How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
rollingstone.com
How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#2The Rolling Stone ought to stick to music.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#3The Rolling Stone ought to stick to music.
Why? They've done some phenomenal reporting on the War on Terror.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#4IMO, no. You really ought to check out Michael Yon for phenomenal reporting on the war on terror. In other words, I get it. The Rolling Stone thinks conservatives are the devil. The bias is ridiculous. But if you choose to read that kind of thing that's your business.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#5The Rolling Stone ought to stick to music.
These are the kinds of useless comments that make Hacker News unpleasant to read.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#6The Rolling Stone ought to stick to music.
Why? They've done some phenomenal reporting on the War on Terror.
Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and GQ have really surprised me with the quality of their reporting over the past few years, in areas like national security where I would not have expected them to cover anything. They may have some liberal bias, but not ezcessively so; especially on a military embed, they are being fee information from "authorities", so if being biased but honest journalists makes them more questioning of statements by the military, I am ok with it. It is almost worse when an unthinkingly unquestioning local reporter shows up and just repeats the press releases.
Michael Yon is a great primary source, along with military personnel blogs, and especially freerangeinternational.com/blog/ but the major publications are doing a better job than tv or newspapers.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#7Movie material
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#8IMO, no. You really ought to check out Michael Yon for phenomenal reporting on the war on terror. In other words, I get it. The Rolling Stone thinks conservatives are the devil. The bias is ridiculous. But if you choose to read that kind of thing that's your business.
It's entirely possible to read two (or even more!) sources of news.
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#9IMHO: The printer friendly version isn't particularly easy to read. Go here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stoner-arms-de...
Re: How Two American Kids Became Big-time Arms Dealers
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They've done some phenomenal reporting on the War on Terror.
Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and GQ have really surprised me with the quality of their reporting over the past few years, in areas like national security where I would not have expected them to cover anything. They may have some liberal bias, but not ezcessively so; especially on a military embed, they are being fee information from "authorities", so if being biased but honest journalists makes them more questioning o…
Vanity Fair has a very serious team of people doing long-form narrative journalism, having laid claim to much of the best talent from the late '90s-era Atlantic Monthly.
Unfortunately, the magazine itself is an unreadable mess of advertising and perfume samples.