5 ms·

> It's cute that their map shows the former Soviet Union as "not free" and the former American Cold War strategic assets as "free" Very good point. I think any

by rdtsc 10y ago

> It's cute that their map shows the former Soviet Union as "not free" and the former American Cold War strategic assets as "free" Very good point. I think anyone interested in how "Free" press is used and how un-free it usually is, should read Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Hate them or love them, they provide a very good examples that are documented of "free" media bias. My favorite example is CNN recently. I think they at some point dropped the pretense and sunk to levels lower than what Fox has been considered. My favorite recent example is of course Chris Cuomo from CNN who said "...it is illegal to possess these stolen documents. It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us." That is such a brilliant example of what is happening. The only question there to ask is why be so blatant and desperate about censorship. And I think the answer is because they got desperate. They realized they lost control. As you say, and Snowden showed US govt has been using Tweeter and other such thing to control and conduct various operations. I am guessing the Arab Spring is a good recent example.

Natsu 10y ago
That would be this CNN clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE And this is the best explanation for why he was wrong: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-... As for why they would do that, well, they leaked the debate questions to Donna Brazille. And then she lied about it, saying they were modified. Anyone on here can go check the DKIM headers, they're both valid and they cover the body of the message providing cryptographic non-repudiation.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Yes! that's the one. For some reason I just really remembered it and in my mind it summarizes what "media" has become. It has always been this way, but I guess it has recently hit new lows.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
Except that you fell for the GP incompetence in geography. The fact is that one should read everything very very carefully everywhere and try to just access bare facts and abandon everything that is purely a (journalist) opinion. It is very important to know bias of the source and understand that information is used to distort the understanding of the reality. There are quite many people who think that they have escaped the misinformation field except they have been fallen for other carefully constructed reality.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Except that you fell for the GP incompetence in geography. Sorry, I didn't follow, what do you mean by "incompetence in geography?"
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    Here copy from my direct answer: Large parts of former Soviet occupied and Warsaw Pact countries are marked either as not assessed or free. Except Russia along with Belarus (not free) and Ukraine (partially free, well, except Crimea, that is at the moment Russian annexed, but probably marked after Ukraine, or vice versa). Sorry about the confusion.
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      Ok valid point. I didn't verify that because it wasn't a central part of the argument. However note, you also missed other parts like Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaidjan? Was that intentional? I don't know, perhaps saying "a majority of post-Soviet states have been labeled by Freedom House as having press freedom issues" is not that controversial? The original discussion diverged into something else that basically say even "free" press doesn't mean what people think it means. And I brought CNN as an example?
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        It was not intentional, I just forgot those, more or less, I could not comment if these are correctly classified or not, but these countries are quite authoritarian, so possibly they are. I believe that it is important to understand that in most cases news =/ objective truth. There is always some bias and it is very important to know this bias for every source.
convivialdingo 10y ago
Well, to be clear it probably is illegal to read for those with clearance. e.g. SF-312 It wouldn't be criminal, but it's certainly possible to receive a civil contract enforcement action.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Well, to be clear it probably is illegal to read for those with clearance. e.g. SF-312 But do you think that is why he said that?

by rdtsc 10y ago

Natsu 10y ago

That would be this CNN clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE And this is the best explanation for why he was wrong: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-... As for why they would do that, well, they leaked the debate questions to Donna Brazille. And then she lied about it, saying they were modified. Anyone on here can go check the DKIM headers, they're both valid and they cover the body of the message providing cryptographic non-repudiation.

rdtsc 10y ago
Yes! that's the one. For some reason I just really remembered it and in my mind it summarizes what "media" has become. It has always been this way, but I guess it has recently hit new lows.

eveningcoffee 10y ago

Except that you fell for the GP incompetence in geography. The fact is that one should read everything very very carefully everywhere and try to just access bare facts and abandon everything that is purely a (journalist) opinion. It is very important to know bias of the source and understand that information is used to distort the understanding of the reality. There are quite many people who think that they have escaped the misinformation field except they have been fallen for other carefully constructed reality.

rdtsc 10y ago
> Except that you fell for the GP incompetence in geography. Sorry, I didn't follow, what do you mean by "incompetence in geography?"
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Here copy from my direct answer: Large parts of former Soviet occupied and Warsaw Pact countries are marked either as not assessed or free. Except Russia along with Belarus (not free) and Ukraine (partially free, well, except Crimea, that is at the moment Russian annexed, but probably marked after Ukraine, or vice versa). Sorry about the confusion.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Ok valid point. I didn't verify that because it wasn't a central part of the argument. However note, you also missed other parts like Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaidjan? Was that intentional? I don't know, perhaps saying "a majority of post-Soviet states have been labeled by Freedom House as having press freedom issues" is not that controversial? The original discussion diverged into something else that basically say even "free" press doesn't mean what people think it means. And I brought CNN as an example?
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      It was not intentional, I just forgot those, more or less, I could not comment if these are correctly classified or not, but these countries are quite authoritarian, so possibly they are. I believe that it is important to understand that in most cases news =/ objective truth. There is always some bias and it is very important to know this bias for every source.

convivialdingo 10y ago

Well, to be clear it probably is illegal to read for those with clearance. e.g. SF-312 It wouldn't be criminal, but it's certainly possible to receive a civil contract enforcement action.

rdtsc 10y ago
> Well, to be clear it probably is illegal to read for those with clearance. e.g. SF-312 But do you think that is why he said that?