5 ms·

What leads you to believe that he was trying to spread misinformation? The suppression of criticism leveled against Joe Biden or any other individual in public

by jtdev 6y ago

What leads you to believe that he was trying to spread misinformation? The suppression of criticism leveled against Joe Biden or any other individual in public service is a grave danger to democracy. I commend Mr. Greenwald for standing up to censorship.

ehsankia 6y ago
Please entertain the possibility for a moment, whether you agree with it or not, that this story was indeed planted by a foreign nation for the specific purpose of manipulating our election. Do you then believe that it is responsible to willfully help spread it and blast it all over every social media site? Aren't you doing the foreign nation's bidding then? If you do agree there, then where would you draw the line for blocking such information being spread? Is the fact that the reporter at the singular publication in all the the US willing to report on it didn't want their name on it worry you? The fact that the only evidence comes from some random Trump supporting repairman in some random state not worry you? The fact that unreliable (self-exposing to 15yo) people such as Giuliani are attached to the story not worry you? What about our own intelligence services saying that foreign nations have been trying to use said person to manipulate our election?
- jtdev 6y ago
  This argument can be made for nearly every piece of political journalism... you're only supporting this suppression because it helps your preferred candidate.
  - irencecara 6y ago
    No, we're supporting having facts before trying to smear someone the week before an election, by someone with an obvious axe to grind.
- uzakov 6y ago
  Do you personally believe people should be able to decide for themselves things in their life, make opinions based on different information provided?
- pfortuny 6y ago
  Wow: what a standard hace you just raised dor just ine of the sides of the equation!
- int_19h 6y ago
  What matters is whether the story is true or not, not who planted it. If China digs out more on Trump taxes or business dealings, I'd want to see that, as well.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Right, and it's still not clear whether it is true or not.
- daveevad 6y ago
  The authenticity of the underlying evidence matters at least as much as the source. No one has denied the underlying documents' authenticity to my knowledge.
- gfodor 6y ago
  There was a time when journalists cared about the truth, and what the truth requires is the disclosure of facts and objectivity. The proper way to publish this is to describe the evidence, and the reasons as to why the evidence may be falsified, and do continual reporting as the story develops to keep the public informed how likely or not the information is false. The alternative of suppressing it based upon supposition and a "gut check" says very, very clearly: we don't trust the public to make up their minds, or, worse, we think this might be true but it would run counter to our interests if people knew about it. Saying something like this is "misinformation by the Russians" when it is not denied nor has evidence been presented as such is what we used to call "believing in conspiracy theories." Sometimes conspiracy theories are true, and the facts prove them. But journalists shouldn't make publishing decisions based upon conspiracy theories without evidence supporting those theories. In any case, both of those behaviors run counter to the principles of journalism, which is predicated on the idea that preferring to share imperfect information, accurately described, is ultimately what leads to an informed citizenry, even if some of that information turns out to be misleading or wrong in the end.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    That is not generally how journalism operates. Remember "Rathergate"? Would it have made the slightest bit of difference if CBS had inserted the disclaimer that "Of course we can't be 100% sure these docs are legit but we'll keep investigating."?
    - gfodor 6y ago
      I don't remember the story well but certainly more self-skepticism, disclosure of facts, and rigorous investigation will always reduce the chance of humiliation and harm.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        To a degree. My point though is that major journalism outlets, while they certainly screw up from time to time, don't run with major stories and be "We think this is true but maybe it isn't. We'll keep you posted."
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't agree with the premise of the discussion. Consider for a less controversial example the iPhone 12. It seems obvious that: * Much of the discussion about the iPhone 12 is part of Apple's deliberate strategy to sell phones. * The media is in some sense being exploited; Apple wouldn't sell so many iPhone 12s if not for media discussion of it. * An outlet that refused as a blanket policy to discuss the iPhone 12 would present its readers with an inaccurate view of the world.
- zo1 6y ago
  There is no easy answer here, and I think the best is to allow things to play out with all the information out there for people to make an informed decision on. We need the entire collective effort of the media industry and journalists to poke, prod, piece together and corroborate the details being presented. Leak the data dump to 4chan even, see what they find. Who knows what holes everyone might find, or what additional pieces of the puzzle they might unravel with such a collective effort. Right now it just kinda seems like they're trying to discredit rather than investigate, which is why it's a huge story and why it's being picked up on by the right so much.
- colordrops 6y ago
  Is there any evidence that it was planted by a foreign national? We don't censor based on gut feelings that something was planted by a foreign national.

by jtdev 6y ago

ehsankia 6y ago

Please entertain the possibility for a moment, whether you agree with it or not, that this story was indeed planted by a foreign nation for the specific purpose of manipulating our election. Do you then believe that it is responsible to willfully help spread it and blast it all over every social media site? Aren't you doing the foreign nation's bidding then? If you do agree there, then where would you draw the line for blocking such information being spread? Is the fact that the reporter at the singular publication in all the the US willing to report on it didn't want their name on it worry you? The fact that the only evidence comes from some random Trump supporting repairman in some random state not worry you? The fact that unreliable (self-exposing to 15yo) people such as Giuliani are attached to the story not worry you? What about our own intelligence services saying that foreign nations have been trying to use said person to manipulate our election?

jtdev 6y ago
This argument can be made for nearly every piece of political journalism... you're only supporting this suppression because it helps your preferred candidate.
- irencecara 6y ago
  No, we're supporting having facts before trying to smear someone the week before an election, by someone with an obvious axe to grind.
uzakov 6y ago
Do you personally believe people should be able to decide for themselves things in their life, make opinions based on different information provided?
pfortuny 6y ago
Wow: what a standard hace you just raised dor just ine of the sides of the equation!
int_19h 6y ago
What matters is whether the story is true or not, not who planted it. If China digs out more on Trump taxes or business dealings, I'd want to see that, as well.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Right, and it's still not clear whether it is true or not.
daveevad 6y ago
The authenticity of the underlying evidence matters at least as much as the source. No one has denied the underlying documents' authenticity to my knowledge.
gfodor 6y ago
There was a time when journalists cared about the truth, and what the truth requires is the disclosure of facts and objectivity. The proper way to publish this is to describe the evidence, and the reasons as to why the evidence may be falsified, and do continual reporting as the story develops to keep the public informed how likely or not the information is false. The alternative of suppressing it based upon supposition and a "gut check" says very, very clearly: we don't trust the public to make up their minds, or, worse, we think this might be true but it would run counter to our interests if people knew about it. Saying something like this is "misinformation by the Russians" when it is not denied nor has evidence been presented as such is what we used to call "believing in conspiracy theories." Sometimes conspiracy theories are true, and the facts prove them. But journalists shouldn't make publishing decisions based upon conspiracy theories without evidence supporting those theories. In any case, both of those behaviors run counter to the principles of journalism, which is predicated on the idea that preferring to share imperfect information, accurately described, is ultimately what leads to an informed citizenry, even if some of that information turns out to be misleading or wrong in the end.
- ghaff 6y ago
  That is not generally how journalism operates. Remember "Rathergate"? Would it have made the slightest bit of difference if CBS had inserted the disclaimer that "Of course we can't be 100% sure these docs are legit but we'll keep investigating."?
  - gfodor 6y ago
    I don't remember the story well but certainly more self-skepticism, disclosure of facts, and rigorous investigation will always reduce the chance of humiliation and harm.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      To a degree. My point though is that major journalism outlets, while they certainly screw up from time to time, don't run with major stories and be "We think this is true but maybe it isn't. We'll keep you posted."
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't agree with the premise of the discussion. Consider for a less controversial example the iPhone 12. It seems obvious that: * Much of the discussion about the iPhone 12 is part of Apple's deliberate strategy to sell phones. * The media is in some sense being exploited; Apple wouldn't sell so many iPhone 12s if not for media discussion of it. * An outlet that refused as a blanket policy to discuss the iPhone 12 would present its readers with an inaccurate view of the world.
zo1 6y ago
There is no easy answer here, and I think the best is to allow things to play out with all the information out there for people to make an informed decision on. We need the entire collective effort of the media industry and journalists to poke, prod, piece together and corroborate the details being presented. Leak the data dump to 4chan even, see what they find. Who knows what holes everyone might find, or what additional pieces of the puzzle they might unravel with such a collective effort. Right now it just kinda seems like they're trying to discredit rather than investigate, which is why it's a huge story and why it's being picked up on by the right so much.
colordrops 6y ago
Is there any evidence that it was planted by a foreign national? We don't censor based on gut feelings that something was planted by a foreign national.