5 ms·

I read from a reliable source I cannot immediately recall that she in fact did not post anything jihadist or even inflammatory on any social media account of he

by pyvpx 11y ago

I read from a reliable source I cannot immediately recall that she in fact did not post anything jihadist or even inflammatory on any social media account of hers. are you repeating a convenient falsehood or am I? in other words -- do you have a source that verified she in fact posted jihadist anything, anywhere?

jdp23 11y ago
Excellent point. The whole episode is very instructive. On Sunday the New York Times quoted "law enforcement sources" as saying that she had made postings on her stream. The story got a huge amount of coverage and even came up during Tuesday's Republican debate. On Wednesday, FBI Director Comey described the reporting as "grabled" and clarified that no, it was just private messages -- and the Times (and others) rewrote their stories to reflect it. But you can't unring a bell; most people's opinion, and even more importantly their emotional responses, are based on the original story. Erik Wemple covers this well in the Washington Post [1] Times' "public editor" Margeret Sullivan's looks at it as well [2], noting that two of the reporters also incorrectly reported that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal investigation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/16/the-fbi-just-blasted-reporting-on-the-san-bernardino-killings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/... [2] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-times-san-bernardino-correction-margaret-sullivan-public-editor/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-ti...
- kbenson 11y ago
  I wish we had something that tracked news articles and noted when they changed without either an inline note about the change or an update at the end. It would be like the snopes of news journalism, and we could get some really interesting statistics from that with regard to the journalistic integrity of different sources. There's a large population of people that could do with some good evidence to force them to be more critical of certain news sources.
  - niels_olson 11y ago
    It would be like, like a wiki, but before the admins go off the reservation.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Eh, I think it has to be third-party for exactly that reason. You can never rely on the admins not going off-reservation,or being explicitly ordered to hide changes. If an organization is willing to update a story to change major facts without any indication of such, I see no reason to trust they wouldn't hide change history. Sure, it may be a smaller portion of organizations on a smaller number of articles that are willing to take it to this next level, but it would be better to bypass that entirely and just have an impartial record.
  - r721 11y ago
    This exists: http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Awesome, thank you!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
You are right. The FBI has corrected the report of her Facebook warnings that was floating around the news networks. Marquez (the Muslim convert who sold them the guns), however, did post something on his verified Facebook account a month before the attack.[1] And Malik (the wife) did apparently post something on Facebook minutes before the attack. Do you disagree with my overall point, that the U.S. law enforcement has over-surveillance and under-intelligence? 1. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-defendant-enrique-marquez-admitted-terrorism-facebook-feds-n482131 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san...
- Retric 11y ago
  Surveillance is simply a useful scapegoat it's actually fairly useless. The problem is if there are any read flags that get 24/7 monitoring then having several people flip them will quickly destroy the system. Let's say they vent in private conversation well that's legal, they then buy some guns and ammo. Well again that's legal. Then one day they go out and shoot people, well sorry we can't afford to have a swat team around and you can go from 100% legal to shooting people in about 30 seconds.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    I would disagree that surveillance is "fairly useless". Obviously, there are times when keeping a watch on potentially dangerous people is going to pay off. How many times, I can't say. The problems begin when we have a process-bound bureaucracy rather than a group of smart people, each acting on hunches and excellent information. Bureaucracies can be composed of smart people yet act stupidly. Also, there are political mandates that certain minorities not be singled out, e.g. the Muslims. Thus, the fact that the three involved in San Bernardino were Muslims did not come into play until well after the shooting. The initial news articles I saw didn't even mention their ethnicities and religious affiliations; even the conservative Wall Street Journal only mentioned it at the very end, and the fact that Marquez was a recent convert to Islam didn't come out until recently.
    - 11y ago

by pyvpx 11y ago

jdp23 11y ago

Excellent point. The whole episode is very instructive. On Sunday the New York Times quoted "law enforcement sources" as saying that she had made postings on her stream. The story got a huge amount of coverage and even came up during Tuesday's Republican debate. On Wednesday, FBI Director Comey described the reporting as "grabled" and clarified that no, it was just private messages -- and the Times (and others) rewrote their stories to reflect it. But you can't unring a bell; most people's opinion, and even more importantly their emotional responses, are based on the original story. Erik Wemple covers this well in the Washington Post [1] Times' "public editor" Margeret Sullivan's looks at it as well [2], noting that two of the reporters also incorrectly reported that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal investigation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/16/the-fbi-just-blasted-reporting-on-the-san-bernardino-killings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/... [2] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-times-san-bernardino-correction-margaret-sullivan-public-editor/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/new-york-ti...

kbenson 11y ago
I wish we had something that tracked news articles and noted when they changed without either an inline note about the change or an update at the end. It would be like the snopes of news journalism, and we could get some really interesting statistics from that with regard to the journalistic integrity of different sources. There's a large population of people that could do with some good evidence to force them to be more critical of certain news sources.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  It would be like, like a wiki, but before the admins go off the reservation.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Eh, I think it has to be third-party for exactly that reason. You can never rely on the admins not going off-reservation,or being explicitly ordered to hide changes. If an organization is willing to update a story to change major facts without any indication of such, I see no reason to trust they wouldn't hide change history. Sure, it may be a smaller portion of organizations on a smaller number of articles that are willing to take it to this next level, but it would be better to bypass that entirely and just have an impartial record.
- r721 11y ago
  This exists: http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Awesome, thank you!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

You are right. The FBI has corrected the report of her Facebook warnings that was floating around the news networks. Marquez (the Muslim convert who sold them the guns), however, did post something on his verified Facebook account a month before the attack.[1] And Malik (the wife) did apparently post something on Facebook minutes before the attack. Do you disagree with my overall point, that the U.S. law enforcement has over-surveillance and under-intelligence? 1. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-defendant-enrique-marquez-admitted-terrorism-facebook-feds-n482131 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san...

Retric 11y ago
Surveillance is simply a useful scapegoat it's actually fairly useless. The problem is if there are any read flags that get 24/7 monitoring then having several people flip them will quickly destroy the system. Let's say they vent in private conversation well that's legal, they then buy some guns and ammo. Well again that's legal. Then one day they go out and shoot people, well sorry we can't afford to have a swat team around and you can go from 100% legal to shooting people in about 30 seconds.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  I would disagree that surveillance is "fairly useless". Obviously, there are times when keeping a watch on potentially dangerous people is going to pay off. How many times, I can't say. The problems begin when we have a process-bound bureaucracy rather than a group of smart people, each acting on hunches and excellent information. Bureaucracies can be composed of smart people yet act stupidly. Also, there are political mandates that certain minorities not be singled out, e.g. the Muslims. Thus, the fact that the three involved in San Bernardino were Muslims did not come into play until well after the shooting. The initial news articles I saw didn't even mention their ethnicities and religious affiliations; even the conservative Wall Street Journal only mentioned it at the very end, and the fact that Marquez was a recent convert to Islam didn't come out until recently.
  - 11y ago