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

My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 133 posts

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#61

Post by tmaly »

resters wrote: post #17

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture. It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force. It's no accident that the paper ran the Ju…

Not only the NYT, other mainstream sources will not shake the boat if ad revenue is at stake. The Internet was the wild west early on, but it did provide a medium to discuss issues and foster many different points of view. It seems the walled gardens have taken over and the de-platforming is beginning to curtail some points of view whether you agree with them or not.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#62

Post by the_rosentotter »

hopler wrote: post #27
the_rosentotter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big papers (New York Times, Washington Post) have always been the voice of the establishment. I remember reading their editorials broadly condemning the labor movement while it was fighting for basic rights (and being slaughtered by public and privatized law enforcement) in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps at times more humanist than others, but nevertheless. I also think it is really obvious that…

How is the new york times staff or owners profiting from supporting those moneyed interests?

I don't know that the editors and writers profit directly, beyond their salaries. More like the companies are run at a loss in order to control the conversation. Of course seats are filled with people that push the line the owners prefer.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#63

Post by verall »

losvedir wrote: post #43
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UniParty. However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did. That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be a…

That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans. You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will l…

I'm curious, why do you believe Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one?

I support the eventual withdrawal from Syria, but packing up now will place a large burden on Kurdish minority groups in the region, who deserve better. It will not be the first time we supported the Kurds while they advanced US goals and then pulled out ASAP.

It also seems the decision was motivated by conversations between Trump and Erdogan, which makes me think the Turkish will resume subjugating Kurds in the region when US exits.

I think we should withdraw by replacing more and more guns-and-boots people with books-hammers-meds people.

Leaving a power vacuum to be filled by Turkey or Russia seems to be the worst option, and imo a betrayal to our Kurdish allies who would not be treated fairly under Turkish or Russian control.

Edit: I really mean this question in good faith. This is my present understanding of the situation, but I do not believe I have the whole picture. I really appreciate the time anyone could take to point out an inconsistency or misunderstanding.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#64

Post by pm90 »

the_rosentotter wrote: post #26
resters wrote: post #17

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture. It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force. It's no accident that the paper ran the Ju…

I think the big papers (New York Times, Washington Post) have always been the voice of the establishment. I remember reading their editorials broadly condemning the labor movement while it was fighting for basic rights (and being slaughtered by public and privatized law enforcement) in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps at times more humanist than others, but nevertheless. I also think it is really obvious that…

Washington Post seems to be a lot better about being a neutral outlet with quality journalism. Although... being owned by Bezos makes me wonder how long they can remain that way.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#65

Post by vkou »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #28
rdtsc wrote: post #9

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I…

>For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't. He's a constitutional law professor! He loves his blackberry! Those girls that campaigned and danced around for Obama were hot. Yay his skin color doesn't matter - except it totally matters! He'll stop the wars! He's so cool he tweets out things! Because you were sold on an extremely effective misinformation c…

History is written by the victors, and his scandalous policies did not lose in the court of law. As it turns out, all the shitty shit he did was perfectly legal[1] (And also supported by most of the country.)

The current crop of scandals is, ah, personal failings and run of the mill conflicts of interest. Obama's cabinet picks were a bit better then the current crop, in that respect. Well, except for Hillary's email server. Which he has masterfully distanced himself politically from. Trump has not done the same for his problematic subordinates.

[1] Which says a lot about how restrictive on government power the constitution actually is.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#66

Post by polaco »

fumar wrote: post #53
herbstein wrote: post #15

I think people would do well to read about the propaganda model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Or watching Manufacturing Consent.

It's also still a great read and has held up well, imho.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#67

Post by VBprogrammer »

jackpirate wrote: post #25

I found the following passage remarkable: In another recent incident that gave me chilling insight into the power of government surveillance, I met with a sensitive and well-placed source through an intermediary. After the meeting, which occurred a few years ago in Europe, I began to do research on the source. About an hour later, I got a call from the intermediary, who said, “Stop Googling his name.”

I think the implication is clearly that there existed a government survalence dragnet and that the source was well placed enough to have unfettered access to it.

However, it strikes me that there are a number of other possibilities: perhaps his own computer had been specifically compromised; maybe they targeted his hotel room or WiFi network; or, one which I find really compelling, it was simply a well timed ruse intended to bolster the legitimacy of whatever information the source was sharing.

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#68

Post by baursak »

resters wrote: post #17

The major takeaway is that one can't count on the NYT to challenge powerful interests. This makes the NYT a powerful conservative force in US culture. It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force. It's no accident that the paper ran the Ju…

> It follows that most of the articles that appear opposed to powerful interests are a) inconsequential, or b) used as a distraction, helping to create the impression that the paper is anything but a powerful conservative force.

It could also be taking on a rival powerful establishment interests, like in Democrats vs Republican type bickering.

Chomsky in his famous Andrew Marr interview addressed Marr's example of Watergate scandal as one part of the establishment defending itself against another part of the establishment, thus allowing the story to be broken. He compared Watergate, which everybody knows about, to a much bigger scandal of the same time, COINTELPRO, which relatively few people have even heard about.

The entire interview is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#69

Post by scottlocklin »

bm1362 wrote: post #49
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that the thing people make fun of Alex Jones for the most is that "chemicals were turning the frogs gay!" ... and then that turned out to be effectively true. EDIT: Sorry if you don't like this, but it's true. This isn't a defense of Jones's tactics or character, just that people make fun of him for an outlandish claim he was more or less right about.

The context is important, Alex Jones was using that study to say that the government was turning people gay intentionally.

Probably so, but nobody else with his reach was covering this. Seems kind of important to me!

Re: My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror (2018)

#70

Post by jlavine »

resters wrote: post #23
justaman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its narrow minded to assume a tool of the government is right wing, or left wing for that matter.

I agree, but I'm using the term in a way that resonates with the popular use of the word in modern American politics. The point might be lost if I instead used the more precise phrase "authoritarian, status-quo preserving".

My impression is that "left" is used synonymously with the Democratic party and "right" with the Republican party in practically all American media. By this popular understanding, calling the New York Times right wing makes no sense, as it's very clearly allied itself with the Democratics. The Democratic party has been just as dedicated to the corporate and military status quo as the Republican party. The two parties only differ practically on social wedge issues.
Post reply on HN