10 ms·
The namesake of the Pulitzer prize, Joseph Pulitzer, was one of the foremost proponents of yellow journalism. Rudy Giuliani, an American hero for a couple of ye
by r-w 6y ago
The namesake of the Pulitzer prize, Joseph Pulitzer, was one of the foremost proponents of yellow journalism. Rudy Giuliani, an American hero for a couple of years after 9/11, is now a foreign asset for all intents and purposes. Having prestige doesn't make you infallible, it just means you were in the right place at the right time.
- lliamander 6y agoThe DNI has already stated that there is no evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop is "Russian disinformation".
- seppin 6y agopartisanship makes people stupid.
- lliamander 6y agoPlease show me the evidence of Russian influence. There has been plenty of evidence that the contents of the laptop are authentic.
- free_rms 6y agoEven if they're not authentic, it could just be a regular old lie. You know, lies? Like happen all the time in politics? Why does everything have to be a Russian conspiracy. There was a front page article on HN the other day with people taking a Russian Death Ray seriously. Taking it seriously! Come on, people.
- lliamander 6y agoThe timing if the this all coming out is super suspicious, but the "it's the Russians!" thing just made me groan. If Democrats had simply said it was a lie I would have found that much more believable.
- atemerev 6y agoBut they can’t, because they know this is not a lie. It is actually quite possible that Russians have something to do with this — I say it as a Russian; they did nearly the same thing with DNC leaks in 2016. But the issue is not “who did it”, the question is whether the materials are authentic or not. DNC leaks were authentic, and that was enough for Americans to tip the election outcome in 2016. Hunter Biden materials look authentic, too.
- deanCommie 6y agoI genuinely would like to understand the position of someone like you to whom this material looks authentic. How do you rationalize this series of events piling on top of each other? https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jkjeib/how_a_fake_persona_laid_the_groundwork_for_a/gaji4e4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jkjeib/how_a_fake... What about the material looks authentic to you?
- atemerev 6y agoI think that it is quite likely that the laptop was planted, the whole acquisition story is fake, and this is an orchestrated campaign optimized for maximum impact. I am not an idiot. However, the contents of the laptop (emails and pictures — at least some of them) were corroborated by multiple sources. Their timings agree with the events of Ukraine affair, which led to Trump’s impeachment proceedings. I can’t say anything about the laptop; perhaps it was planted by the Russian intelligence or Trump campaign spinners. However, its contents looks real to me.
- evgen 6y agoYou do realize that the mechanism you use to 'wash' disinformation is to mix it in with other legitimate (hacked) data, right? If the party you are attacking denies the validity you have a few real bits of data you can point to and use to call the other party a liar. If the party you are attacking tries to explain the nuance that there is some true and some false data in there then you use that against them to try to claim it is all true or that they are admitting that your specific bits of disinformation are true, by the time people hear the full statement it is already too late. Seriously, it has been over four years since Clinton and the Podesta emails. How can anyone still be this naive?
- markhahn 6y agoNo, there is evidence that there are corroboratable bits scattered throughout. That doesn't in any way corroborate the whole.
- lliamander 6y agoBobulinski has stated that Joe Biden was well aware of his son's business dealings (contrary to Biden's prior public statements) and affirms that "the big guy" refers to Joe Biden when talking about payment from foreign governments. He's handed over to the FBI hundreds of emails, documents, texts, some audio recordings, etc.
- seppin 6y agoRight, as said no evidence.
- lliamander 6y agoIf personal testimony and access to private emails and documents from a non-partisan actor is not evidence, what is?
- seppin 6y agoBobulinski is as random of an accuser as it gets, and the non-partisan actor you refer to is either a MAGA supporter running a laptop repair store or the President's personal lawyer. No one is willing to share your partisan delusions. Not here, not anywhere else.
- lliamander 6y ago> Bobulinski is as random of an accuser as it gets I'm confused as to how a business partner is a "random accuser". > and the non-partisan actor you refer to is either a MAGA supporter running a laptop repair store or the President's personal lawyer. I'm talking about Bobulinski. He has his own document, emails, etc. > No one is willing to share your partisan delusions. Not here, not anywhere else. This attempted rhetorical trick of "false consensus" is dumb and needs to stop. Lot's of people, including Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibbi see enough evidence to be worth investigating.
- hda2 6y agoBut this isn't what GP is saying. No one is claiming that Greenwald is infailable. What I believe GP is pointing out is that someone who has worked on stories of similar caliber, like Greenwald, is likely to be a better judge of whether or not there is a story. I think that's a fair assessment to make.
- varjag 6y agoGP makes an appeal to authority, so no it's not fair.
- roenxi 6y agoAppeals to authority are sometimes legitimate. For example, "well, the judge in the last case like this thought..." is a very reasonable appeal to authority for example. In this case, appealing to a Pulitzer-winning journalist's ability to judge the credibility and possible scope of a story is reasonable.
- varjag 6y agoI mean, we just had a Nobel Peace Prize winner who perpetrated genocide. The Pulitzer-winning journalist has quit his publication because he could not provide a fact check on his assertions, a rather basic journalistic standard. The Pulitzer-winning journalist supported the 2nd Iraq War. The Pulitzer-winning journalist burned Reality Winner.
- harry8 6y ago>The Pulitzer-winning journalist burned Reality Winner. Completely and totally factually false. He had nothing to do with that story, it's editing and saw it for the first time when it was published. >The Pulitzer-winning journalist supported the 2nd Iraq War. Huh? I don't believe he was a journalist or a writer at all at the time of the Iraq war. You can't commit a failure of journalism when you're not publishing anything, surely. Maybe he supported it silently? Maybe he had a private opinion before following such stories closely as his calling? I dunno, I give up. It's still an utterly garbage claim however you look at it. >The Pulitzer-winning journalist has quit his publication because he could not provide a fact check on his assertions, a rather basic journalistic standard. The Pulitzer-winning journalist invited the editors to point out any factual error after they claimed factual errors existed without identifying them and the editors could not do so in any single way. They didn't even attempt it. [1] Maybe Glenn hadn't yet published the correspondence with the editors so you didn't know your characterisation of who failed in fact checking was garbage. Reality Winner? yeah, The Intercept really didn't speak up about Glenn not being involved in that story in any way at all but if you followed it even a little bit you'd have known that. Maybe you didn't, which is fine, so being this forthright when you didn't, maybe not? [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito... Glenn's point is this is just a bit of the usual Democrat sleaze. It's not "Worse than ..." $whatever, it may be a bit weak as a corruption story but it is definitely corruption involving Joe's family, and that isn't nothing and should be reported and Joe questioned. Forthrightly. The difference comes from whether you think Trump is evil incarnate and all lines must be crossed to defeat him (the common liberal view) or whether you think he's a symptom of the ongoing unending corruption that must be stood up to, reported and condemned whenever it arises. Glenn takes the latter view. He's been explicit that the failure to report the story is a much bigger scandal than Hunter Biden being as bent as a banana, which he obviously is (You get paid that much a month while being a drug addict, for doing nothing ever in your life?) And he was obviously Joe's single biggest liability as a candidate. Yeah there's others, and all of those liablilites appear to be dwarfed by Trumps but Trump didn't lose with all those last time. It's hard to imagine Joe is more corrupt than Trump. Or even in the same ballpark. So do you report it because it's a story or bury it and pretend it's a russian conspiracy because Trump is worse? Why are the likes of Brennan and Clapper getting involved on one side of that? Once you tell the lies it never stops. Glenn has amazing credibility for being principled including with people who have very different politics to himself. There's quite a few journalists who hate that he never compromised and due to his unusual path to it, never had to, was always his own master at times exactly like this. I wish he wasn't a socialist but I'll stick up for Glenn anytime, he makes it really easy to do.
- free_rms 6y agoGiuliani is a moron but there's no evidence that he's a foreign asset, besides saying things (and lies) that democrats don't like. It's possible, but there's no evidence, and occam's razor says he's just a regular moron. Think about it: if everything you don't like is the product of the dastardly Russians, what does that make you? A McCarthyist? What kind of liberal is that?