4 ms·

The length of an article proves nothing about the truth of its contents.

dTal 8y ago
The article is not the source of truth. The article is simply a collection of facts. A very large number of externally sourced and undisputed facts. Facts like "On December 29, 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an unclassified report[91] that gave new technical details regarding methods used by Russian intelligence services for affecting the U.S. election, government, political organizations and private sector.", to pick one virtually at random. I'm not pointing to the length of the article or the number of citations as direct support - I'm simply showing how overwhelmingly the burden of proof is on the person claiming it's all made up. To suggest that there was no Russian election interference of any sort is on par with moon landing denial. Literally nobody seriously asserts that - not even Trump! (Not anymore, anyway). That bears repeating, if you think Russians didn't interfere with the 2016 presidential election, you have a weaker grasp of reality than Donald Trump. It's frightening post-truth wingnuttery. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878413313188802560 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/87841331318880256... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/96520255620400332...?
- overwhelm 8y ago
  It's highly disputed. We just don't hear about that outside alternative sources. Taibbi alludes to this in the OP: I didn’t really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece of the story seemed “solid,” but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an “assessment” by the intelligence services that always had issues, including the use of things like RT’s “anti-American” coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government didn’t even examine the DNC’s server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous. Words like "wingnuttery" and "moon landing" weaken your case. If you get enough publications to print something, you can make a terrifically long list of citations, but what does that prove? Quality matters, not quantity, and the quality of journalism devoted to this case has been astonishingly low, as Taibbi shows. As he says: We won’t know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors.

dTal 8y ago

The article is not the source of truth. The article is simply a collection of facts. A very large number of externally sourced and undisputed facts. Facts like "On December 29, 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an unclassified report[91] that gave new technical details regarding methods used by Russian intelligence services for affecting the U.S. election, government, political organizations and private sector.", to pick one virtually at random. I'm not pointing to the length of the article or the number of citations as direct support - I'm simply showing how overwhelmingly the burden of proof is on the person claiming it's all made up. To suggest that there was no Russian election interference of any sort is on par with moon landing denial. Literally nobody seriously asserts that - not even Trump! (Not anymore, anyway). That bears repeating, if you think Russians didn't interfere with the 2016 presidential election, you have a weaker grasp of reality than Donald Trump. It's frightening post-truth wingnuttery. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878413313188802560 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/87841331318880256... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/96520255620400332...?

overwhelm 8y ago
It's highly disputed. We just don't hear about that outside alternative sources. Taibbi alludes to this in the OP: I didn’t really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece of the story seemed “solid,” but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an “assessment” by the intelligence services that always had issues, including the use of things like RT’s “anti-American” coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government didn’t even examine the DNC’s server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous. Words like "wingnuttery" and "moon landing" weaken your case. If you get enough publications to print something, you can make a terrifically long list of citations, but what does that prove? Quality matters, not quantity, and the quality of journalism devoted to this case has been astonishingly low, as Taibbi shows. As he says: We won’t know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors.