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

51–60 of 137 posts

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

#51

Post by redis_mlc »

airhead969 wrote: post #16
redis_mlc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The motive of MSM journalists today is to conform to the DNC/leftist narrative to avoid being fired and disowned by their colleagues. Source: 2020 Greenwald interview. If you watch interviews with former US leftists who became centrists and spoke out about burning downtowns, deplatforming, etc. they all had to find new careers.

Isn't it the goal of all corporate MSM to appease their advertisers?

The MSM owners want that, but the actual staff and journalists are mainly trying to not get their career cancelled.

Same in Hollywood. Studio owners care about profits, but everybody working in the industry is trying to stay employable.

(It's rumored that if you complain about wokeness in your private school in LA, they'll put you on a "racist blacklist" at other area schools. So this is affecting even parents now.)

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

#52

Post by refurb »

threatofrain wrote: post #42
refurb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry? Specific content of the laptop was released, the Biden team was asked if it was authentic and the answer was “no comment”. Why would they do that if it was fake news?

And what content was released? Tucker Carlson specifically stated that kindness for a "pathetic" man was his reason for not releasing "damning" criminal evidence to the public. Where would the Intercept go with that story, not getting to see any evidence, and having the story end on Tucker Carlson saying he won't publicize evidence on corruption? And that the FBI has no comment? What would The Intercept do with No Co…

Have you read the article Glenn wrote that was never published? I’m curious what part exactly you’d call dishonest or unworthy of publication? Glenn does write in an emotional way, but what I like is he tends to exhaustive reference and source his data points.

You nicely danced around my comment that none of the content from the laptop has been denied by the Biden team.

That’s relevant, no?

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

b215826 wrote: post #49
threatofrain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrence Tao, respected mathematician, doesn't take the time to read most people who send him their work, and in fact has an explicit policy about how he will ignore such requests. And I doubt it's fair to say that mathematical error or amateurism makes you "off the rails". Yet Terrence Tao won't give such people the time of day. What role does Credibility play in conversation?

Did you just compare yourself with Terry Tao? Or are you comparing Glenn Greenwald—a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and one who helped Snowden tell his story—with crackpots who send Tao their papers?

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by threatofrain »

harry8 wrote: post #46
cf21 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your opinion about that label changes nothing. Well, for me this this mislabeling makes me distrust the entire post so it does indeed change a lot. > And you attacked Glenn by claiming he said things he didn't. Which are?

It's right there where i said it still. Glenn argues from evidence. Your claim of mislabeled changes none of that evidence. And i's not mislabeled either, the caller isn't socialist. Pretty sure this conv has gone past the point of being useful or entertaining to anyone so i wish you the best.

> It's right there where i said it still.

How did cf21 misrepresent Greenwald?

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

#55

Post by mcphage »

> It is well worth examining how they function because this is how they deceive the public again and again, and it is why public trust in their pronouncements has justifiably plummeted.

I wonder if that might also be due to the previous president repeatedly referring to them as "the enemy of the people".

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

#56

Post by prepend »

walrus01 wrote: post #34

Can you imagine being a professional journalist, and making the fully rational decision that the hunter biden laptop story was the hill you wished to die upon, resigning in a huff from your employer of many years? Greenwald has lost a great deal of credibility. And now he's still harping on about it as if this supposed laptop is earth-shatteringly important news? Mostly I feel sorry for Greenwald and how clearly unhi…

This is a curious take I’ve noticed in various conversations. Instead of talking about the merits of the discussion, the discussion shifts to why someone is so interested in it. As if it’s not right or appropriate to be interested and discuss.

I think this is a characteristics of the “conflict v. mistake theory” [0] where I’m already on a side, try to find an argument for or against and then make it even if it’s not reasonable.

Greenwald writes a lot. He’s written a few articles on the HunterBiden laptop story, but not like he writes every day.

I don’t think it’s unusual to write about this topic given everything else he writes on. Framing this as a “hill to die on” seems disingenuous and not really relevant to the article under discussion, or Greenwald in general.

I can understand arguing on the merits of the topic on whether it is or is not Russian propaganda, but bringing up how Greenwald shows a normal amount of interest seems odd. It seems the summary of OP’s comment is “Greenwald sucks and chooses bad topics.”

My reasoning on how to interpret this, and I may be wrong, is that the belief that Greenwald sucks existed before this article and this thread. And trying to find some reason to discuss the suckers, OP came up with the rhetorical doozy that he reports on this topic too frequently.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/

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

#57

Post by threatofrain »

b215826 wrote: post #49
threatofrain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrence Tao, respected mathematician, doesn't take the time to read most people who send him their work, and in fact has an explicit policy about how he will ignore such requests. And I doubt it's fair to say that mathematical error or amateurism makes you "off the rails". Yet Terrence Tao won't give such people the time of day. What role does Credibility play in conversation?

Did you just compare yourself with Terry Tao? Or are you comparing Glenn Greenwald—a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and one who helped Snowden tell his story—with crackpots who send Tao their papers?

A math amateur is not a crackpot. Being a non-professional means you have credibility issues, not mental issues. After all, a math amateur who is rejected by Tao doesn't necessarily think the math world is in conspiracy. I also would not presume that a math amateur would go on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about the deep state infiltrating the CIA and thwarting Donald Trump.

https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252

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

#58

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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 repetition of the accusation seems a bit lawyerly in its specificity. In fact, a fuzzy definition of "lie" could well suggest that his statements are further from the truth than the ones he's criticizing.

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

#59

Post by threatofrain »

refurb wrote: post #52
threatofrain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what content was released? Tucker Carlson specifically stated that kindness for a "pathetic" man was his reason for not releasing "damning" criminal evidence to the public. Where would the Intercept go with that story, not getting to see any evidence, and having the story end on Tucker Carlson saying he won't publicize evidence on corruption? And that the FBI has no comment? What would The Intercept do with No Co…

Have you read the article Glenn wrote that was never published? I’m curious what part exactly you’d call dishonest or unworthy of publication? Glenn does write in an emotional way, but what I like is he tends to exhaustive reference and source his data points. You nicely danced around my comment that none of the content from the laptop has been denied by the Biden team. That’s relevant, no?

> none of the content

What Is The Content? Why the teasing?

Sean Hannity said there was evidence of crime that would destroy the Bidens and the Democrats. Tucker Carlson said he will not publish. Guliani is now mute. Enough with the teasing.

> What would The Intercept do with No Comment?

Truly, all the news agencies around the world are failing to report on the urgency of No Comment.

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

#60

Post by scarmig »

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.
Post reply on HN