11 ms·
Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original G
by hannasanarion 8y ago
Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original Guardian story.
1. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail.
2. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because they misspelled his name, it appears as "Paul Manaford".
This isn't "lack of transparency", it's protecting your sources.
But, then again, I wouldn't expect The Intercept to know how to tell the difference, seeing how they've burned Reality Winner and Terry Albury.
- nkurz 8y agoCould you provide evidence for your "evidence"? That is, I realize that The Guardian claims that they saw a list showing "Paul Manaford" as a guest to the embassy, but I haven't seen outside evidence that this list exists and is accurate. And I've seen others claiming that Manafort's name (misspelled or not) was not on the previously released guest lists: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/assange-never-met-manafort-luke-harding-and-the-guardian-publish-still-more-blatant-mi6-lies/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/assange-neve... I currently trust The Intercept more than I trust most other news sources, and if your two points are true, then I clearly am trusting them too much. If you have have evidence that would move this beyond a "he said, she said" level (with the Guardian claiming one thing and The Intercept saying the claims are false), please point to it so I can update my beliefs. Currently it feels more like you are simply asserting that we should trust one source over another.
- mrguyorama 8y agoReading this makes me sad. I thought the intercept was quality journalism. I didn't know they had this kind of history
- hannasanarion 8y agoYeah. And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others. The Intercept isn't safe any more, and it's increasingly becoming sidelined, with the biggest leak since Snowden, the Panama Papers, being given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, by a source that is still anonymous 4 years later.
- CamperBob2 8y agoAnd those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others. Including Reality Winner, right?
- hutzlibu 8y agoWell, first I think there is a difference between having the facts wrong and not protecting a source enough. And secondly, what exactly did the Intercept do to harm John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman?
- deiznof 8y ago>2. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because they misspelled his name, it appears as "Paul Manaford". No, that was a "separate internal document" that claimed that, it wasn't in the guest logs. As far as the photo, I don't recall anyone saying there was a photo, only that a witness claims they saw Manafort.
- lawnchair_larry 8y agoThese points are apparently false and specifically addressed in the article, including the claim describing what clothing was worn.