Now I understand what Chomsky was saying when he said most mainstream news media in the West is just propaganda.
That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
601–610 of 656 posts
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That stuff is cheap. How do you expect someone moving to a place of fewer resources and less security to make a more expensive product? Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas. Rather than costs, the much bigger obstacle to good journalism is censorship, much of it coming from company leadership, which doesn't want a bad relationship with ad…
> Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas. Come on. It investigative journalism takes a lot of time, and in the mean time, the journalist has bills to pay. An opinion-haver or second-hand news analyst can build a Substack following by picking a theme and pumping out a blog post every couple days, but that's not practical for someone who might…
The point isn't that it's cheaper to do investigative journalism than opinion pieces. The point was whether it's easier to do IJ independently or as part of a big news corporation. And I firmly believe that big news corps are mostly actively against IJ, so that going independent is the only real way to practice it.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, if one wants to inform people, one should not claim things that require accepting the reasoning without thought. So even if the NYT article weren't propaganda and all the claims were correct, it would still be problematic, since writing it in this way, effectively claims that things that look like propaganda are legitimate journalism and totally normal. So even if it were correct, someone who reads it and be…
Well said.
Thank you.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The NYT has formal editorial standards around the identity of anonymous sources that require editors to assess the justification for applying it. They should also have editorial standards that judge the quality of the information and then decide whether to even print it or not. In this case, without a second source, it probably should /not/ have been printed.
That’s exactly what those guidelines say: https://www.nytimes.com/article/why-new-york-times-anonymous... > What we consider before using anonymous sources: > How do they know the information? > What’s their motivation for telling us? > Have they proved reliable in the past? > Can we corroborate the information they provide? > Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’…
The change I'd propose is that they actually apply them, and not just to stifle cases that do not fit their narrative.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Snyder himself is a bit of a propagandist with his ridiculous double genocide theory. Here's a longer discussion[1] with examples of how he is an ideologue. (I would have liked to post a reply to the people responding to me but alas, I cannot.) [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1brdk1l/comm...
Could you please stop repeatedly editing multiple comments to respond to replies? The "reply" function exists for a reason, and your backedits disrupt the directional read of a thread, confusing the discussion. If the HN system tells you that you're posting too fast, and you need to slow down, that also exists for a reason: you are, and you do. You can still reply (so please stop saying you cannot), you just need to…
I'm just replying to make my position clear since you replied with very misleading content. It's not my fault HN wants to be an echo chamber and makes it difficult to respond to people when they are wrong.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas. Come on. It investigative journalism takes a lot of time, and in the mean time, the journalist has bills to pay. An opinion-haver or second-hand news analyst can build a Substack following by picking a theme and pumping out a blog post every couple days, but that's not practical for someone who might…
I suspect the economics of investigative journalism work out better for an individual who is personally invested in their work. Your scenario is the same for a news company. Investigative journalism takes time. And, in the meantime, you have HR departments, corporate rent, etc., you’re trying to build a media empire and your ROI is being compared against just investing in the S&P 500. And I don’t think the economics…
> I suspect the economics of investigative journalism work out better for an individual who is personally invested in their work.
> Your scenario is the same for a news company. Investigative journalism takes time. And, in the meantime, you have HR departments, corporate rent, etc., you’re trying to build a media empire and your ROI is being compared against just investing in the S&P 500.
No. In the mean time, you have opinion-havers and other investigative journalists writing articles, maintaining a steady audience. An "individual [investigative journalist] who is personally invested in their work" wouldn't have the steady output to maintain one.
> And I don’t think the economics of corporate news make sense.
The economics of solo news make even less sense.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Investigative journalism is really not that expensive. A lot of it boils down to needing a phone and money for gas. Come on. It investigative journalism takes a lot of time, and in the mean time, the journalist has bills to pay. An opinion-haver or second-hand news analyst can build a Substack following by picking a theme and pumping out a blog post every couple days, but that's not practical for someone who might…
The point isn't that it's cheaper to do investigative journalism than opinion pieces. The point was whether it's easier to do IJ independently or as part of a big news corporation. And I firmly believe that big news corps are mostly actively against IJ, so that going independent is the only real way to practice it.
> The point was whether it's easier to do IJ independently or as part of a big news corporation....so that going independent is the only real way to practice it.
I think you're pushing a fantasy. I don't think "going independent" is really viable for a person unless they 1) have pre-existing fame, 2) independent wealth (or a patron), or 3) cut corners with the project in some way.
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#608Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
When has the NYTimes made shit up?
Judith Miller reported total fabrications and helped lead the entire country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq.
For some reason I feel like reporting fabricated evidence is magnitudes different than fabricating evidence (making shit up.) From what I've briefly read is that Judith Miller reported on evidence that Ahmad Chalabi provided her:
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
I'm not saying that the NYTimes doesn't have an agenda (it has one) nor do I believe that they are infallible. I'm just wondering when they've manufactured information like the days of yellow journalism or the likes of Stephen Glass or Janet Cooke
Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus
#610There is so much to address in this post but I want to look at just this part: "One of the reasons we know this story is bogus is because of the New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”. That’s not a thing, that’s not a valid reason to grant anonymity under normal journalistic principles. It’s the “Washington Game” of “official…
The "Washington Game" is described the Society of Professional Journalists. https://www.spj.org/spj-ethics-committee-position-papers-ano... Citing anonymous sources is not established ETHICAL practice, it's corruption of the system. The roll of the journalist is to get sources on the record, not let them evade accountability by hiding behind anonymity. Anonymity is something that should be RARELY granted, not routine…
> The anonymous source is oath bound not to reveal secrets
When you say this, what oaths are you specifically thinking about?