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

My Resignation from the Intercept

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#951

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #651
reilly3000 wrote: post #608

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... This is why the Intercept didn't want to run Glenn's story. FYI this sob story has some precedent: In 2014: "I absolutely refuse to be exiled from my own country for the crime of doing journalism and I'm going to force the issue just on principle. And I think going back for a ceremony like the Polk Awards or other forms of journalistic awards would be a…

The NBC article is focused on an anonymously drafted report, which was mostly a dump of open source intel. The article criticizes that report for using a fake persona as its author. The initial disseminator of the report (who may or may not be the author of it as well) cites privacy and fear of retribution as reasons for publishing anonymously. What the NBC article does not do is address or refute any of the facts in…

Nothing against you or GP, but this illustrates my personal difficulties with "the news" perfectly. As most of us here know full well, in modern application development, most of the time, there are MANY ways to accomplish particular "thing" that will WORK, but I want to find the most-efficient and most-maintainable way. So when I need to find an approach to something new, I'll search and read many things about it, until I find consensus. I've approached news like programming, looking for consensus. The problem is that no one agrees on anything any more. There is no overlap between the two sides. Each side just says the other is completely wrong.

As the intelligentsia discuss what Greenwald's move implies about the state of American journalism, and even what the facts are about Hunter Biden's laptop, people in the middle, like me, despair of ever getting to the truth in these matters any more. We are forced to simply forget about it, because we have no hope of reading enough materials, and spending enough time on it, to sort out what the most-probable conclusion is. Every article argues the complete opposite of the other. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE JOB OF THE JOURNALIST.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#952

Post by tomschlick »

dillondoyle wrote: post #843
ciarannolan wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Senate Homeland Security committee and DNI director [...] Both of these are partisan, unreliable sources. The DNI used to be a nonpartisan that you could at least trust somewhat. Not anymore.

Goes onto a Fox News morning talk show lol. Far too many provable examples of political appointees in this administration outright lying and gaslighting the Fox News MAGA-ites into some alternative reality.

I'm sure they would go on any news program to talk about it. The others just aren't talking about it and his statement would counter the narrative they are trying to spin about disinformation.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#953

Post by tremon »

juniper_strong wrote: post #678
lordnacho wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the Economist, FT and the WSJ still have a somewhat positive reputation. They're expensive and tend to write about things that are important, not sensational. All other publications are slowly falling victim to the parametdynamicser of the entertainment game, including ones that were also in that bracket not long ago. Mind you I'm not saying WaPo and NYT are trash now, they did start with a high rep and t…

I've stopped caring about institutions' reputations because I don't need them to gatekeep for me anymore. If I want to read about finance, I can read Matt Levine. If I want to read about law I can read Eugene Volokh. If I want to read about about security I can read Bruce Schneier. In every category I care about, there are writers who are experts who make their expert opinions known without me having to subscribe to…

Ok, so what are your experts on housing policy? On agrarian policy? On international trade? On Newfoundland state politics? On medicine?

The number of areas where you can personally vet your experts is very small. For the rest, you must either choose to be uninformed or you can choose an organization to vet those experts for you. Trust is transitive.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#954

Post by fareesh »

reducesuffering wrote: post #938
jackthezipper wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There seems to be a premise in the USA that if Russia has a hand in true information coming to light, the bigger story is about Russia's hand in it, and not the information itself. You're absolutely right, and it is frustrating to no end.

Imagine all politicians have at least a bit of dirt in secret, documented in some email, text, or photo, on a computer somewhere. Also suppose each politician has varying degrees of dirt, from minor mistakes, not in bad faith, to full on treason. Then suppose there's an adversary capable of hacking any of the politicians' aforementioned secret media. This adversary can now pick and choose which politician they releas…

This requires your imagined scenario to be true. It also requires that the selective release of information is weighed in the opposite direction to what you are seeing.

In specific terms this is equivalent to saying "Russians showed us proof of Dem corruption" and the response by the media is "well imagine that there's worse GOP corruption that they haven't leaked"

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#955

Post by Karunamon »

Karunamon wrote: post #502
ivalm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about emails which have no headers, that are impossible to verify, that were “known to fbi” for a long time but didn’t produce any action (because likely fake), and that are specifically being pushed to change outcome of election despite, again, no real evidence of their veracity.

At this point I'm forced to conclude that there is more evidence pointing towards the authenticity of this information than pointing away from it. Consider: - The FBI came out and said there's no evidence of foreign disinformation. - As has the DOJ. - As has the director of national intelligence. - Hunter's lawyer contacting the shop owner to ask for the return of the hardware - The FBI's grand jury subpoena for the…

As of this morning, a third party has verified the DKIM headers on at least one of the messages.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-auth...

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#956

Post by reducesuffering »

fareesh wrote: post #954
reducesuffering wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine all politicians have at least a bit of dirt in secret, documented in some email, text, or photo, on a computer somewhere. Also suppose each politician has varying degrees of dirt, from minor mistakes, not in bad faith, to full on treason. Then suppose there's an adversary capable of hacking any of the politicians' aforementioned secret media. This adversary can now pick and choose which politician they releas…

This requires your imagined scenario to be true. It also requires that the selective release of information is weighed in the opposite direction to what you are seeing. In specific terms this is equivalent to saying "Russians showed us proof of Dem corruption" and the response by the media is "well imagine that there's worse GOP corruption that they haven't leaked"

The point is that there are plausible cases where you run into these kinds of issues where it’s not as easy as just saying “let’s evaluate the situation solely on the basis of what the info is.” This ignores the who, when, why, that are extremely relevant in this case, as they were this time 4 years ago.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#957

Post by valuearb »

blhack wrote: post #27

Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…

I thought Peter Maas email (that Greenwald posted) asking him for edits was very good.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...

Greenwald’s piece has some good points about lazy and biased journalism on the Hunter Biden story, but goes off the rails when he misrepresents what actually happened with Joe Biden firing the Ukraine prosecutor.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#959

Post by macspoofing »

Tokkemon wrote: post #222
macspoofing wrote: post #38

When William Roper argued that he'd "cut down every law in England" in order to get the Devil, Thomas More responded with: "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" ... This is where the entire mainstream center-left/left news establishment, along with the DNC, ended up after 2016. Trump broke people's brains. It's as simple as that.

... what?

Trump is responsible for destroying the convention of presidents acting 'presidential' through his words, and tweets. His policies are typical Republican policies. He hasn't jailed journalists or whistleblowers. His military engagements have been the most minimal since the Clinton-era. But again, his temperament is not presidential and that bucks the norm. That's on him.

In this quote, Trump is the devil and the DNC and mainstream center-left/left news, in an effort to get the devil, have destroyed every institutional and journalistic norm. Their role is far more damaging then Trump tweeting idiotic and sometimes terrible things.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#960

Post by Grakel »

rswail wrote: post #907
Bhilai wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSJ has pretty biased opinion section though where they have almost no standards.

Yes, in the same edition of the newspaper, in the news section, the Hunter Biden "story" was evaluated and found without merit. Meanwhile, in the opinion pages, Strassell promoted it with abandon.

The story is still developing and had several major points that are clearly worth further investigation. Please don't dismiss this issue as without merit, this will be investigated long after the election no matter who wins.
Post reply on HN