4 ms·

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual conte

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual contents of the those conversations! And once again, there's no there, there. Seems to be another important omission in your follow-up yeah, but. I've no interest in this side vs. that side. For sure, there are no saints to be found. But the original point is that the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that we know, and was fairly obvious from the beginning, was actually political disinformation. And it's clear those media outlets weren't simply patsies - they were willful propagandists. Many good people were misled because they trusted the Times and other outlets they considered reputable. The Times abused that trust. And now the Times is assuming that, thanks to some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people will believe tomorrow's paper is honest reporting even though yesterday's paper was a pile of lies.

jaccarmac 6y ago
> there's no there, there Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there". Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others. > the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation. Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation? > those media outlets ... were willful propagandists By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?
- trentnix 6y ago
  https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation. The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories. I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim. Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention. 1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation. 2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration. 3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute. 4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties. 5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all. Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
    - trentnix 6y ago
      When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. And nobody has even mentioned the, as the New York Times referred to him, "senior administration official" Anonymous who described themselves as a member of the "Resistance". Turns out he was, hardly, an actual senior administration official.
      - jaccarmac 6y ago
        > When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. This is true, and it's why I have consistently characterized the Russiagate investigation as overwrought with regard to direct election interference. But you're the one making unequivocal claims about the NYT publishing misinformation. At this point, it's clear that you're not interested in trying to defend the lie and would rather argue in circles about exactly how trustworthy the newspaper is. All you have to do is link to a single NYT piece on the investigation which contains clear misinformation. (That would still leave your comments on intent and propaganda unsubstantiated, but we would be much closer than we were five comments ago.)

jaccarmac 6y ago

> there's no there, there Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there". Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others. > the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation. Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation? > those media outlets ... were willful propagandists By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?

trentnix 6y ago
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation. The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories. I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim. Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention. 1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation. 2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration. 3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute. 4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties. 5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all. Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
  - trentnix 6y ago
    When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. And nobody has even mentioned the, as the New York Times referred to him, "senior administration official" Anonymous who described themselves as a member of the "Resistance". Turns out he was, hardly, an actual senior administration official.
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      > When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. This is true, and it's why I have consistently characterized the Russiagate investigation as overwrought with regard to direct election interference. But you're the one making unequivocal claims about the NYT publishing misinformation. At this point, it's clear that you're not interested in trying to defend the lie and would rather argue in circles about exactly how trustworthy the newspaper is. All you have to do is link to a single NYT piece on the investigation which contains clear misinformation. (That would still leave your comments on intent and propaganda unsubstantiated, but we would be much closer than we were five comments ago.)