9 ms·

Interestingly I just had an unrelated discussion on goodreads about that. The first mentioned author of the NYT article is supposedly a cybersecurity expert. Th

Interestingly I just had an unrelated discussion on goodreads about that. The first mentioned author of the NYT article is supposedly a cybersecurity expert. The article lacked any evidence and called the company russian and obscure, they edited that but it’s still on archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20210106195835/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/russia-cyber-hack.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210106195835/https://www.nytim... I left a goodreads comment on the NYT authors latest cybersecurity book calling her knowledge and practice in question. How can article like this stand, if it cannot be backed up, bad journalism and a lack understanding of the matter?

notimetorelax 6y ago
This makes me wonder, 3 branches of government exist to balance each other out. Journalism stands on its own, what’s the counter balance to journalism?
- nradov 6y ago
  Social media
  - seattle_spring 6y ago
    I wish. It seems like social media largely serves to amplify biased or outright false journalism rather than give it balance.
    - nradov 6y ago
      I've seen plenty of cases where social media users accurately pointed out false or misleading journalism. But I suppose it depends on who you follow.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Social media is just pushing the narrative of mainstream media at this stage.
- wyldfire 6y ago
  Other journalists.
- Mandatum 6y ago
  "Journalism" - quotes intended.
- whoisstan 6y ago
  It’s other newspapers and online entities such as this. In this case I am sure the company suffered financially, they should be able to pressure the NYT to retract the story, they have some muscle with the google ties.
- 38491239821398 6y ago
  Theoretically, the judicial branch, via defamation law.
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  Once upon a time, ombudsman and journalist associations, and competitors. These days, those tend to all be the same, if they exist at all and aren't deemed "propaganda" or "fake news" or "disinformation" or similar.
- blahblahblogger 6y ago
  Journalism, "the 4th estate", in the past was used to go after the powerful but it has recently become the power. It's a concerning change and I don't see it getting better. Maybe it's "corporate journalism" that is problematic.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    There was never a time when journalists challenged "the powerful" as a collective. They challenged the powerful enemies of their powerful employer. The difference is now we have better information infrastructure and they can't make things that are disagreeable quietly disappear [0] so easily. The disappearing news story isn't a new act; what is new is now the story can linger despite that. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  If you’re in the US, or any country with comparable speech/press protection: the same rights that give them protection to publish. I know it’s unpopular here but social consequences punishing bad press behavior are effective, just like punishing bad politician or famous people behavior. This is sometimes paraphrased as “vote with your feet” or “vote with your wallet”, but lately it’s been maligned as “cancel culture”. Either way, you’re allowed to just call bullshit on a publication. You’re especially allowed to not consume it.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    I thought cancel culture was about trying to get individuals fired for things unrelated to their work?
    - EvilEy3 6y ago
      It's evolving. Cancer now wants everyone cancelled.
      - xmprt 6y ago
        Replace "cancelled" with "held accountable for their actions"
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      The fact that you think those things are unrelated to their work tells me I should probably avoid working where you work.
  - lordloki 6y ago
    "Cancel culture" isn't choosing not to consume media. "Cancel culture" is actively trying to destroy it, like advocating lawsuits against Fox News, or deplatforming media hosts. What you describe is how it's always been. Current "cancel culture" is nefarious as it actively tries to remove other's ability to access it. "Cancel culture" is authoritarian and undemocratic.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Critical thought. Other journalists and free speech can be censored by private companies that have no obligation to follow any due process. During information war critical thought is the most important asset, without which you're as good as illiterate.
  - jimz 6y ago
    Um, in countries where the government can play the ultimate arbiter of truth in speech they also get to determine what due process is, which usually is exactly what suits them. Private companies reflect the values of their shareholders and customers, which at least is made up of citizens without the coercive and exclusive power to say, lock you up for your reporting, or literally kill you and your loved ones over your reporting, which still happens to this day. If there is demand, and placed out of the state's hands, at least alternate channels, whether more accurate or not, more ethical or less, with or without an agenda, can exist. The alternate scenario easily renders them unable to exist in the first place. "Due process" when applied outside of official government action is simply coercing a standard set by the government upon collectives of private individuals even if - especially if - it is unwanted. It's an illusion of fairness that masks coercion, because there's either enforcement mechanisms for compliance - coercion - or there isn't - which is a charade and meaningless. Neither produces positive outcomes. Those in power will simply use it to cover up mistakes or intentional wrongdoing first. Companies can't literally speak as in vocalize as a person, but they can, as entities, create the equivalence of speech in the societal sense, and shifting the arbiter of truth to the state will simply centralize that power in an entity that, in addition to dominating the marketplace by default - you can't exactly pick where you're born, nor where you can move to realistically for the most part - they can bring real consequences. Deplatforming is child's play compared to actual imprisonment or getting pushed out of an airborne helicopter.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Ah, that uncensored dark web existed IRL: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/ho...
- relaxing 6y ago
  “Journalism” is not a single entity or even a unified bloc. Journalism exists in the market economy, so other market forces counterbalance - consumers, other corporations. Journalism also exists under government regulation, despite strong legal protections.
- h2odragon 6y ago
  Journalism was "stories without religion" until they succeeded in killing religion. Now they've become priests and built a Temple to no god.
  - Twixes 6y ago
    Wow, that is dramatic.

notimetorelax 6y ago

This makes me wonder, 3 branches of government exist to balance each other out. Journalism stands on its own, what’s the counter balance to journalism?

nradov 6y ago
Social media
- seattle_spring 6y ago
  I wish. It seems like social media largely serves to amplify biased or outright false journalism rather than give it balance.
  - nradov 6y ago
    I've seen plenty of cases where social media users accurately pointed out false or misleading journalism. But I suppose it depends on who you follow.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Social media is just pushing the narrative of mainstream media at this stage.
wyldfire 6y ago
Other journalists.
Mandatum 6y ago
"Journalism" - quotes intended.
whoisstan 6y ago
It’s other newspapers and online entities such as this. In this case I am sure the company suffered financially, they should be able to pressure the NYT to retract the story, they have some muscle with the google ties.
38491239821398 6y ago
Theoretically, the judicial branch, via defamation law.
jimmygrapes 6y ago
Once upon a time, ombudsman and journalist associations, and competitors. These days, those tend to all be the same, if they exist at all and aren't deemed "propaganda" or "fake news" or "disinformation" or similar.
blahblahblogger 6y ago
Journalism, "the 4th estate", in the past was used to go after the powerful but it has recently become the power. It's a concerning change and I don't see it getting better. Maybe it's "corporate journalism" that is problematic.
- roenxi 6y ago
  There was never a time when journalists challenged "the powerful" as a collective. They challenged the powerful enemies of their powerful employer. The difference is now we have better information infrastructure and they can't make things that are disagreeable quietly disappear [0] so easily. The disappearing news story isn't a new act; what is new is now the story can linger despite that. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742
eyelidlessness 6y ago
If you’re in the US, or any country with comparable speech/press protection: the same rights that give them protection to publish. I know it’s unpopular here but social consequences punishing bad press behavior are effective, just like punishing bad politician or famous people behavior. This is sometimes paraphrased as “vote with your feet” or “vote with your wallet”, but lately it’s been maligned as “cancel culture”. Either way, you’re allowed to just call bullshit on a publication. You’re especially allowed to not consume it.
- concordDance 6y ago
  I thought cancel culture was about trying to get individuals fired for things unrelated to their work?
  - EvilEy3 6y ago
    It's evolving. Cancer now wants everyone cancelled.
    - xmprt 6y ago
      Replace "cancelled" with "held accountable for their actions"
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    The fact that you think those things are unrelated to their work tells me I should probably avoid working where you work.
- lordloki 6y ago
  "Cancel culture" isn't choosing not to consume media. "Cancel culture" is actively trying to destroy it, like advocating lawsuits against Fox News, or deplatforming media hosts. What you describe is how it's always been. Current "cancel culture" is nefarious as it actively tries to remove other's ability to access it. "Cancel culture" is authoritarian and undemocratic.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Critical thought. Other journalists and free speech can be censored by private companies that have no obligation to follow any due process. During information war critical thought is the most important asset, without which you're as good as illiterate.
- jimz 6y ago
  Um, in countries where the government can play the ultimate arbiter of truth in speech they also get to determine what due process is, which usually is exactly what suits them. Private companies reflect the values of their shareholders and customers, which at least is made up of citizens without the coercive and exclusive power to say, lock you up for your reporting, or literally kill you and your loved ones over your reporting, which still happens to this day. If there is demand, and placed out of the state's hands, at least alternate channels, whether more accurate or not, more ethical or less, with or without an agenda, can exist. The alternate scenario easily renders them unable to exist in the first place. "Due process" when applied outside of official government action is simply coercing a standard set by the government upon collectives of private individuals even if - especially if - it is unwanted. It's an illusion of fairness that masks coercion, because there's either enforcement mechanisms for compliance - coercion - or there isn't - which is a charade and meaningless. Neither produces positive outcomes. Those in power will simply use it to cover up mistakes or intentional wrongdoing first. Companies can't literally speak as in vocalize as a person, but they can, as entities, create the equivalence of speech in the societal sense, and shifting the arbiter of truth to the state will simply centralize that power in an entity that, in addition to dominating the marketplace by default - you can't exactly pick where you're born, nor where you can move to realistically for the most part - they can bring real consequences. Deplatforming is child's play compared to actual imprisonment or getting pushed out of an airborne helicopter.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Ah, that uncensored dark web existed IRL: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/ho...
relaxing 6y ago
“Journalism” is not a single entity or even a unified bloc. Journalism exists in the market economy, so other market forces counterbalance - consumers, other corporations. Journalism also exists under government regulation, despite strong legal protections.
h2odragon 6y ago
Journalism was "stories without religion" until they succeeded in killing religion. Now they've become priests and built a Temple to no god.
- Twixes 6y ago
  Wow, that is dramatic.