5 ms·

Well we could strive for a base level of critical thinking, something clearly missing from your statement. A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media

Well we could strive for a base level of critical thinking, something clearly missing from your statement. A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.

jessaustin 7y ago
...heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. "Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
- sjwright 7y ago
  You are misrepresenting what was said. "Heavily covered in the media" wasn’t cited as a criterion for a whistleblower. Actually to be more precise, it was cited as a criterion—by you—when you claimed that as a hallmark of “fake” whistleblowers.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Parent claimed that media coverage was a sufficient criterion; I disagree. You've interpreted the discussion as concerned with a necessary criterion. That abuse of the idiom will come later, after the war media has moved the Overton window a bit further.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      You need to re-read what I wrote. My claim is that media coverage cannot say anything meaningful about the authenticity of a whistleblower. To say otherwise is a terrible argument -- Snowden himself had widespread media coverage, both positive and negative.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Snowden's revelations are massive. They should be cited anytime every time an intelligence reptile anonymously leaks something to the press, which is every day. Instead, the only time Snowden makes the news is when they want to announce some new persecution like this recent lawsuit over his memoir. Here is on Joe f@#$ing Rogan for goodness sakes! That is not widespread coverage.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        Again, that is not what we're talking about. Media coverage tells you nothing about the authenticity of a whistleblower. You have not demonstrated any useful criterion for identifying 'fake' whistleblowers other than "I do not agree with his/her goals."
        jessaustin 7y ago
        You're right, media coverage tells us far more about the media than about the people they cover. That was actually the point I made at the top of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334185
    - sjwright 7y ago
      I don't understand the point of repeatedly misrepresenting what was said, since it's right here in this thread.

jessaustin 7y ago

...heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. "Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.

sjwright 7y ago
You are misrepresenting what was said. "Heavily covered in the media" wasn’t cited as a criterion for a whistleblower. Actually to be more precise, it was cited as a criterion—by you—when you claimed that as a hallmark of “fake” whistleblowers.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Parent claimed that media coverage was a sufficient criterion; I disagree. You've interpreted the discussion as concerned with a necessary criterion. That abuse of the idiom will come later, after the war media has moved the Overton window a bit further.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    You need to re-read what I wrote. My claim is that media coverage cannot say anything meaningful about the authenticity of a whistleblower. To say otherwise is a terrible argument -- Snowden himself had widespread media coverage, both positive and negative.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Snowden's revelations are massive. They should be cited anytime every time an intelligence reptile anonymously leaks something to the press, which is every day. Instead, the only time Snowden makes the news is when they want to announce some new persecution like this recent lawsuit over his memoir. Here is on Joe f@#$ing Rogan for goodness sakes! That is not widespread coverage.
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        Again, that is not what we're talking about. Media coverage tells you nothing about the authenticity of a whistleblower. You have not demonstrated any useful criterion for identifying 'fake' whistleblowers other than "I do not agree with his/her goals."
        jessaustin 7y ago
        You're right, media coverage tells us far more about the media than about the people they cover. That was actually the point I made at the top of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21334185
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I don't understand the point of repeatedly misrepresenting what was said, since it's right here in this thread.