4 ms·

Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet" who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal regardi

Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet" who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal regarding a story where the parent company of this newspaper has sent my startup an injunction and this journalist was sent to harass me (no other papers, media printed the story because there was none) f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the story and lie lie lie /posting from throwaway account

noobermin 10y ago
If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info? There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.
- jackmott 10y ago
  Wikileaks who campaigned to make trump a president? The world has gone crazy.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Campaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
    - fffffffooop 10y ago
      If you read WikiLeaks' Twitter posts from September and October, you'll see that they definitely took a side in the election.
      - uiri 10y ago
        I think your point would be stronger if your comment included a few links to the tweets in question.
        fffffffooop 10y ago
        Twitter's mobile interface really isn't made for looking at tweets from months ago. If I accidentally tap on a tweet and click back, I'm brought back to today's tweets. Here's a blog post where Assange days Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President: https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/ https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/
        fffffffooop 10y ago
        I can't manage to copy links to individual posts without losing my place in the timeline, but there were a number of retweets of non-WikiLeaks related posts about Clinton. They also retweeted this tweet from when Clinton appeared with Pussy Riot in 2014: https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/452130729691201536 https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/45213072969... There's nothing wrong with WikiLeaks supporting a candidate in the election. I do think it's wrong to pretend they're neutral or unbiased.
pmoriarty 10y ago
You had one single bad experience with one single reporter and now you generalize it to be a fair representation of how all reporters act? That sounds to me as no better than if some reporter had uncovered the criminality of one single company and now assumes all companies are criminal. I understand that you feel you've been wronged in this situation, and have very strong feelings about it, but can't you try to be a just a little more objective?

noobermin 10y ago

If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info? There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.

jackmott 10y ago
Wikileaks who campaigned to make trump a president? The world has gone crazy.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Campaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
  - fffffffooop 10y ago
    If you read WikiLeaks' Twitter posts from September and October, you'll see that they definitely took a side in the election.
    - uiri 10y ago
      I think your point would be stronger if your comment included a few links to the tweets in question.
      - fffffffooop 10y ago
        Twitter's mobile interface really isn't made for looking at tweets from months ago. If I accidentally tap on a tweet and click back, I'm brought back to today's tweets. Here's a blog post where Assange days Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President: https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/ https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/
        fffffffooop 10y ago
        I can't manage to copy links to individual posts without losing my place in the timeline, but there were a number of retweets of non-WikiLeaks related posts about Clinton. They also retweeted this tweet from when Clinton appeared with Pussy Riot in 2014: https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/452130729691201536 https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/45213072969... There's nothing wrong with WikiLeaks supporting a candidate in the election. I do think it's wrong to pretend they're neutral or unbiased.

pmoriarty 10y ago

You had one single bad experience with one single reporter and now you generalize it to be a fair representation of how all reporters act? That sounds to me as no better than if some reporter had uncovered the criminality of one single company and now assumes all companies are criminal. I understand that you feel you've been wronged in this situation, and have very strong feelings about it, but can't you try to be a just a little more objective?