3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoSnowden'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 agoAgain, 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 agoYou'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