4 ms·

Unfortunately, the thing that will always stick in my memory about Liz Spayd is her criticism of the New York Times for refusing to give more credence to the cl

by makomk 9y ago

Unfortunately, the thing that will always stick in my memory about Liz Spayd is her criticism of the New York Times for refusing to give more credence to the claim that junk emails about Trump hotels were a secret communications channel with Russia: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russia-fbi-liz-spayd-public-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russi... (Seriously. Every single piece of evidence pointed to the communications being mass marketing emails, from the companies actually operating the server to The Intercept obtaining copies of some of the emails.)

rdtsc 9y ago
Wouldn't be surprised if in a few years there will be studies about the "Russia" propaganda campaign. How first it was very effective, everyone repeating the same things, the infamous "dossier" with sexual allegations, communication via mass marketing emails and so on. How it was beautiful and effective, and then everyone went too far and it ended up as a very expensive, counterproductive and embarrassing affair. Also I wonder to what degree the journalists and anchors involved actually believe those things, or they simply know what to sell and do it regardless of their personal convictions in the matter.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. If anything it proves that journalism is doing quite well at the NYT, and the narrative of "bias" and "propaganda campaigns" is undermining civil society, and unfairly accusing people doing the best they can and mostly succeeding.
  - makomk 9y ago
    Supposedly a good five or so publications passed over the Trump hotel communications with Russia story for the same reason, but ultimately it didn't matter that much because the moment one publication (Slate) was willing to publish their article went massively viral on social media, the Clinton campaign helped spread it, and huge numbers of people saw and believed it. We've effectively reduced the accuracy of the media as a whole to whatever the sloppiest, most view-hungry outlet is willing to put out that fits everyone's preferred narrative.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. I was replying to gp's comment about Liz Spayd criticizing Times
- Danihan 9y ago
  I'm not sure you understand. It's not about what journalists genuinely believe, it's about what narrative creates the most polarizing, emotional and long-standing controversy, because those traits result in eyeballs and therefore revenue. That's why Trayvon Martin was such a massive story... two polarized, completely entrenched sides battling at it endlessly. Truth didn't matter, the hyped up emotionalism of it all was a windfall for the media.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    I'm not sure you understand: the Times didn't publish those stories, precisely because they didn't feel they had proof, and in doing so they were willing to miss out on the eyeballs and revenue that would have come with publishing.
- travmatt 9y ago
  You mean that same dossier of which broad swaths were verified by the intelligence community to have been correct?
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    What was verified? Once they stuck the golden showers bit and the blackmail, other stuff to be credible would need some solid evidence/ Have you seen any? I haven't. It's a bit like having a conversation with someone and as soon as they start talking about chemtrails it's an uphill battle to take anything from them seriously after that.
    - travmatt 9y ago
      The mayflower meeting happened pretty much as described in the Steele dossier. Seth Abramson made a nice tweet storm summary. There's even pictures of the individuals there in question: https://theintellectualist.co/reporter-makes-convincing-case-alleging-treason-on-the-part-of-trump-and-his-associates/ https://theintellectualist.co/reporter-makes-convincing-case... Also, its odd to me that people intentionally try to misrepresent raw intelligence. Raw intelligence is so named because it's an amalgamation of different sources and even possible rumors that were deemed pertinent to include. Intelligence officials regularly deal with these, so there are established procedures to verify its contents independently. So to hear you say that since one thing may be wrong, then everything is wrong, therefore it's fake, seems deceitful. Lastly, we have the curious fact that most every Russian implicated in cooperating with the Steele dossier had been murdered, found dead, or arrested by the FSB shortly after its existence became known to Russian security services. Id also suggest it's odd for a sitting president to repeatedly obstruct an investigation that he steadfastly maintains will find nothing.

by makomk 9y ago

rdtsc 9y ago

Wouldn't be surprised if in a few years there will be studies about the "Russia" propaganda campaign. How first it was very effective, everyone repeating the same things, the infamous "dossier" with sexual allegations, communication via mass marketing emails and so on. How it was beautiful and effective, and then everyone went too far and it ended up as a very expensive, counterproductive and embarrassing affair. Also I wonder to what degree the journalists and anchors involved actually believe those things, or they simply know what to sell and do it regardless of their personal convictions in the matter.

matt4077 9y ago
Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. If anything it proves that journalism is doing quite well at the NYT, and the narrative of "bias" and "propaganda campaigns" is undermining civil society, and unfairly accusing people doing the best they can and mostly succeeding.
- makomk 9y ago
  Supposedly a good five or so publications passed over the Trump hotel communications with Russia story for the same reason, but ultimately it didn't matter that much because the moment one publication (Slate) was willing to publish their article went massively viral on social media, the Clinton campaign helped spread it, and huge numbers of people saw and believed it. We've effectively reduced the accuracy of the media as a whole to whatever the sloppiest, most view-hungry outlet is willing to put out that fits everyone's preferred narrative.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. I was replying to gp's comment about Liz Spayd criticizing Times
Danihan 9y ago
I'm not sure you understand. It's not about what journalists genuinely believe, it's about what narrative creates the most polarizing, emotional and long-standing controversy, because those traits result in eyeballs and therefore revenue. That's why Trayvon Martin was such a massive story... two polarized, completely entrenched sides battling at it endlessly. Truth didn't matter, the hyped up emotionalism of it all was a windfall for the media.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I'm not sure you understand: the Times didn't publish those stories, precisely because they didn't feel they had proof, and in doing so they were willing to miss out on the eyeballs and revenue that would have come with publishing.
travmatt 9y ago
You mean that same dossier of which broad swaths were verified by the intelligence community to have been correct?
- rdtsc 9y ago
  What was verified? Once they stuck the golden showers bit and the blackmail, other stuff to be credible would need some solid evidence/ Have you seen any? I haven't. It's a bit like having a conversation with someone and as soon as they start talking about chemtrails it's an uphill battle to take anything from them seriously after that.
  - travmatt 9y ago
    The mayflower meeting happened pretty much as described in the Steele dossier. Seth Abramson made a nice tweet storm summary. There's even pictures of the individuals there in question: https://theintellectualist.co/reporter-makes-convincing-case-alleging-treason-on-the-part-of-trump-and-his-associates/ https://theintellectualist.co/reporter-makes-convincing-case... Also, its odd to me that people intentionally try to misrepresent raw intelligence. Raw intelligence is so named because it's an amalgamation of different sources and even possible rumors that were deemed pertinent to include. Intelligence officials regularly deal with these, so there are established procedures to verify its contents independently. So to hear you say that since one thing may be wrong, then everything is wrong, therefore it's fake, seems deceitful. Lastly, we have the curious fact that most every Russian implicated in cooperating with the Steele dossier had been murdered, found dead, or arrested by the FSB shortly after its existence became known to Russian security services. Id also suggest it's odd for a sitting president to repeatedly obstruct an investigation that he steadfastly maintains will find nothing.