make, but it was one of many options. You say "the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative". Isn't that what I'm talking about? He founded the org. Do you think "the liberal media" got together and decided to censor him? Or do you think people just weren't buyi…
Why was it not the correct choice? I may be misinformed but I thought all the hullabaloo about Russiagate ended up amounting to absolutely nothing and yet it was presented to the public like a scandal that would take down the Trump regime.
I had family members over for the holidays bet actual money that Trump would be successfully impeached because of Russiagate, so when people are so out of line with reality based on something they read in the mainstream news, isn't that a fault of the news? Wouldn't it have been right to not go there with the rest of the news outlets?
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#373Honest question: is it just me or is it getting harder to determine what is factual and what is not? It seems like the US has begun to splinter such that there are two different sets of "facts" on many issues, but of course that is not how facts work. Nevertheless, when doing research and investigation is it often hard for me to pin down the truth behind any of the "facts" that are thrown at me, whether that's by the partisans, by the media, or just by random people on HN etc.
Does anyone else feel this way?
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#374"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…
lol ... The editor though that the truth is less important than the election. It's the same as what happened in Social Media. Sadly, it means they can never be trusted ever again.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#375"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…
You're clearly brainwashed.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're propagating disinfo - in the real sense of the word, not the modern Orwellian meaning - with this line of criticism. Because this is a story that has absolutely been vetted, but the issue is all of the left-leaning mainstream media (read: literally everyone except parts of Fox News) have absolutely refused to cover this story. Do you really believe if the same story were about a member of the Trump family, tha…
Take a minute to step back. What do you think is more probable. That every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong, while the one publication is in the right. Or that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around and NYP published something that has not been well vetted?
In a democracy majority should decide what to do. But it’s not the majority who decides what _is true_.
Marc Twain used to say: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
(Interestingly you’re demanding the same: taking time to step back ;)
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you watch the Tony Babulinksi interview with Tucker Carlson? It shows that Joe Biden had an ownership stake in and was directly involved with his son's company that received a 5-10 million forgivable loan from a top member of the Chinese Communist party. This directly contradicts claims Joe Biden has made throughout his campaign and at the last debate.
Fox News argued before Mary Kay Vyskocil, United States District Judge, well, to use the court's words: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." My question to you is: are you arriving with an appropriate amount of skepticism? Tucker Carlson is not a credible source, and nothing aired on tha…
Tucker Carlson isnt the source, Tony Babulinski is the source. Im not a regular Fox viewer but I think you should watch the interview, Tony comes off as very credible. An interesting feature of this story is that Tony Babulinski's claims are corroborated by Hunter Biden's own words. That seems pretty definitive to me.
I cant read passed the first paragraph of that article because of the paywall, Im curious how they can possibly say that there is no link when we have so much first hand evidence of a link. Can you please let me know? Imho the only room for judgement is whether or not you find the link unethical or significant but to deny it exists seems disingenuous to me.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#378Earlier 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…
This appears to be correct. Most media outlets now are activists pretending to be journalists, run by businesspeople who care about revenue more than truth.
This has been true since the advent...I remember reading about the wars between Hamilton and Jefferson in the papers way back during the young years of the US.
None of this is new. It's way overamplified now, and everyone cries censorship and fascism when it suits them.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
> simply how many ads and subscriptions the stories can sell. I don't think this is actually right. I think owners of news media companies want influence more than profit. I don't think Bezos is buying news media for the profits... The influence helps for their other goals.
Techies, thanks to a bunch of dumb twitter talking heads, seem to think journalists are just rolling in bundles of cash from clicks. They're not. The vast majority of them, even the ones with upwards of 20k twitter followers, barely make any money. Influence is definitely more important to them than cash.
> seem to think journalists are just rolling in bundles of cash from clicks.
in this specific case: he is on a 400K salary living in his walled garden in Brazil.
Re: My Resignation from the Intercept
#380"as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right" That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election, you don't run it and then "let the readers decide who is ri…
> That's not how this works. If the editor concludes that it's a garbage story dropped a few days before the election in an attempt to influence the election
I doubt that a journalist of greenwald's caliber is going to write "garbage". I take your point about the editorial function in general but we can't lose sight of the context.