9 ms·

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817959

by AsyncAwait 7y ago

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Hey, thanks a ton for this! Is anyone persecuting The Guardian for this?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  I think Wikileaks wanted to sue them, not sure where that's at, but as far as some watchdog doing so, no, you never get prosecuted for printing what suits the establishment. I guess is similar to how the media pushing for the Iraq War on the premise of WMDs were held accountable, not.
DanBC 7y ago
This is a misunderstanding of how UK print media works. > Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House. Sources did say that, and the Guardian is telling us that these sources said that. The Guardian isn't saying it happened. See also "Freddy Star ate my hamster (says beauty)". https://sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-starr-ate-my-hamster.html https://sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-s...
- isoskeles 7y ago
  Read the entire article: not a single confirmed fact related to the meetings, everything is proposed by sources. And that embassy had plenty of photographers and journalists around it, yet there isn't a single photo of Paul Manafort at the embassy. You'd think they could run with one of the many photos that would have been taken and offered to them for money. Is the "misunderstanding" here that The Guardian or other UK papers can print claims from "sources" without verifying a single piece of materially important information? You seem to be here to defend The Guardian in this long thread about what a great paper it is, but your defense is to make a comparison to The Sun and target it at people who are pointing out that The Guardian has printed obvious lies (actual "fake news") in meddling with US politics. That's a really interesting way to defend them. One would think such defense in a thread like this might be inspired by their honesty and integrity as a news organization, but it's actually that it's okay to lie by claiming sources said something because The Sun did it.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Well, they did have "sources say" in the title not the small print. There's some speculation here that "someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists" https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-manafort-julian-assange-222694 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-mana...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    But that's the point. The guardian is only reporting what sources say, and they're clear about that. You're holding the guardian to higher standards than any other UK print media.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      A credible newspaper should do some fact checking before printing what 'sources say', otherwise its just PR for whatever wants to get this published.
    - isoskeles 7y ago
      Person A: The Guardian is great. Their "quality is consistently high." Person B: The Guardian tells lies about relatively important stories like Assange and Manafort meeting. Person C (you): Actually, all UK print media lies! Is this a fair characterization of what just happened?
      - DanBC 7y ago
        No. The Guardian has not lied. The Guardian has accurately reported what sources said. This is what all UK print media does. Guardian is somewhat better than some other UK print media because they'll (as they did here) include the words "sources say" in the headline or sub head, or they'll include quote marks in the headline.
        isoskeles 7y ago
        Okay, this seems like a bad faith argument to me. You must be aware that print media in the UK, including The Guardian, also publish stories that are backed by real evidence (e.g. photos, videos, people openly stating, "I personally did/said that", etc.) rather than mysterious, unnamed sources. Plus, it looks disingenuous to pretend that The Guardian didn't willfully choose to print this story instead of any of the many many stories about Barack Obama being a "secret Muslim" or even "gay" according to some source. You can further clarify why you think The Guardian is actually good if you want, but if it involves, "Everyone else publishes stories from sources," I'm done taking it seriously.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  They straight-up fabricated this story and have yet to retract. This wasn't an editorial either this was supposed to be 'real' news.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817959

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

Hey, thanks a ton for this! Is anyone persecuting The Guardian for this?

AsyncAwait 7y ago
I think Wikileaks wanted to sue them, not sure where that's at, but as far as some watchdog doing so, no, you never get prosecuted for printing what suits the establishment. I guess is similar to how the media pushing for the Iraq War on the premise of WMDs were held accountable, not.

DanBC 7y ago

This is a misunderstanding of how UK print media works. > Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House. Sources did say that, and the Guardian is telling us that these sources said that. The Guardian isn't saying it happened. See also "Freddy Star ate my hamster (says beauty)". https://sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-starr-ate-my-hamster.html https://sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-s...

isoskeles 7y ago
Read the entire article: not a single confirmed fact related to the meetings, everything is proposed by sources. And that embassy had plenty of photographers and journalists around it, yet there isn't a single photo of Paul Manafort at the embassy. You'd think they could run with one of the many photos that would have been taken and offered to them for money. Is the "misunderstanding" here that The Guardian or other UK papers can print claims from "sources" without verifying a single piece of materially important information? You seem to be here to defend The Guardian in this long thread about what a great paper it is, but your defense is to make a comparison to The Sun and target it at people who are pointing out that The Guardian has printed obvious lies (actual "fake news") in meddling with US politics. That's a really interesting way to defend them. One would think such defense in a thread like this might be inspired by their honesty and integrity as a news organization, but it's actually that it's okay to lie by claiming sources said something because The Sun did it.
- tim333 7y ago
  Well, they did have "sources say" in the title not the small print. There's some speculation here that "someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists" https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-manafort-julian-assange-222694 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-mana...
- DanBC 7y ago
  But that's the point. The guardian is only reporting what sources say, and they're clear about that. You're holding the guardian to higher standards than any other UK print media.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    A credible newspaper should do some fact checking before printing what 'sources say', otherwise its just PR for whatever wants to get this published.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    Person A: The Guardian is great. Their "quality is consistently high." Person B: The Guardian tells lies about relatively important stories like Assange and Manafort meeting. Person C (you): Actually, all UK print media lies! Is this a fair characterization of what just happened?
    - DanBC 7y ago
      No. The Guardian has not lied. The Guardian has accurately reported what sources said. This is what all UK print media does. Guardian is somewhat better than some other UK print media because they'll (as they did here) include the words "sources say" in the headline or sub head, or they'll include quote marks in the headline.
      - isoskeles 7y ago
        Okay, this seems like a bad faith argument to me. You must be aware that print media in the UK, including The Guardian, also publish stories that are backed by real evidence (e.g. photos, videos, people openly stating, "I personally did/said that", etc.) rather than mysterious, unnamed sources. Plus, it looks disingenuous to pretend that The Guardian didn't willfully choose to print this story instead of any of the many many stories about Barack Obama being a "secret Muslim" or even "gay" according to some source. You can further clarify why you think The Guardian is actually good if you want, but if it involves, "Everyone else publishes stories from sources," I'm done taking it seriously.
creaghpatr 7y ago
They straight-up fabricated this story and have yet to retract. This wasn't an editorial either this was supposed to be 'real' news.