4 ms·

Seems to me the whole article is an excuse to "debunk" the conspiracy theory around the obviously-suspicious Seth Rich story. This sort of thing just confirms,

Seems to me the whole article is an excuse to "debunk" the conspiracy theory around the obviously-suspicious Seth Rich story. This sort of thing just confirms, to my satisfaction, that facts will have essentially no bearing on the next US presidential election. The journalists have had their day. Future political wars will be waged and won on social media, based on propaganda and confirmation bias.

jjawssd 9y ago
Can you please clarify what is "obviously-suspicious" about the Seth Rich story?
- notfromhere 9y ago
  not sure if he's arguing for or against the Seth Rich conspiracy
  - jjawssd 9y ago
    I just want more information about this subject. Not sure why I am being down-voted?
    - TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but it seems trollish. Sure, the Hillary email story is a giant mess, but the Seth Rich part of it is pretty short. If you don't know why someone would characterize it that way, and you can't be arsed to spend 2 minutes Googling something you claim to have an interest in, well...
lj3 9y ago
> The journalists have had their day. Future political wars will be waged and won on social media, based on propaganda and confirmation bias. What do you think the news has been for the last 100 years (or longer)? It was never unbiased. The news has always pushed the agenda of the entity that owned it.
- TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
  Well, sure, but there was very definitely a clear ethical line in proper journalism, as a profession. You had to have the basic facts right, by at least 2 different sources. I think this has changed now. For instance, is Trump in league with the Russians? What are the facts? On the other side, did Hillary break the law with her email server? What are the actual facts? In both of these cases, you can trace the points of argument ad nauseam, and an unbiased observer can come away with a feeling that both sides of both of these issues make good points. I know it's not a popular position to take on HN, but that's the way I feel about AGW. I think both sides have good points, and I don't know what to conclude. I'm not entirely clear that it's completely nefarious. I just think we've reached a point as a society -- almost like a Maslow hierarchy -- where any problem we discuss is so complicated that there are (at least) 2 sides to anything worth discussing, and they make internal sense, and the difference is the worldview you bring to the argument. With the drubbing the major news outlets took being COMPLETELY wrong about the last election, I think they've squandered the last bit of trust people had in them as objective reporters of fact. And, if it's all about opinion, then people are either going to reinforce their biases, or simply check out.
  - cheetos 9y ago
    The phenomenon you're describing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics

jjawssd 9y ago

Can you please clarify what is "obviously-suspicious" about the Seth Rich story?

notfromhere 9y ago
not sure if he's arguing for or against the Seth Rich conspiracy
- jjawssd 9y ago
  I just want more information about this subject. Not sure why I am being down-voted?
  - TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but it seems trollish. Sure, the Hillary email story is a giant mess, but the Seth Rich part of it is pretty short. If you don't know why someone would characterize it that way, and you can't be arsed to spend 2 minutes Googling something you claim to have an interest in, well...

lj3 9y ago

> The journalists have had their day. Future political wars will be waged and won on social media, based on propaganda and confirmation bias. What do you think the news has been for the last 100 years (or longer)? It was never unbiased. The news has always pushed the agenda of the entity that owned it.

TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
Well, sure, but there was very definitely a clear ethical line in proper journalism, as a profession. You had to have the basic facts right, by at least 2 different sources. I think this has changed now. For instance, is Trump in league with the Russians? What are the facts? On the other side, did Hillary break the law with her email server? What are the actual facts? In both of these cases, you can trace the points of argument ad nauseam, and an unbiased observer can come away with a feeling that both sides of both of these issues make good points. I know it's not a popular position to take on HN, but that's the way I feel about AGW. I think both sides have good points, and I don't know what to conclude. I'm not entirely clear that it's completely nefarious. I just think we've reached a point as a society -- almost like a Maslow hierarchy -- where any problem we discuss is so complicated that there are (at least) 2 sides to anything worth discussing, and they make internal sense, and the difference is the worldview you bring to the argument. With the drubbing the major news outlets took being COMPLETELY wrong about the last election, I think they've squandered the last bit of trust people had in them as objective reporters of fact. And, if it's all about opinion, then people are either going to reinforce their biases, or simply check out.
- cheetos 9y ago
  The phenomenon you're describing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics