15 ms·
Greenwald: Yesterday Journalists Spread a Significant Lie All over Twitter
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jerkstate 6y agoI don’t see a way out of this, I suppose we should all just get used to living in reality tunnels and learn to get along with people with opposite beliefs.
- bifrost 6y agoThat'll never happen most likely. I live in San Francisco, you can get screamed at and assaulted for "getting along" with people.
- ulucs 6y agoOr even being the wrong race
- bifrost 6y agoThat does seem to be happening more and more, although street violence is escalating due to a failure of city government and the DA's office.
- smartician 6y agoSounds like you have a different idea of what "getting along" means?
- bifrost 6y agook, what do you think "getting along" means?
- dgudkov 6y agoThe internet has broken the old model of trust and information propagation (similarly to how books broke it in the middle ages). A new model will eventually arrive and settle, but boy it's going to be painful for the society until then.
- f430 6y agoquestion is why now? what is their motive?
- redis_mlc 6y agoThe motive of MSM journalists today is to conform to the DNC/leftist narrative to avoid being fired and disowned by their colleagues. Source: 2020 Greenwald interview. If you watch interviews with former US leftists who became centrists and spoke out about burning downtowns, deplatforming, etc. they all had to find new careers.
- airhead969 6y agoIsn't it the goal of all corporate MSM to appease their advertisers?
- redis_mlc 6y agoThe MSM owners want that, but the actual staff and journalists are mainly trying to not get their career cancelled. Same in Hollywood. Studio owners care about profits, but everybody working in the industry is trying to stay employable. (It's rumored that if you complain about wokeness in your private school in LA, they'll put you on a "racist blacklist" at other area schools. So this is affecting even parents now.)
- thinkingemote 6y agoThe motive hasn't changed, it's to get attention, to appeal to their audience, to speak to their ingroup. It is no evil conspiracy it's the nature of The News
- mc32 6y agoIt seems it’s a very corrupt institution and probably always has been. For a while there they made people believe them to be the “fourth estate” the defenders of the democratic faith, etc. Sadly, it seems it was all a rouse and a bullshit narrative. They are not defending the constitution in any way. All they care about is whatever happens to be their particular agenda at a particular point in time which may coincide with constitutional interests. I’m not referring to your local beat reporter but rather your journalists with renown who bask in the power they feel they have and aren’t shy to wield their symbolic swords.
- donohoe 6y agoGonna disagree there. I’ve worked with journalists (am not one) and it’s not BS as you seem to suggest.
- sennight 6y agoI've also worked with "journalists" (can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?). They are not well adjusted individuals, so I guess they aren't technically lying once they've sufficiently deluded themselves.
- donohoe 6y agoMaybe you can explain what you mean by "journalists" (quotes and all)? I like you you take an entire profession and just say they are "not well adjusted individuals" - thats not just a strong argument. I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word. When I use the term its with trained news gatherers, who go to great lengths to cover a subject, and have an approach to objectivity and fact-checking when they present their work - and follow-up as corrections (inevitable at some point) are required. When you bring in organizations like the NYT/WaPo/etc to this, you will find layers of process and rigor to ensure any story is held to high standards, facts are verified and substantiated. Yes, the process can break and is not perfect, but it generally works. Facts often speak for themselves. As one person once told me (I'm paraphrasing): good journalists don't just write and publish. It's like when a developer writes code directly on production - you don't do that. Instead there are unit tests, code review, editing, testing, and then its deployed. Journalism institutions have their own versions of this. Look at the story of how Greenwald parted ways with The Intercept. It was because he wouldn't follow that journalistic process. He said he was above being 'edited' and free to make any claim he wanted without substantiating it - those are the people you need to be careful of. - https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-... - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwalds-blow-up-with-the-intercept.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa... - https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
- donohoe 6y agoCareful, Greenwald has gone a bit off the rails recently.
- redis_mlc 6y agoNope, I've watched a few recent interviews with Greenwald, and everything he said matches non-MSM media sources (NTD Media, other interviews.) Don't believe a single word on cnn.com for starters.
- kame3d 6y agoWhy do you say that?
- uniqueid 6y agoBecause every Greenwald story is the same story: 'THE SKY IS FALLING! THE ELITES ARE LYING! THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE IN BED WITH THE ELITES! ONLY I GLENN GREENWALD AM TRUSTWORTHY! BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO DEPLATFORM ME! SHARE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT! BWARARARAHWHHWGAG!" Meanwhile what's his deal? He accuses The Intercept of skullduggery because they dared edit him. Substack is most likely secretly subsidizing him to write there. I see him publish on Conrad "Trump pardoned me after I wrote a nice book about him" Black's NationalPost that the American press is in bed with Biden. Granted, I am biased: at this point, 2021, populism enrages me like nothing else. Being on the internet feels like I'm trapped in some plonker's smoky dorm room.
- threatofrain 6y agoIn this article, we also have Greenwald recalling the Hunter Biden laptop story with The Intercept and Fox News and Tucker Carlson. That story ended up to be a shit-show, with Fox News essentially killing the story by dropping it off the table.
- twirlock 6y agoYou sound like a complete idiot, you transparent wannabe politico.
- jhanschoo 6y agoIf we are critical of Trump's lies, and expect media to fact-check Trump's statements, I suppose that we should likewise morally expect media to fact check CIA statements (with a track record of false statements), as opposed to the behavior that Greenwald is criticizing here, i.e. spreading and exaggerating their statements.
- lazyeye 6y ago"I suppose.." lol
- hindsightbias 6y agoThe premise is it was Hunter Biden’s laptop. There is no evidence of this. It’s completely impossible there could be a disinformation campaign on such a pedestrian political campaign. /s
- herewulf 6y agoWhat gets me about this is that it's always a "laptop" being discussed. Shouldn't we be discussing a hard drive? Or is the incriminating evidence on the keyboard?!
- Tabular-Iceberg 6y agoI’m guessing “hard drive” in common usage still refers to the big box under the desk. In that sense a laptop does not have a hard drive.
- smolder 6y agoIt pains me that you could be right about their reasoning for word choice. It's one of those things where the misconception rivals the truth, not too unlike sherbet being pronounced sherbert, using "literally" for emphasis, or saying "I could care less".
- threatofrain 6y agoHunter Biden's laptop is an incredibly awful story. Fox reporters claimed to have obtained the hard drive, then lost it due to conspiracy from the delivery company, then found it, and now refuses to show the contents because Hunter Biden is a down and out man, and it's so sad to kick a remorseful man trying to turn his life around. This is the story according to Fox, and specifically Tucker Carlson — that we cannot see the evidence because Tucker Carlson feels sorry for Hunter Biden's low fortunes.
- refurb 6y agoI’m sorry? Specific content of the laptop was released, the Biden team was asked if it was authentic and the answer was “no comment”. Why would they do that if it was fake news?
- cf21 6y agoGlenn Greenwald is correct, the initial tweet by Patrick Tucker was false as the ODNI report does not explicitly mention Hunter Biden's laptop. However, Glenn Greenwald also massively mischaracterizes how the "liberal corporate media bubble" handled the situation. > As this false claim went massively viral, conservative journalists — and only they — began vocally objecting that the report made no mention whatsoever of the Hunter Biden laptop, let alone supplied proof for this claim. Greenwald basically invalidates his own argument a few sentences later where he describes how there actually were other journalists such as Chris Hayes who objected to the description of the report. And, again stated by Greenwald, Patrick Tucker himself came around, deleted his initial tweet and posted a clarification. And just as an aside, the "conservative journalists" cited by Greenwald work for the Daily Caller, described by Wikipedia [1] as: > The Daily Caller has published false stories on multiple occasions. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. Until 2018, the website had also published articles by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. I also find it laughable that he characterizes some journalists as minions of the "liberal corporate media" but The Daily caller, founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, is somehow home to harmless independent "conservative journalists". That Glenn Greenwald tries to sell me journalists of a white supremacist outlet as trustworthy and truthful is not really a good sign in my book. So while I agree that the initial tweet by Patrick Tucker lead to a falsehood being spread on social media I just can't follow Glenn Greenwald's take of seeing this as a coordinated misinformation operation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller
- harry8 6y agoThis is the classic way to attack Glenn. Ascribe to him views he did not advance. "The caller is fantastic" then attack those. Glenn is ok. What he describes is a real problem.
- cf21 6y agoAs I said, I agree with his premise. I still consider it disingenuous to hide Daily Caller journalists behind the label "conservative".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- walrus01 6y agoCan you imagine being a professional journalist, and making the fully rational decision that the hunter biden laptop story was the hill you wished to die upon, resigning in a huff from your employer of many years? Greenwald has lost a great deal of credibility. And now he's still harping on about it as if this supposed laptop is earth-shatteringly important news? Mostly I feel sorry for Greenwald and how clearly unhinged he has become.
- refurb 6y agoIt sounds like you don’t understand why he left. The agreement at The Intercept was that reporters had editorial control. That worked fine until Glenn decided to write about the Hunter laptop. Suddenly that rule went out the door. Suddenly the article had to be revised or else. I mean, if you employer promised to do something important and then reneged, isn’t leaving a pretty reasonable thing to do?
- walrus01 6y agoI'm aware of his agreement. My personal opinion is also that the whole "laptop story" is such a fantastic mess of fabrications, bullshit, suspicious Giuliani-linked political hacks, the guy's repair shop that is the supposed origin of the laptop, lack of evidence chain of custody, lack of proper forensic examination, that there's a reason the editors decided to put their feet down at a firm red line of not publishing absolute dreck. Of course at that juncture, Greenwald was free to disagree with that and depart.
- CaptainZapp 6y agoThe Intercept obviously had a rather different take[1] In Short Greenwald had full control about his opinion pieces. What he wanted and didn't get is no editorial intervention in a piece of factual reporting. No half way sane media outlet would ever allow that. [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
- anextio 6y ago
- app4soft 6y agoWho is Mr. Greenwald[0] > Greenwald, a former lawyer who, in 2013, was one of the reporters for a Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the Guardian on Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Security Agency, is a longtime critic, from the left, of centrist and liberal policymakers and pundits. During the past two years, he has further exiled himself from the mainstream American left by responding with skepticism and disdain to reports of Russian government interference in the 2016 Presidential election. On Twitter, where he has nearly a million followers, and at the Intercept, the news Web site that he co-founded five years ago, and as a frequent guest on “Democracy Now!,” the daily progressive radio and TV broadcast, Greenwald has argued that the available evidence concerning Russian activity has indicated nothing especially untoward;... > ... Greenwald has tried to cut back on social media. “My No. 1 therapeutic goal is to reduce my Twitter usage,” he said... [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwal...
- mcphage 6y ago> It is well worth examining how they function because this is how they deceive the public again and again, and it is why public trust in their pronouncements has justifiably plummeted. I wonder if that might also be due to the previous president repeatedly referring to them as "the enemy of the people".
- jfengel 6y agoLest that seem like hyperbole, here's a news article on the subject, containing links to the tweets: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-cal...
- ZeroGravitas 6y agoThis takes a very Boolean attitude to truth. Like if I said "the current president of the United States 's family name is Bidden" then that's as false as "Santa Clause's middle name Elvis, is in tribute to his mother's favourite singer". But you could argue that there's measures by which one is more true than the other. In this case, these "lies" all seem to be vaguely within shouting distance of the truth, and his repetition of the accusation seems a bit lawyerly in its specificity. In fact, a fuzzy definition of "lie" could well suggest that his statements are further from the truth than the ones he's criticizing.
- scarmig 6y agoIt's at least somewhat odd that some lies are widely spread on Twitter and the media because they're true-in-spirit despite being false, while some truths are banned on Twitter and the media because they're false-in-spirit despite being true.
- bckr 6y agoErr, can you go into more detail?
- danielscrubs 6y agoYou mean they are discussing in good faith?
- refenestrator 6y agoThere's zero evidence of any Russians anywhere being involved with Hunter Biden's laptop. It's not a 'gotcha' fact check, the lies are in fact nowhere near the truth.
- howeyc 6y agoGreenwald is certainly biased, on the one hand he says this: > Think about that: to a CNN reporter, evidence-free assertions from the U.S. security state are tantamount to “confirmation.” That they really do think this way is nothing short of chilling. On the other hand, the laptop produced by Guliani (of which how he got it is weird) is taken as absolute gospel by Greenwald. I mean, question both sides at least??
- scarmig 6y agoThe DKIM signatures on the emails were verified. Whatever the laptop's sketchy provenance, the actual content being published from it wasn't a forgery.
- barbacoa 6y agoNot only that, two people from the emails, Bevan Cooney and Tony Bobulinski, were tracked down and both confirmed the information in the emails were true.
- vannevar 6y agoAFAIK, only a single email was verified this way, and it is innocuous, only suggesting that a Burisma executive met Joe Biden sometime through Hunter. https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim Graham notes upfront: "Remember that while the email is validated, the context isn't. It's possible this reflects a secret meeting to conspire with Vice President Biden. Or, it's possible the guy attended one of the many Washington D.C. social functions whereby people shake hands with politicians and exchange pleasantries. As Richelieu is claimed to have said 'Give me six words by the most honest of men and I'll find something to hang him by'. Give me an email dump from the most honest of persons, and I'll pull one out of context to hang them in the court of social media."
- scarmig 6y agoI agree: the email reads to me as entirely innocuous. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree, though. Right-leaning media proclaimed it was a smoking gun that would destroy Biden's candidacy. But Left-leaning media wasn't any better: to the extent it covered it at all, it was that the email was part of a sophisticated forgery and disinformation campaign by Russian state security services intended to cement Putin's dominance over the USA, with Twitter and most mainstream sources going so far as to ban sharing it. That's a far cry from innocuous.
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoFraming is a really important part of mitigating the damage of this story. For example, make the story about where the laptop came from, and avoid as much as possible the fact POTUS son has incriminating photos and videos (and more?) of himself in the hands of our foreign adversaries.
- jenkstom 6y agoWow. Just wow. I remember early cyberpunks talking about how the internet would enable infinite lies to spread and for the truth to be completely buried in the noise. And here we are. Now our entire reality has been taken over by people living in a fantasy world. No end in sight. Maybe they weren't nearly pessimistic enough.
- BTCOG 6y agoWhat we ended up with today was Huxley's Brave New World, rather than the more feared 1984.
- brodouevencode 6y agoHa my buddies and I have this debate. BNW to me is scarier for a couple of reasons: 1) it's more likely to happen 2) it will happen and you won't even realize it: there's no mustachioed man that is the antagonist.
- chopin 6y agoI think we get (got?) both. You have your televisor already in the pocket. Here in Germany there are strong tendencies to use this for all-encompassing tracing to fight COVID (Luca-App).
- danielscrubs 6y agoIt’s not widely known but I know of telecoms that sell analytic platforms. It’s processed so it’s anonymous when sold, but your phone is always connected to the telecom provider so they where good at tracing you even before the tracing apps where made.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- koheripbal 6y agoI find it odd when people deny the extremely obvious signs that foreign allies are buying influence in DC. I'm sure that happens on both sides of the aisle. Hunter Biden had zero relevant experience to be a member of the board to a Ukrainian oil company during a conflict with Russia that had huge oil assets at risk. It seems obvious to me that they paid him to have access to his father (then VP to Obama). The same was true when the Clinton Foundation received tens of millions in donations during the ramp-up to the Syrian civil war while Clinton was the Sec of State. Clinton emails released confirmed weekly meetings with the Saudi Foreign Minister at the same time. It seems obvious that the State Dept & CIA participation in arming rebel groups was facilitated through the conversations had. ...and I don't mean to pick on Democrats. John McCain was part of that effort. I'm sure if we look closely, we'll find a "core establishment" group that holds members of both parties. ...and, arguably, both cases above were in the interests of the US. It's complicated. A world power with big adversaries cannot operate transparently, so I would not expect the public to be told everything. On the other hand, it would be reassuring if there were private mechanisms whereby this "deep-state club" self-regulates to ensure that these covert actions at least benefit the US, and do not simply enrich those politicians taking cash. ...or maybe that does exist in some form and we just are not aware?
- peter_d_sherman 6y agoExcerpt from the tweet quoted in the article from Asha Rangappa who is retweeting Patrick Tucker: >"Derkach, Kilimnick, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences..." Now, I don't know if any of this is true or not... In fact, I don't know any of these people... But that's not the point! You see, as an amateur linguist (I know, "keep the day job!" <g>), I am always on the look out for new buzzwords, new catch phrases, new lingo... Before this article (or more specifically, the quoted retweet), I had never seen the words "launder" and "narrative" used adjacently (or very close to adjacently), that is, "launder their narratives". Phrasing those two concepts in language more succinctly, one gets: "Narrative Laundering" Which is my (linguistic!) takeaway from this article... So, that term -- is going into my 2021 lexicon! "Narrative Laundering" (It sort of fits alongside such other words/terminology as "Fake News", "Making Mountains Out Of A Molehills", "Memory Hole", "De Minimis", "Much Ado About Nothing", "Revisionism", "Damnatio Memoriae", "Conflation", etc.)
- greenyoda 6y agoSee related discussion: "Media trust hits new low" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26508039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26508039 (I don't think that article itself is very good, but the HN discussion is interesting.)
- fitzie 6y agopeople were happy to buy the medias distortions when it came to trump, so it's its only natural the media became accustomed to distort what they want. one cannot understand the news anymore without reading every sentence skeptically, as everything is obfuscated to fit the narrative.